phil001notesWeek4complete

# phil001notesWeek4complete - Dr Mcs Philosophy 001(1091...

• Notes
• affle123
• 6

This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

1091001notesWeek4 © 1 Dr Mc’s Philosophy 001 (1091) Lecture Notes, Week 4 © Assignment 3 is due in your tutorial next week (Assignment 2 this week) Cogent arguments whose patterns don‟t match Feldman‟s: 1. Every swan I‟ve seen has been white. 2. The next swan I‟ll see will be whit e. This is not the argument: 1. Most swans are white. 2. The next swan I‟ll see is a swan. 3. The next swan I‟ll see will be white. I have not seen most swans. What of? 1. All swans are white. 2. The next swan I‟ll see is a swan. 3. That swan is white. This is valid (as we‟ll see) but it is not the reasoning in question. 1. Every swan I‟ve seen has been white. 2. All swans are white. We cannot smoosh this into a simple pattern. The conclusion goes beyond what is provided by the premises. If certain non-formal conditions are met, it can be a good way to reason. 1. Every pizza I‟ve had at that restaurant has been great. 2. The one I‟m about to have will be great. What sorts of factors are relevant in this example? - whether you‟ve ordered the same type of pizza - whether you‟ve ord ered at the same time of day (same cook) - how many times you‟ve been there -how long since the last time you were there, etc. Cogent arguments are ampliative Determining cogency solely on the basis of form is not possible. Back to predicate or categorical logic for arguments intended to be valid.

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