{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

IMG_0002_NEW_0005 - premises and a false conclusion The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Dr Mc's Philosophy 001 (1101) Part Notes, Week4#2 @ "Diagrams" of the logical space Argyqtts '*t{7*ft1 ' ,/ uoh'f>o,t nVv t'T "P/ ,?,fMC utrgvic"l Arg u ments vrrhr(>^,,aLo( rytd il-rtrn<l Since validity is a matter of Ya++'wn , the of the premises and conclusion don't matter. That's why we can use v*{'^hV ^r*^^ol -+/u^ "a'lW !i::: €;,, Ql 4 *0 4,, An argument is val'id(@t '1,1'/^t a Pnflarrr such that it is ,;+rrlit-o- ing that pattern to have true
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: premises and a false conclusion. The definition is " l,Hfo+htuC ".- U I furl -0,^n had4 r u B 4 W *,lo( -*t4L A+ wo' \-\^*,*ffi b^e/^ ^ vc'Ucl O^W f"JT* i+4 rnnc'{*"vt Why isn't enough to know, say, that an argument is valid in order to know whether you should accept its conclusion? How do you know whether an argument that would use predicate loqic is intended to be vul)J f{ oqpAL ? ffi 1 1 01 001 week4#2part O...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online