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 • The Budos Band • Administrative Stuff – HW #2 1st-submissions are due on Thursday (4pm, drop box). ∗ Note: This involves problems from chapters 2 and 3. ∗ Consult the HW Tips Handout for helpful tips on HW #2. ☞ Homework formatting. Please put the following information: ∗ Name, GSI, section time, and date. on all assignments and exams (upper-right corner of first page). • Chapter 2 — LSL Symbolizations of Entire English Arguments – The art of charitable argument reconstruction. • Next: Chapter 3 — Truth-Functional Semantics for LSL • First: a leftover from HW #1. . . [Note: the HW #1 solutions are posted.] UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 , Cont’d 02/09/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 ✬ ✫ ✩ ✪ Rewind: The Last Problem on HW #1 • The last problem on HW #1 is about the following argument ( A ): (1) If Prince William is unmarried, then Prince William is a bachelor. (2) Prince William is a bachelor. (3) Therefore, Prince William is unmarried. • Is A is absolutely sound ? Since both premises (1) and (2) of A are actually true, this question reduces to “Is A is absolutely valid ?”. • A is clearly not sententially valid. Its sentential form is the fallacious form that I called affirming the consequent in a previous lecture. • Nonetheless, one might be tempted to argue that A is absolutely valid on the grounds that A ’s conclusion (3) follows from premise (2) alone . • We are conservative about such cases. We only call arguments valid if we have a formal theory according to which they have a valid form . As it turns out, we have no such theory. So, our answer will be: NO. • Our course in philosophical logic (142) delves into this subtle issue. UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 , Cont’d 02/09/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 ✬ ✫ ✩ ✪ Symbolizing Arguments: Example #2 If Yossarian flies his missions then he is putting himself in danger, and it is irrational to put oneself in danger. If Yossarian is rational he will ask to be grounded, and he will be grounded only if he asks. But only irrational people are grounded, and a request to be grounded is proof of rationality. Consequently, Yossarian will fly his missions whether he is rational or irrational. • Basic Sentences: Yossarian flies his missions ( F ), Yossarian puts himself in danger ( D ), Yossarian is rational ( R ), Yosarian asks to be grounded ( A ). • Premise #1: If F then D , and if D then not R . [ (F → D) & (D → ∼ R) ] • Premise #2: If R then A , and not F only if A . [ (R → A) & ( ∼ F → A) ] • Premise #3: But not F only if not R , and A implies R . [ ( ∼ F → ∼ R) & (A → R) ] • Conclusion: Consequently, F whether R or not R . [ (R → F) & ( ∼ R → F) ]....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/20/2010 for the course PHIL 63170 taught by Professor Fitelson during the Spring '10 term at Berkeley.
- Spring '10