5. Aristotle 1 - Logic and Rational Thought Introduction to arguments and logic Aristotle lived 384-322B !

"o #ar $e have said that a %hiloso%her is the one $ho is interested in using reason and argument as a source o# &no$ledge' (ut $e have le#t that #airl) intuitive and haven*t reall) said $hat $e mean () reason or argument. Aristotle is the #irst one to realise that $e need some criterion #or determining $hen an argument is good or (ad. This is es%eciall) im%ortant i# )ou thin& that is the method )ou $ill (e using #or getting to the truth. In the course o# doing this' he discovers $hat $e call deductive logic. +e $ill tal& (rie#l) a(out logic and sa) $hat deduction is and ho$ it is contrasted $ith induction. Arguments consist o# t$o %arts - %remises and conclusions. There is a relationshi% (et$een the %remises and the conclusions. The %remises are o##ered in su%%ort o# the conclusion such that the conclusion is said to #ollo$ #rom the %remises. To translate this into e%istemic tal& $e can sa) the %remises o# an argument are su%%osed to (e reasons to (elieve the conclusion. ,sing this allo$s us a $a) to tal& a(out the di##erences (et$een inductive and deductive arguments (ecause $e are going to have di##erent &inds o# relationshi%s o# su%%ort (et$een the %remise and the conclusions. +e can divide arguments according to ho$ strong the relation o# su%%ort is (et$een - . . +e generall) class arguments into t$o &inds' deductive and inductive. Be#ore $e get into that I $ant to (rie#l) mention ho$ Aristotle thought a(out these things (ecause he is the one that comes u% $ith this terminolog). /or Aristotle deductive argument $as one that moved #rom a general %remise0s1 to a s%eci#ic conclusion. eg i# I said all dogs are animals so m) dog is an animal. Induction can (e seen to move in the o%%osite direction. /rom s%eci#ic %remise0s1 to a general conclusion. eg 2) -it Bull dog is vicious' so all -it Bull are vicious. This is not a hard and #ast rule' %eo%le have sho$n that some deductive arguments don*t have general %remises and don*t move to s%eci#ic conclusions. That is ho$ Aristotle thought a(out deduction and induction' (ut $e modern %eo%le thin& a(out these things in slightl) di##erent terms. "o here is ho$ $e thin& a(out them in terms o# the su%%ort (et$een the %remise and the conclusion. /or an inductive argument' i# the %remise0s1 o# that are true' then the conclusion is 23R! LI4!L5 to (e true 0(ut could (e #alse1. "o su%%ose that )ou $anted to %rove that all s$ans are $hite' ho$ $ould )ou do it6 3ne o(vious $a) is to loo& at all the s$ans and seeing $hat colours the) are and then )ou might give an inductive argument' I have seen a lot o# s$ans and the) have all (een $hite or ever) s$an I have seen so #ar has (een $hite' so the ne7t s$an I see $ill (e $hite.

"o it is actuall) true that historicall) no one had ever seen an)thing e7ce%t a $hite s$an so (iologists $ere con#ident in thin&ing all s$ans $ere $hite. But is it actuall) true6 8o' (lac& s$ans e7ist in Australia $hich is $h) the) $ere relativel) un&no$n. "o it is %er#ectl) %ossi(le to have a good inductive argument that )ou have seen a hundred million s$ans so )ou conclude that all s$ans are $hite. But &no$ing that the %remises o# that argument are true' ie ever) s$an )ou have seen has (een $hite' doesn*t guarantee that the conclusion $ill (e true. "o it can (e true that ever) s$an I have seen so #ar is $hite' and then I see a (lac& s$an ne7t. "o induction doesn*t guarantee certaint). 9iven $hat )ou &no$ a(out ancient %hiloso%h) u% to this %oint' that automaticall) indicates tat inductive arguments are going to (e generall) less interesting to %eo%le li&e Aristotle and -lato $ho are concerned $ith &no$ledge and $ho have also lin&ed &no$ledge $ith certaint). "o i# &no$ledge re:uires certaint) and i# induction never gives )ou certainl)' then inductive arguments $ill never give )ou &no$ledge. And that is ;ust another &ind o# $a) o# sa)ing )ou cant get &no$ledge #rom e7%erience. 8o$ on the other hand' deductive arguments have a ver) di##erent %ro%ert)' a di##erent level o# su%%ort #rom %remise and conclusion and i# a deductive argument is valid' i# its a good argument' then $hen the %remises are true' the conclusion 2,"T (e true. "o that is a ver) di##erent &ind o# level o# su%%ort (et$een conclusion and %remises. +e $ill come (ac& to inductive arguments $hen $e tal& a(out <ume in the modern %eriod (ecause a %ro(lem similar to the (lac& s$an %ro(lem reall) starts to %lague the modern sciences as develo%ed () 8e$ton and com%an). "o $e $ill s%end a lot o# time tal&ing a(out $hat*s called the %ro(lem o# induction in a #uture lecture. But no$ $e ill turn our attention to deductive logic. Lets #ormall) de#ine valid and validit). An argument is valid $hen it meets this re:uirement= /irst o# all its a deductive argument (ecause inductive arguments are never valid (ecause the) never give )ou this level o# su%%ort' (ut a deductive argument is valid $hen it ... - I# the %remises are true then the conclusion 2,"T (e true' #or e7am%le' -remise 1 - all men are mortal %remise 2 - "ocrates is a man conclusion - "ocrates is mortal so i# it is reall) true that all men are mortal and i# it is true that "ocrates is a man' then it cant #ail to (e true that "ocrates is mortal. $e can see intuitivel) that this argument is valid. +hat Aristotle noticed $as that validit) $as due to the #orm that the argument too& 83T $hat the argument $as a(out. "o the argument is valid due to the $a) that the terms are distri(uted throughout the argument.

"o i# $e loo& at this argument $e can see there are re%eating terms in the #irst %remise. The term man is in (oth the #irst and second %remise and the categor) or term mortal is in the #irst %remise and also the conclusion and the third term "ocrates' the categor) o# those things $hich are "ocrates' is also distri(uted in a certain %attern' $here() it occu%ies the #irst %osition in the second %remise and the conclusion. "o $hat Aristotle noticed $as that it*s (ecause o# this arrangement o# the $ords in the sentences that guarantees that the argument is valid and so i# $e re%lace these terms $ith a letter that $e designate to stand #or those' then $e $ill come u% $ith the logical structure o# this argument. "o $e re%lace the re%eating terms $ith letters 0and leave ever)thing else the same1 and $e $ill get the arguments #orm. so A>categor) o# (eing a man and B> something $hich is mortal or $ill die' and > "ocrates. "o re$riting All A*s are B*s All *s are A*s There#ore' All *s are B*s "o this is $hat $e call the #orm o# the argument. "o these A*s B*s and *s are categories o# things and this is $h) Aristotles* logic is called categorical logic (ecause it relates grou%s o# things or categories to one another' and this is distinguished #rom contem%orar) logic $hich deals $ith sentences instead o# ;ust categories. "o this argument #orm is valid (ecause no matter $hat )ou su(stitute #or A B and it is im%ossi(le to get a resulting argument $here (oth %remises are true and the resulting conclusion is #alse. The %oint o# validit) is not to as& $hether the %remises are actuall) true' (ut to sti%ulate loo& lets ;ust count that the) are true #or the time (eing' $hat could $e tell a(out the conclusion6 A valid argument guarantees that the conclusion is true I/ the %remises are true. Its %er#ectl) normal to have valid arguments $ith #alse %remises' and its also %er#ectl) normal to have invalid arguments that in #act have true %remises. "o )ou cannot ;ust loo& at an argument and sa) $ell the %remises are true and the conclusion is true so its a valid argument. This could (e an accident and have nothing to do $ith the $a) the argument is structured. "o $hat )ou #irst have to do to validate an argument is #igure out $hat &ind o# #orm the argument e7em%li#ies. A valid argument #orm is one $here its im%ossi(le to #ind an e7am%le o# it $here there are true %remises and #alse conclusion. "o Aristotle*s logic is called categorical logic (ecause it deals $ith categorical statements. 0a categorical statement is sim%l) a statement a(out categories o# o(;ects.1 "o $e have alread) loo&ed at one &ind o# categorical s)llogism and a s)llogism here is an argument $hich is com%osed o# 2 %remises and a conclusion. "o categorical s)llogisms are s)llogisms com%osed o# categorical statements. There are onl) #our &inds o# categorical statements that )ou can ma&e. - All A*s are B*s. - 8o A*s are B*s - "ome A*s are B*s. - "ome A*s are not B*s.

A s)llogism then is an argument $hich is com%osed o# 2 %remises and a conclusion each o# $hich is one o# these categorical statements. +hat Aristotle did $as he $ent through and categorised the $a)s in $hich )ou could com(ine these &inds o# sentences into valid and invalid argument #orms. It turns out that the vast ma;orit) o# categorical s)llogism*s are in #act invalid. There*s a hand#ul o# them $hich are valid and so its im%ortant to (e a(le to tell $hich are $hich. And the method that he used is a method called counter e7am%les and so that*s $hat $e are going to (e tal&ing a(out. ?alidit) II <ere is an argument - All re%u(licans are vam%ires - "ome re%u(licans come out during the da) - "o' some vam%ires come out during the da) Is this argument valid6 5es' (ecause i# those %remises $ere true then the conclusion $ould <A?! to (e true. It turns out that the #irst %remise is #alse' (ut I/ it $ere true' then the conclusion $ould <A?! to (e true. "o $hat is the #orm o# that argument6 All A*s are B*s "ome A*s are *s "o' some B*s are *s 5ou can see that this arrangement must %reserve truth no matter $hat A' B and stand #or. 1 sa)s that ever)thing that is an A is also a B And i# it is reall) true that some A*s are *s 0as 2 sa)s1 then it $ould have to (e the case that some B*s are (ecause 1 sa)s that ever)thing that is A is also B' or in other $ords' A and B are all the same thing. "o the validit) o# the argument de%ends onl) on the #orm and not on $hat is (eing said. Another $a) to %ut that is .. the validit) o# the argument is inde%endent o# the truth o# the arguments %remises. +e have another logical %ro%ert) that $e reserve #or tal&ing a(out the truth o# an arguments %remises and that is the %ro%ert) o# (eing sound. "o a sound argument is () de#inition' a valid argument $ith true %remises. 3nl) valid arguments can (e sound or unsound. An invalid argument is never sound (ecause an invalid arguments %remises can (e true (ut the conclusion can still (e #alse. It is %er#ectl) ordinar) #or a valid argument to have #alse %remises. That ;ust means it is not sound. +hat is not allo$ed is #or a valid argument to have true %remises and a #alse conclusion. In #act a lot o# $hat goes on in %hiloso%h) is %eo%le using valid arguments and then arguing a(out the soundness o# those arguments. <eres a valid

argument #or the e7istence o# 9od' (ut are the %remises true. Is it in #act sound. "o its ver) im%ortant #or us to (e a(le to distinguish (et$een the validit) o# the argument and the soundness o# an argument. Testing for Validity +e are going to (e using a ver) sim%le test #or validit)' the method $hich is &no$n as counter e7am%les. "o to determine i# an argument is valid $e need to &no$ the #orm o# the argument and $hether it is %ossi(le #or that #orm to have true %remises and a #alse conclusion. This is called a counter-example to the argument #orm and $ill loo& li&e this 0its im%ortant to note here that onl) invalid arguments $ill allo$ counter e7am%les. Its im%ossi(le to #ind a counter e7am%le to a valid argument.1 "o a counter e7am%le is an argument $ith the same structure or #orm as the original argument (ut $here the %remises are true and the conclusion is #alse. I# )ou can %roduce a counter-e7am%le to an argument #orm then )ou have sho$n that ever) argument $ith that #orm is invalid. 3r that the conclusion does not #ollo$ #rom the %remise. The %remises o# an invalid argument' $hether true or not' give )ou no reason to (elieve the conclusion. A sound argument rationall) com%els )ou to (elieve the conclusion. onsider the #ollo$ing argument. - All men are mortal - "ocrate*s isn*t a man - "o' "ocrates isn*t a mortal All A*s are B*s 8o is an A "o' 8o is a B Is this argument #orm valid6 an )ou construct a counter e7am%le to this argument6 This is eas) to do This is mine (e#ore he said an)thing All oranges are #ruits 8o a%%le is an orange "o no a%%les is a #ruit. Invalid #orm@@ Then he said "ocrates is the name o# a %ig "o it $ould (e true that all men are mortal and true that "ocrates isn*t a man (ut #alse that he isn*t mortal

There#ore this argument #orm is invalid. Because $e have sho$n an e7am%le $here the %remises are true and the conclusion is #alse so $e have %roved that the #orm is invalid. "o an) argument $ith this #orm $ill (e invalid. <e gives a $hole lot o# other e7am%les. -ractice #or #inding counter e7am%les. <ere are 4 arguments' #irst #ind the #orm - #ind the things that re%eat' assign them a letter and then #ind the #orm. and then tr) and #ind a counter e7am%le to that #orm - 8o re%u(licans are li(erals -"ome li(erals $ant to legalise mari;uana -"o no re%u(licans $ant to legalise mari;uana -8o A*s are B*s - "ome B*s are -"o no A*s are 8o dogs are cats "ome cats are (ro$n "o no dogs are (ro$n no a%%les are oranges some oranges are #ruits so no a%%les are #ruits invalid ne7t e7am%le - i# I stud) hard I*ll get an A in %hiloso%h) - I haven*t studied hard - so I $ont get an A - all A*s 0stud) hard1 are B*s0I*ll get an A1 - 02e1 is not an A - so is not a B all a%%les are #ruits 8o oranges is an a%%le so oranges are not #ruits he re$rites this argument I# A then B 8ot A "o' 8ot B his counter e7am%le - i# its raining then I*ll (ring m) um(rella - its not raining so i did not (ring m) um(rella

so invalid - all murders &ill %eo%le - cancer &ills %eo%le - so cancer is a murder all a are ( all c are ( so all c are a all a%%les are #ruits all oranges are #ruits so oranges are a%%les invalid - i# I $ant an A in %hiloso%h) I need to stud) #or the e7am* - since I haven*t studied #or the e7am that means I don*t $ant an A a> i $ant an a ( > stud) #or e7am c> dont $ant an a i# a then ( not ( there#ore not a Actuall) this one is valid 8otice ho$ this is li&e the #irst one' (ut reversed' (ut that reverse ma&es all the di##erence. (ecause the #irst line is sa)ing i# a then necessaril) ( ha%%ens. so i# its not a' then it cant (e (. so )ou can loo& at this %articular argument and sa) $ell its not true that i# i $ant an a in %hiloso%h) i need to stud)' (ut that doesn*t mean the argument is invalid' it ;ust means the #irst %remise is not true. and this argument #orm is called 2odus Tollens. 2odus Tollens is Latin #or *I den)* and its named #or the second %remise $here )ou are den)ing the conse:uent. so that concludes the discussion o# logic.