notes_4_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 and Such Todays Music: Dire Straits Richard and Justin will hold extra office hours this week (to make-up for the missed sections on Monday owing to Memorial Day). Justin will have extra office hours from 111 on Tuesday. Richard will have extra office hours from 3:305 on Wednesday. My office hours (from now on) will be held 45:30 on Wednesdays. HW #2 due Friday @ 5pm in the 12A Drop Box (outside 301 Moses). Make sure you follow the guidelines/hints on my HW Tips Handout People seem to have done pretty well on HW #1 (Ill return to problem #30 on the next slide). Grades will be entered into bspace soon. Note: more 12A Practice Problems can be found in: Schaums Outline of Logic (second edition), which is an inexpensive paperback book. Today: Chapter 2, Continued; and, then, Chapter 3, Introduction UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 (Contd) & Chapter 3 (Intro) 06/01/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 Rewind: A Tricky Question #30 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 ( affirming the consequent ). 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 will be conservative here. We will only call an argument valid if we have a some theory according to which it has a valid logical form . We have no such theory for argument A . So, well say A is not valid. Our philosophical logic (142) course delves into this issue. I recommend John MacFarlanes SEP entry Logical Constants for further reading. UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 (Contd) & Chapter 3 (Intro) 06/01/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 Symbolizing/ Reconstructing Entire English Arguments Navely, an argument is just a collection of sentences. So, navely, one might think that symbolizing arguments should just boil down to symbolizing a bunch of individual sentences. Its not so simple. An argumentative passage has more structure than an individual sentence. This makes argument reconstruction more subtle. We must now make sure we capture the inter-relations of content across the various sentences of the argument. To a large extent, these interrelations are captured by a judicious choice of atomic sentences for the reconstruction....
View Full Document

Page1 / 7

notes_4_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