This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full 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.
- Spring '08