Logic and Inquiry

Final Exam Update #3: Review Today

2007-04-26T10:27:00.000-07:00

I have written the exam and we will review for it today before we discuss the Plato reading.

Final Exam Update #2: Open Book/Open Note

2007-04-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

The final exam--which will be held WEDNESDAY May 2nd at 6pm (NOT THURSDAY)--will be open-book/open-note.

You are now free to move about the cabin.

Final Exam Update

2007-04-25T08:26:00.000-07:00

Note: The final exam will be cumulative in the sense that it will include some categorical syllogisms. You will also have to do some truth tables. You'll have to analyze some arguments in compound syllogisms. Finally, you'll have to try to think of some counter-examples to some principles.

Another clear logical argument from the Euthyphro

2007-04-18T18:00:00.001-07:00

Here's another clear logical argument from the Euthyphro from pages 20-21.

Statement 1: "it's coming to be so because it gets to be so."
Statement 2: "isn't being approved an example of coming to be?"

Argument B

Premise 1: The passive state of being X results from an active
state of someone X-ing.

Premise 2: Being approved is a passive state of being.
Conclusion B: Being approved is a result of an active state of
approving.

Socrates is going to use this conclusion against the idea that the holy is the "divinely approved" since he gets E. to admit that "the holy gets approved for the reason that it's holy...not because it gets approved" (top of p. 22).

Do you see any options for E. here?

The first clear logical argument in the Euthyphro

2007-04-18T17:57:00.000-07:00

There are at least two explicit logical arguments in Plato's Euthyphro. The first appears on pages 16-17.

Euthyphro has been pushing the idea that holiness is being agreeable to the gods. Socrates is going to give an argument against this position.

The premises of the argument come from two statements of Socrates.

Statement 1: "Haven't we also said that the gods have quarrels, Euthyphro,
and disputes with one another, and that there is enmity among them one with
another?" [p. 16, middle.]
Statement 2: "Aren't these the things [matters of what's good and bad, as
opposed to measurable matters like size] over which we quarrell?"

So we just need to translate these statements in to clear premises.

Argument A
Premise 1: The gods quarrel.
Premise 2: Quarrelsome matters are matters of good and bad.

From these it clearly follows.

Conclusion A: The gods quarrel over matters of good and bad.

How might this argument be formalized? Is it valid? If not, can it be easily modified to be valid?

But since Euthyphro had said that holiness is what is agreeable to the gods, given the definition of disagreement, one and the same thing will be both holy and unholy, since some gods will like it and others--the ones who disagree--will not like it. Socrates takes it that this refutes the answer E. had given. Does it? What assumptions is Socrates making? Is there a way out of Socrates' argument?

Exam Results

2007-04-12T13:54:00.000-07:00

Here is the grade distribution for the exam.

It's a pretty cood curve but shifted significantly toward the high end of the spectrium indicating that the test was quite a bit too easy and/or that I graded too easily (letting you off the hook for the chart and the last problem accomplished that).

It is somewhat resembles a "bimodal" curve in that there is a gap in the middle. This is a common phenomenon in "mathy" classes.

In any event you did well, so congrats!

Regarding the Buddhism talk...

2007-04-09T13:08:00.000-07:00

Since it is merely historical, we will not be going as a class. If the esteemed scholar would deign to actually defend the truth of his theses I would be happy to evaluate them logically.

I'd even be willing to logically critique his arguments against logic (most Buddhists I've talked with claim not to follow logic and proceed to give (logical?) arguments against the use of logic (!).

Maybe there'll be another appropriate event, but, alas, the end of the semester is drawing nigh.

We will go over the Exam in Class today, do not skip!

2007-04-05T06:22:00.000-07:00

Going over the exam is *crucial* for knowing what you got and what you didn't. The final exam will build on this. This is *not* a good day to skip, AT ALL.

However, due to the holiday season we will end early, just as soon as we finish going over the test, which should take about an hour.

MID-TERM DATE!!!

2007-03-01T16:25:00.000-08:00

OK, the mid-term will be handed out on 22nd, and will be due at the beginning of the next class on the 29th.

It will consist of argument reconstruction and analysis.

Details to follow...

UPDATE: The "mid-term" will still be handed in on the 29th, but it will be in class.

We will then go over it in class on the 5th.

2nd Assignment Help

2007-02-21T20:28:00.000-08:00

OK, it *could* be that you're just now doing your homework these six days hence our last class and you've forgotten the examples I did on the board.

Instructions:
1. State whether the sentence is a statement ("proposition") or not.
2. If it is, then regiment it into the form of an A, E, I, or O type proposition (see slides from class).
3. Represent that proposition in the form of a diagram. For examples of how to do diagrams--we'll cover this on Thursday--see this link.

What is a proposition?
Well, look at the slide which lists the four types of propositions: (where "S" represents he subject and "P" represents the predicate).
A - All S is P.
E - All S is not P (No S is P).
I - Some S is P.
O - Some S is not P.

What they all have in common is that they assert that some predicate applies to some subject.

Here are two examples from the book.

p. 103:

#4 "Is this worth my time?"

This sentence is in the interrogative mood and ostensibly is being used to ask a question, not make a statement so it is not a "proposition" in the sense of the class.

# 13 "Stars differ from planets in many ways."

This sentence attributes a predicate--differing from planets in many ways--of a subject--stars. Thus, it's a proposition.

It's assumed that when "some" is not explicitly used (and context doesn't provide it), then "all" is implied.

Thus this would be a type-A proposition.

We represent this with a big circle representing the collection of all the things which differ from planets in many ways with a little circle in it representing the collection of stars.

(...things that differ from planets in many ways.....(stars)......things that differ from planets in many ways...)

That's all you need to do.

Why we need logic...

2007-01-22T20:31:00.000-08:00

Monty Python - Arguement Clinic

2007-01-22T20:26:00.000-08:00


Catch the definition of argument here. There will be a quiz.

Your Grades Have Been Uploaded

2006-12-28T12:09:00.000-08:00

Thanks for a GREAT semester! One of my favorites.

This blog will resume mid January for next semester.

Model for Final

2006-12-07T17:35:00.000-08:00

Here's another clear logical argument from the Euthyphro from pages 20-21.
Statement 1: "it's coming to be so because it gets to be so."
Statement 2: "isn't being approved an example of coming to be?"

Stage 1 of 2: Reconstructon

1a, semi-formal reconstructon.

Premise 1: The passive state of being X results from an activestate of someone X-ing.
Premise 2: Being approved is a passive state of being.
Conclusion B: Being approved is a result of an active state ofapproving.

1b, formal reconstruction.

(P1) P =df A
(P2) App <>transcription guide

App = being approved
P = twi Passive
A = tw results from somethg Active

Stage 2/2: Evaluation

2a, Validity:
The argument is valid.

2b, Soundness.
2bi, Premise 1: True by def.
2bii, Premise 2: True by def.

2c, Cogency
Defs are so obv. true, that any reasonable aud. would accept.

Final Project

2006-12-01T08:26:00.000-08:00

Logic and Inquiry Final Project

Choose one of the following and analyze it. Analysis has two steps: 1. reconstruct the argument, 2. evaluate the argument. Remember to use the key terms from class as summarized on the slides (available on the main course page). Be sure to provide the following:

*Transcription Guide (abbreviating letters and what they mean—keep it grammatical!)
*Formal argument
*Evaluation
--Formal: Validity
--Material: Truth and Cogency (How plausible is it that the premises are true?)

Nota Bene: predicate terms might be really long and complicated! However, by symbolizing them, the argument needn’t be any more complicated. E.g. “th barks at strangers and pees on the rug in the basement when left home alone and occasionally needs a flea dip” can simply be represented by “D” for “dog”. “tw leads to soap scum on the tub” can be represented by “tw LSST.” Thus, long, complicated predicates needn’t confuse you.

From the very first part of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to a purpose that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the purpose must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the purpose. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

From the Euthyphro

A.
One of the editors claimed that Socrates' main question to Euthyphro--Is the Holy holy because because God approves it, or does God approve it because it's holy?--was a "weapon" against those who believe that what is right is determined solely by God's will. How might such an argument go? (Might morality depend on God without depending on His will alone?)

B.
In Why I'm not a Christian Bertrand Russell claimed that the Euthyphro Problem can be used as an argument against the existence of God. How might that argument Go?

UPDATE

2006-11-16T20:50:00.000-08:00

1. Those of you who just missed me today—590 was totally shut down—also missed a really great class that would have been quite helpful for the final project.

2. For our next meeting—in two weeks—I’d like you to read the following two Socratic dialogues in the Plato book: 1. Euthyphro, 2. Apology. The latter is very easy to read—and one of my favorites. The former will be quite confusing, but that’s OK.

Have a good break and enjoy kickin' back and reading. Don't necessarily try to "figure it out", really read it for pleasure if you can.

MID-TERM TODAY!!!

2006-11-02T07:07:00.000-08:00

Don't forget!!

Remember: No class this Thursday, October 26th

2006-10-25T16:52:00.000-07:00

Since I'll be out of town delivering a paper at a conference.

See you next week!

td

Marsupials are Mammals

2006-09-28T22:02:00.000-07:00

Some concepts are more accurate than others.

Check this out: marsupials *are* mammals.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

ROOM CHANGE!! - updated

2006-09-07T15:24:00.000-07:00

It looks like room 131 is available and it has two good features:

1. It is on the first rather than the fourth floor.
2. The AV setup is oriented in the front of the class.

We'll try it for a couple of weeks then have a poll where people can vote on which classroom they like best.

So from next week, Thursday, 14 September on we will meet in room 131. It is the first floor counterpart to our room--443. That is, it is just to the right of the enterance across from the bathrooms looking out on the parking lot.

See you there.

We will start at our normal time of 6:00pm.

See you then.

No Class Sept. 21st!

2006-09-01T11:08:00.000-07:00

I will be presenting a paper at a conference, so there will be no class that day. Sorry.

Welcome Fall 2006 Logical Inquirers

2006-09-01T10:59:00.000-07:00

It was great to meet you all! This is going to be a really fun class. I hope I didn't freak you out too much, but I just get really excited to start school. I like the material and I like talking about it and learning from your questions.

For next week just bring an open mind. If you want to see a preview, you can review these slides. We'll be going over this for a few weeks before starting Plato/Socrates.

Fall Classes Start Soon!

2006-08-24T21:14:00.000-07:00

This is the information hub for Logic and Inquiry. Assignments and stuff will be posted here.

Learning logic is less painful than getting hit in the face.

Summer Session Grades Now Uploaded

2006-07-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

So you can check them on you NazNet account. Good job everyone!

Final Grades Have Been Turned In

2006-07-03T11:28:00.000-07:00

Final grades for Summer Session have been turned in, you can now check them through your NazNet account.

Thanks for a great class!

SEE YOU IN THE FALL

Primer of Logical Terms: Top Ten List

2006-05-23T12:21:00.000-07:00

As I said in class, as logical inquirers we're going to have to lean some new terms, just like we would if we wanted to fix a carburetor or solder a motherboard or choreograph a ballet. We're going to get into it more later, but for now I just want to introduce these terms and their technical definitions which are related to their nomal uses, but more strict.

Here's the Top Ten list:

Concept: A concept of a thing, is our mental grasp of it's essence (represented in a definition) or functional role. We think about things via our concepts.
Judgement: A mental act of affirming or denying a relation between two items, for example the (indicative) sentences "The grass is green" or "The snow is white" embody judgements in the logical sense. Remember that only *indicative* sentences properly express judgements, not interrogatives, exclamations, or imperatives. [Through the use of *context*, however, these things *can* express judgements.]
Statement/Claim: The *verbal* expression of a judgement. When we make a judgement in our minds we can express it in words as a statement or claim. Grammarians call this a sentence in the indicative mood.
Proposition: The content of a judgement, the the thing the judgement *expresses*. For example "Der gras ist grun" and "Der schnee ist weiss" express the same proposition as the sentences "The grass is geen" and "The snow is white". We will sometimes be sloppy and talk of judgements, sentences, and propositions interchangeably. Just keep in mind their differences.
Conclusion: this is the proposition for which we are interested in it's *logical* support. It might have *emotional* support or *practical* support, but then it's not viewed as a *conclusion*.
Premises: these are the propositions which allegedly give *logical support* to conclusions. Any number of premises might be used to support a conclusion (more on that later). When we are digging deep, we might consider some premises as conclusions themselves of other, deeper arguments, then we ask what premises support it *as a conclusion*. So whether a proposition is a premise or a conclusion depends on what question we are asking at a given time.
Logical Support: This is a *very* tricky notion, but for now we'll say this: Logical Support is what premises give to conclusions. It can come in any degree from zero to perfection. We'll talk more about what this means, but the basic idea is this: If I'm committed to A then I'm also committed to B to the degree that A logically supports B. It is *illogical* so accept A but not B when A logically leads to B (except in very special paradoxical circumstances). In some ways, this is the core notion of the class.
Inference: An inference is a *mental act*. We make inferences in our minds. We make inferences by seeing that certain premises logically support or logically imply a conclusion.
Implication: This is to be distinguished from inference. We make inferences when we see implications. It is premises which have implications. Premises never infer because they do not have minds. Only beings with minds can infer. Infering is an activity of mental beings, implication is something premises do. Let's try to keep "implies" and "infers" straight.
Argument: An argument is a *verbal expression* of an inference. When we give an argument we give the premises that logically imply the conclusion we are arguing for and point out that the premises logicaly imply or logically support the conclusion.

We'll go into much more detail later and you won't be quized over this, but I wanted you to be familiar with some basic ideas and terms I might use in class. Hopefully after we return to the dialogs after learning some logical language you'll see how helpful it is in understanding Plato's ideas and expressing our own.

Another clear logical argument from the Euthyphro

2006-05-23T12:19:00.000-07:00

Here's another clear logical argument from the Euthyphro from pages 20-21.

Statement 1: "it's coming to be so because it gets to be so."
Statement 2: "isn't being approved an example of coming to be?"

Argument B

Premise 1: The passive state of being X results from an active
state of someone X-ing.

Premise 2: Being approved is a passive state of being.
Conclusion B: Being approved is a result of an active state of
approving.

The first clear logical argument in the Euthyphro

2006-05-23T12:14:00.000-07:00

There are at least two explicit logical arguments in Plato's Euthyphro. The first appears on pages 16-17.

Euthyphro has been pushing the idea that holiness is being agreeable to the gods. Socrates is going to give an argument against this position.

The premises of the argument come from two statements of Socrates.

Statement 1: "Haven't we also said that the gods have quarrels, Euthyphro,
and disputes with one another, and that there is enmity among them one with
another?" [p. 16, middle.]
Statement 2: "Aren't these the things [matters of what's good and bad, as
opposed to measurable matters like size] over which we quarrell?"

So we just need to translate these statements in to clear premises.

Argument A
Premise 1: The gods quarrel.
Premise 2: Quarrelsome matters are matters of good and bad.

From these it clearly follows (remember the transitive property: If A=B and B=C, then A=C).

Conclusion A: The gods quarrel over matters of good and bad.

Dialectical Structure of the Euthyphro

2006-05-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

Follow this link for a chart summarizing the dialectical structure of the Euthyphro.

Welcome Summer Session!

2006-05-18T14:32:00.000-07:00

This is com-central (that *communication* central not *comedy* central) for this class.

Stay tuned...

Summer Reading

2006-04-28T07:29:00.000-07:00

I mentioned that a good way to exercise your critical thinking skills over the summer would be to think through some popular dispute. The two biggest disputes, it seems to me, are the debate over 1. The War, 2. Intelligent Design, 3. da Vinci Code.

I don't know of any books on the war, but I know of one on the ID issue. Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA. It's too expensive to buy, but it I'm sure the library could get it. It's edited by the two main people in the debate.
There are a bunch of books on the da Vinci Code including (roughly in order of familiarity-to-me):

The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction
The Da Vinci Deception
De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code
The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code: A Challenging Response to the Bestselling Novel
Breaking the Da Vinci Code : Answers to the Questions Everyone's Asking

Most of these books are very affordable.
Whatever you choose to do: Inquire!

All's Well That End's Well

2006-04-27T14:41:00.000-07:00

I'd like to thank you all for a great year. It was fun and you were a good class. As my first class at Naz I'll always rememer you. Hope to see you around campus.

I invite you to share your thougths here or at www.ratemyprofessors.com.

Water Bottle Found

2006-04-27T14:36:00.000-07:00

Pink Nalgene left in room after final day.

Pizza and Python Day!!

2006-04-27T07:27:00.000-07:00

I've ordered 4 large Pontillo's pizzas for a snack during the Monty Python movie.

That's only 48 slices, so it's not even two slices per person if everyone shows up (which I'm not expecting). Pontillo's is not cheap!

So bring your own snacks and drinks to add to the pizza.

Final Exam

2006-04-19T08:55:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to the final exam. Enjoy!

Logic Charts

2006-04-17T10:09:00.000-07:00

I've posted the logic chart as a web page here.

I've posted it as a downloadable document here.

They'll be permanently available (along with the PowerPoint presentation) at the bottom of the class page here.

Hope this helps, please alert me to typos.

td

PowerPoint Summary of Overview Notes

2006-04-17T09:11:00.000-07:00

Here is a PowerPoint presentation of the overview notes.

This Week's NYT Editorial

2006-04-17T08:20:00.000-07:00

Don't forget to follow the template, thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/opinion/17mon1.html

An Unkept Promise in Iraq

Published: April 17, 2006

Two years ago, the United States government promised to build more than 140 badly needed health clinics in Iraq, bringing basic care to underserved areas outside the big cities. That could have done a lot of good, saving innocent Iraqi lives and building good will for the United States in places where it has grown dangerously scarce. A generous cost-plus contract was awarded to
Parsons Inc., an American construction firm, to do the work, supervised by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Now, with roughly $200 million already spent and financing from Washington set to run out in less than nine months, it appears extremely unlikely that most of those clinics will ever be built. As The Washington Post reported earlier this month, the Army Corps of Engineers predicts that no more than 20 clinics will actually be completed — out of 142.
America's good intentions should not be allowed to expire with so pathetically little achieved. The country's three years in Iraq have been a cavalcade of squandered opportunities and unanticipated outcomes. Many of those are now, sadly, beyond retrieval. The health clinics are not.

There appears to be plenty of blame to go around for the health clinics fiasco. High on the list comes the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to factor the deteriorating military situation into reconstruction planning. By the time this contract was awarded, in the spring of 2004, it
should have been clear that special security measures would be needed in many areas.

Beyond that, there appear to be some serious questions about the performance by Parsons and the quality of supervision by the Army Corps of Engineers. The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is looking into many of these issues and is expected to issue a report later this month. Sorting out the specific responsibilities is important for avoiding similar contracting debacles in the future.

Just as important is delivering on the original promise of health clinics. A new plan should be drawn up, taking a more realistic account of security conditions, and new financing needs to be found. New, and tighter, contracts need to be written and enforced.
Recent decades have been cruel to the children of Iraq, a country that was a regional leader in health care 30 years ago.

Then came Saddam Hussein's diversion of Iraq's wealth into weapons, wars and palaces, 12 years of crushing international sanctions and finally, the invasion, occupation and insurgency. More children have probably died from lack of clean water and sanitation, malnutrition, and lack of health care than from the missile, bomb and rocket attacks of invading armies and insurgent militias.

That terrible history cannot be undone. But Iraqi children and their parents can still be helped to overcome some of the enduring health consequences. Let it not be said that thousands more Iraqis died needlessly because America walked away from its promise of health clinics with less than 15 percent of the job done.

Nice Link for Help with Syllogisms

2006-04-11T09:11:00.000-07:00

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syllogism_topics.html

This site covers most of the same material we have.

In fact, for Thursday it would help to run through this tutorial on Venn Diagrams, which won't take too long.

This is the same topic we'll go over on Thursday.

Definition Review

2006-04-05T09:06:00.000-07:00

Some definitions we need to review:

Validity: The conditional property of an argument such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Soundness: The conjunctive property of an argument such that it is both valid and has true premises.

Cogency: The relational property of an argument such that it is likely to be persuasive to its intended audience or the "average person".
-------
Syllogism (from the Greek "syn" (putting together) and "logia" (reason, thought): A formal representation of the relation obtaining between two judgements when they logically imply a third.

Inference: Seeing that two judgements logically imply a third.
-------
Middle Term: the "bridge term"

Major Term: the Predicate term of the Conclusion.

Major Premise: the premise with the Major Term. (Nota bene: this premise always goes on top in standard form)

Minor Term: the subject term of the conclusion.

Minor Premise: the premise with the Minor Term.

Checklist for Argument Analysis Assignments

2006-04-05T08:55:00.000-07:00

Please use this checklist for the argument analysis assignments:

1. Name of Article

2. Transcription Guide

Example
O = Open borders
R = is too Risky for terrorism
A = should be Avoided

3. Formal Argument: a. body of argument (premises and conclusion), b. annotated lines (A,E,I,O)

Example
1) O < R A
2) R < A A
------
3) O < A A

4. Validity Analysis

Example
Figure 1, AAA mood, therefore VALID

N.B. Since Premise 2 is actually the MAJOR PREMISE it needs to be put on top. In the form it's in now it *looks* like a figure 4.

4. Soundness Analysis

Example
Premise 1 is vague since "too risky" is vague, but it's plausible that without any restrictions on borders there would be an unacceptable level of risk. I give the premise 98% support.Premise 2 is obvious.Thus it is very plausible that this argument is sound as well as valid.

5. Cogency Analysis

Example
The argument is pretty cogent since one premise is obvious (the second one) and the first premise is quite hard to doubt. It would be totally unrealistic to think that open borders would not increase the risk of terrorists entering the country.

Something

2006-04-04T13:49:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to the contact information for our New York senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=NY

Here's a link to find your representative.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind

You'll need your FULL zip code. So find a piece of mail from your credit card company or something to get the last set of numbers.

I had to do *something* after reading that editorial today, even despite my criticisms (by which I still stand).

I sent this letter via email or form to our congresspersons:
-------
Dear _____

I am writing on behalf of the thousands of refugees seeking entrance into the US whose applications are on hold due to considerations pertaining to "aid" given to terrorists under duress. Obviously those who are forced to turn over their household at gunpoint do not count as "harboring" terrorists and are not thereby disqualified from refugee status.

On the other hand it is equally obvious that each application must be painstakingly scrutinized so as not to allow any terrorists into the US under false pretenses. Therefore I would never suggest something so foolish as to merely take applicants at face value. It seems, however, that a Refugee Fairness Act wherein special funding was given to Homeland Security earmarked for streamlining the filtering process and adding staff to facilitate the processing of applications held up for the specified reasons would win broad bipartisan support.

It would be to the credit of the great state of New York if such legislation were introduced by one of our congresspersons

Editorial Analysis

2006-03-29T22:07:00.000-08:00

Here's the link to the NYT editorial we examined on Tuesday.

You might need to log in to view it. If so, use this info:

Username: logicandinquiry
Password: valid

You can use this info to search through past issues.

Here's the analysis we gave:

GENERAL ARGUMENT
1. All (world trade rules) are (rules that should be just).
2. All (rules that should be just) are (rules that should protect affordable meds).
3. Thus, all (world trade rules) are (rules that should protect affordable meds).

SPECIFIC ARGUMENT
3. All (world trade rules) are (rules that should protect affordable meds).
4. All (rules that should protect affordable meds) are (rules that should maintain current policies).
5. Thus, all (world trade rules) are (rules that should maintain current policies).

Note first that the specific argument takes over where the general argument leaves off. This is called a sorites. Note that they could just as easily be put right together 1-5.

Both arguments are valid--if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. They both exhibit the basic "transitive property" form of the "Barbara" syllogism: Figure 1, AAA mood. Almost no one will doubt the truth of 1 and 2 which gives us the truth of 3. So if we want to resist 5 the only possible option is to reject 4.

Is 4 true? How should I know? The author doesn't give me a shred of evidence to go on. Maybe the current policies will cut into the revenues of the drug companies enough that they will spend less on R&D or some will go out of the business altogether. Maybe not. My point is that the editorial doesn't give me anything to go on. As a result, though the argument is valid it is not cogent. It could not possibly persuade a rational individual since the crucial premise has no evidence.

I'll go one better and call this a petty piece of propaganda since no rational person can think they are offering a cogent argument to rational people when it's perfectly obvious they are not offering any evidence for their main premise.

Mid-Term Grades

2006-03-21T17:50:00.000-08:00

Lake Placid treated us to some fine skiing.

I just figured the mid-term grades, here are the results:

A-17
B-9
C-3
D-0
F-0

This was after I added in the extra credit which was clearly premature. Five people missed none or got more than 100%. Obviously I made this one a little too easy, but I'd rather make that mistake first.

Good job class!

Don't forget to read the "Apology" for Thursday!

Gone Skiing

2006-03-13T06:45:00.000-08:00

I'll be backcountry skiing in the Daks this week, so there'll be no new bloggage 'til Sunday at the soonest.

We'll be basing out of Lake Placid so I'll be reminiscing about the Miracle on Ice as I skate on the Olympic Ice. This is the trail we'll be on most of the time. See you when I get back!

In Class Mid-Term Thursday March 9th

2006-03-05T09:29:00.000-08:00

OK, there's a very clear majority in favor of having an in-class mid-term. I've written it up and it's pretty easy and it will be "open note". It would be very hard to get less than a B on this.

This puts us exactly back on schedule.

As I said, I like giving you options, so if you meet the criteria I'm about to give you will be allowed to do a dialog instead. Here are the criteria:

*You have handed in at least two dialogs.
*You got good comments on at least one of them.

Mid-Term Option

2006-03-02T20:41:00.000-08:00

OK, I've been thinking about it and I'm not sure there's been adequate preperation on some fronts for a 5-8 page dialog. Another option is to have an in-class mid-term which would be an open-note short exam on the overview I keep giving and some of the material I gave last class.

Please use this poll to express your view. Please don't vote more than once since I track the IP addresses and it will be fairly obvious and quite annoying.

What then of science?

2006-02-24T08:48:00.000-08:00

For those of you who hold so firmly that knowledge is knowledge of facts and that knowledge entails certainty I have a question.

Is there such thing as scientific knowledge? That is, do the natural sciences--physics, chemestry, biology--ever yeild knowledge?

To hold onto the certainty thesis and answer affirmatively seems impossible since scientific methods never yeild certainty.

Puzzle about Knowledge

2006-02-22T10:18:00.000-08:00

Here's the puzzle I put up, but we didn't have time to discuss.

I'll use the case of a car parked in downtown Rochester to make things simpler.

Everyone agreed to this Knowledge Principle

(KP) If I know that P and I know that (P implies Q) then I know Q.

Here's the problem:

(1) I know where my car is parked (it's parked in such-and-such a spot).

implies

(2) My car was not stolen.

But by (KP) this gives us

(3) I know my car was not stolen.

But how can you know that?

Can you really know that your car was not stolen without even checking?

Assignment - Questions about knowledge

2006-02-22T10:10:00.000-08:00

Here are the questions I want an answer to. Examples would be good.

A. Does *knowing* mean *being certain*.

B. Does "I know that P but I have doubts about P" make sense.

C. Can I say I know something if I have to check (like going back to check that I turned off the oven).

Our New Mascott

2006-02-09T19:16:00.000-08:00

Here--thanks to Colleen--is the Eleraff. It would be fine with me if we gathered a little menagerie.

Logical Terms

2006-02-09T19:00:00.000-08:00

In this post I gave some basic definitions of logical terms. Now I'll add to that the important terms we covered in class.

VALIDITY: An argument is VALID if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This is an attribute of the *form* of the argument. Don't forget that valid arguments can have false conclusions if they have false premises: e.g. If my name is "Trent" then the moon is made of green cheese and since my name is "Trent" the moon is made of green cheese . Also, invalid arguments can have true conclusions: e.g. 1+1=2 therefore my name is "Trent".

SOUNDNESS: An argument is SOUND if and only if it is valid *and* the premises are true. This is an attribute of the "matter" or "stuff" you plug into the premises. The important thing is that the conclusion of a sound argument is true.

COGENCY: An argument is COGENT just in case it convincing in some way. This is an attribute of the psychological effect of the argument. An argument may be convincing to some and not to others. Sometimes this is because the premises are too doubtful, other times it's because the interlocutors are closed minded or ignorant (in the strict sense).

Due to the definition of validity, if you deny the conclusion of a valid argument you are *committed* to one of the premises being false.

Assignment - Define "Knowledge"

2006-02-09T18:40:00.000-08:00

On pages 89-91 the text lists several kinds of definitions. Give an example of each of these kinds of definitions for the term "knowledge". It's due Tuesday and if you have questions, post them here for the benefit of all (you can post anonymously if you want).

Poem

2006-02-09T18:27:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Andy Xenias and Mallory Aseltine for reminding me that the phrase "A poem should not mean, but be" is from the poem Ars Poetica (which is taken from the Roman poet Horace of "carpe diem" fame) by Archibald MacLeish.

I wonder if, like me, you find it ironic that his poem doesn't just sit there "being" but rather has a pretty clear meaning: a meaning, indeed, which it seems to contradict by *meaning anything at all*!

Paradoxofragilisticexpealadocious

2006-02-09T18:18:00.000-08:00

Here's the "Paradox of the Heap" which we discussed in class under the guise of the "Paradox of Height". It was discovered by the ancient Stoics.

Premise 1: One grain of wheat is not a heap.
Premise 2: If n grains of wheat is not a heap, then n+1 grains is not a
heap.
Conclusion: There are no heaps.

Antithesis: A pile of wheat the size of a dump truck is a heap of wheat.

This link has all you can stand about this paradox. Not for the faint of heart!

Is the Mind More Than the Brain?

2006-01-31T14:26:00.000-08:00

First, some terms. A materialist is someone who thinks that everything there is is made out of matter (um, don't ask them to define "matter", it makes them cranky). A dualist is someone who is not a materialist.

Please note that there are other more subtle definitions of these terms: we might need to get more precise but this will suffice for a starting point. The one nuance I want to add is that different versions of dualism hold different positions on the connection between the mind and the brain: some tie them very closely, others not so much.

Dualists point to the power of abstract thought, free will, and the fact of conscious awareness as reasons to believe their position.

Materialists point to the power of science to explain phenomena as a reason to believe their position.

What do you think?

Aristotle on Truth

2006-01-31T14:23:00.000-08:00

He who says of that which is that it is or of that which is not that it is not speaks the truth, but he who says of that which is that it is not or of that which is not that it is does not speak the truth.

Dialectical Structure of the Euthyphro

2006-01-30T16:37:00.000-08:00

Here is the basic structure of the Euthyphro. The basic building blocks
are 1. A question, 2. some answers, 3. some objections, and 4. some replies.

[It's about impossible to do a table in a comments box, so the bottom part of the right column is not going to line up exactly right, but it's close enough. If you just can't figure it out, go here.]

What is holy?

It's what I'm doing.

I don't want an example, I want a definition.

OK, it's what the gods like.

But the gods like different things.

Well then it's what *all* the gods like.

Do they like the holy because it's holy, or is it holy because they say
so?

I can't answer that question.

Then would you say that holiness is a kind of justice?

Yes.

Which part?

The part that pertains to helping the gods?

Helping them do what?

I'm not sure. Perhaps just feel gratified.

What concerning what gratifies them, is it holy because it gratifies them
or does it gratify them because it's holy?

Um, I've got to go.

GUIDING QUESTION

ANSWER 1

OBJECTION TO ANSWER 1

ANSWER 2

OBJECTION TO ANSWER 2

ANSWER 3

OBJECTION TO ANSWER 3

TRANSITION

ANSWER 4

ANSWER 5

OBJECTION TO ANSWER 5

-------------

As long as you have: 1. A question, 2. An answer or answers, 3. Some
objections, and 4. some replies. You can arrange them into a dialog.

Fill in the Blank Assignment

2006-01-30T16:20:00.000-08:00

Fill in the blanks.

I. The question I will consider is
"______________________________________________________________________?"

A. The main terms (with definitions) in this question are:

1. _____________________________

2. _____________________________

3. _____________________________

4. _____________________________

B. I'm inclined to think the answer to this question is:

1. Yes

2. No

3. Maybe

4. Other: ________________________

II. Here are two or three different possible answers to this question in
increasing order of plausibility (i.e. save the best for last).

A.
_____________________________________________________________________

B.
______________________________________________________________________

C.
_____________________________________________________________________

III. Here are two or three questions for each of the above answers. [Should
end up with 6 total.]

A1.
_______________________________________________________________________________

A2.
________________________________________________________________________________

A3.
________________________________________________________________________________

B1.
________________________________________________________________________________

B2.
_________________________________________________________________________________

B3.
_________________________________________________________________________________

C1.
__________________________________________________________________________________

C2.
___________________________________________________________________________________

C3.
____________________________________________________________________________________

IV. Here are some possible answers to each of those questions.