1 / 10

Propositional Logic

Propositional Logic. 6.6 Argument Forms and Fallacies. Arguments Forms and Fallacies. Disjunctive Syllogism p v q / q // ~p … test it with a truth table. p v q ~p __ q. Not to be confused with…. p v q q __ ~p. Arguments Forms and Fallacies. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism

ramona-gomez
Download Presentation

Propositional Logic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Propositional Logic 6.6 Argument Forms and Fallacies

  2. Arguments Forms and Fallacies Disjunctive Syllogism p v q / q // ~p … test it with a truth table p v q ~p__ q Not to be confused with… p v q q__ ~p

  3. Arguments Forms and Fallacies Pure Hypothetical Syllogism Pure Hypothetical Syllogism requires a chain be made where the argument in red fails to make one. p  q q  r p  r Not to be confused with… p  q r  q p  r

  4. Arguments Forms and Fallacies Modus Ponens (Method of Affirming) The fallacy in red is called Affirming the Consequent. p  q p___ q Not to be confused with… p  q q___ p

  5. Arguments Forms and Fallacies Modus Tollens (Method of Destroying) The fallacy in red is called Denying the Antecedent. p  q ~q___ ~p Not to be confused with… p  q ~p__ ~q

  6. Arguments Forms and Fallacies Constructive Dilemma Destructive Dilemma (p  q) • (r  s) p v r________ q v s p  q p___ q See Modus Ponens in CD? p  q ~q___ ~p (p  q) • (r  s) ~q v ~s______ ~p v ~r See Modus Tollens in DD?

  7. Arguments Forms and Fallacies If we get Hillary, then we get socialism. If we get Obama, then we get naïveté. We’re going to get either Hillary or Obama as the next president. So, we’ll either have socialism or naïveté . Symbolizing… (H  S) • (O  N) H v O_________ S v N

  8. Arguments Forms and Fallacies To refute constructive and destructive dilemmas (you refute both the same way), you either • Grasp by the horns • Escape between the horns For example, Grasping by the Horns Prove the conjunctive premise false by proving either conjunct false (H  S) • (O  N) T  F F Show Hillary is a strong defender of free markets, say For example, Show, say, Edwards is going to win Escaping between the Horns Prove the disjunctive premise false H v O F F F

  9. Refuting Constructive and Destructive Dilemmas If we get Giuliani, then we get a philanderer. If we get Huckabee, then we get a religious nut. Either the US doesn’t want a philanderer or it doesn’t want a religious nut. So, we won’t get Giuliani or we won’t get Huckabee as president. Symbolizing… (G  P) • (H  N) ~P v ~N__________ ~G v ~H

  10. Arguments Forms and Fallacies To refute constructive and destructive dilemmas (you refute both the same way), you either • Grasp by the horns • Escape between the horns For example, Grasping by the Horns Prove the conjunctive premise false by proving either conjunct false (G  P) • (H  N) F T  F Show Huckabee has reasonable religious views For example, Show America minds neither philanderers nor religious nuts Escaping between the Horns Prove the disjunctive premise false ~P v ~N F F F

More Related