notes_10_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 '...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 ' & $ % Announcements & Such Shuggie Otis : Freedom Flight Administrative Stuff HW #2 is due (first submission) Today @ 4pm @ the 12A Drop Box. See my HW Tips & Guidelines Handout, pertaining to HW #2. Were a little behind where the HW is. Well catch-up soon. Chapter 2 (LSL) Final Symbolizing entire English arguments into LSL. Symbolizing sentences in the context of an argument . Here, we have a principle of charity for argument symbolization. Next: Chapter 3 Introduction LSL Semantics Truth-Functional Semantics for LSL Connectives Our Fundamental Idealization T-F semantics and UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 Final & Chapter 3 Intro. 09/19/08 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 ' & Symbolizing Arguments: Example #4 Step 2: Symbolize the premises (here, there are as many as five): (1) Suppose no two contestants enter; then there will be no contest. Logish: Suppose that not T ; then it is not the case that C . LSL: T C . (2) No contest means no winner. Logish: Not C means not W . [ i.e. , not C implies not W .] LSL: C W . (3) Suppose all contestants perform equally well. Still no winner. Logish: Suppose E . Still not W . [ i.e. , E also implies not W .] LSL: E W . (4) There wont be a winner unless theres a loser. And conversely. Logish: Not W unless L , and conversely . LSL: ( L W ) & ( W L) . [ i.e. , not W iff not L .] The final product is the following valid sentential form: T C . C W . E W . L W . Therefore, L (T & E) . UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 Final & Chapter 3 Intro. 09/19/08 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 ' & $ % A Few Final Remarks on Symbolizing Arguments We saw the following premise our last argument: There wont be a winner unless theres a loser. And conversely. I symbolized it as: Logish: If not L , then not W , and conversely . [ i.e. , not L iff not W .] LSL: L W , equivalently : ( L W ) & ( W L) . One might wonder why I didnt interpret the and conversely to be operating on the unless operator itself, rather than the conditional operator. This would yield the following different symbolization: Logish: not W unless L , and L unless not W . LSL: ( L W ) & ( W L) , equivalently : ( L W ) & (W L) . Answer: This is a redundant symbolization in LSL, since L W is equivalent to W L . Moreover, the resulting argument isnt valid....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/23/2009 for the course PHIL 12A taught by Professor Fitelson during the Spring '08 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 4

notes_10_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 '...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online