phil001notesweek3.1

# phil001notesweek3.1 - Dr Mcs Philosophy 001 (1084) Lecture...

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

1084001notesweek3 © 1 Dr Mc’s Philosophy 001 (1084) Lecture Notes, Week 3 © Assignment 2 is due in lecture next week. It is on the Net. Assignment 1 is due this week, by the second break Recall from last time. Two requirements for an argument to be a good one. (i.e., rationally strong for you) 1. Its conclusion must follow from its premises. 2. Its premises must be reasonable for you to accept. An argument whose premises, if true, would support its conclusion, is called “well-formed”. An argument is well-formed if and only if it is valid or cogent. Validity An argument is valid= if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true. E.g., 1. My van is parked where I left it or my van has been stolen. 2. My van is not parked where I left it. 3. My van has been stolen. Cogency An argument is cogent= if its premises are true, they provide reason to think the conclusion is true, but they could be true yet the conclusion false. E.g., 1. Most students in this room are under 25. 2. The person in the top left seat is a student in this room. 3. That person is under 25 Whether or not an argument is valid is simply a matter of its form. (Not so, we’ll see, with cogency, but Feldman’s examples work.) How do we display the form of an argument? In some cases, we can use sentential logic. 1. My van is parked where I left it or my van has been stolen. 2. My van is not parked where I left it. 3. My van has been stolen. P=My van is parked where I left it Q=My van has been stolen

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

View Full Document
1084001notesweek3 © 2 1. P or Q 2. ~P 3. Q This is a valid argument pattern. Any argument with this same form would be valid. If its premises were true, its conclusion would also be true. This pattern is Argument by elimination The variables must stand for declarative sentences. Some other valid forms in sentential logic: 1. P. 2. Q. 3. P and Q Conjunction 1. P and Q. 2. P. Simplification If P, then Q. 1. P. 2. Q. The ‘if, then’ sentence is called a conditional. If [antecedent], then [consequent]. In a true conditional, if the antecedent is true, so is the consequent. The truth of the antecedent is
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

## This note was uploaded on 04/09/2011 for the course PHIL 1 taught by Professor Jillianmcdonald during the Winter '10 term at Simon Fraser.

### Page1 / 8

phil001notesweek3.1 - Dr Mcs Philosophy 001 (1084) Lecture...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online