BASIC

CONCEPTS
Yeung Chun Yin 1
SENTENCE
 Sentence ( 語 句 ): a string of words arranged in such an order that
satisfies the grammatical rules of language.

 Examples
 我吃飯 ≠ * 飯我吃 ≠ * 我飯吃
 I watched a very good film tonight. ≠ * 我看了一場很好看的電影今晚。
 你想做甚麼？ ≠ *You want to do what?
 He comes ≠ *He come

2
SENTENCE AND TRUTH
VALUE
 Some sentence has truth value ( 真值 )
 Truth / False
 Declarative use of sentence

 Bi-valance in classical logic

 A declarative sentence is either true or false
 Rule of Excluded Middle ( 排中律 )
 Sentences in other uses do not have a truth value
 俊？你邊度俊啊？﹙俊？你哪裡俊啊？﹚ → True or False?
 Oh my God! → True or False?
 Delay no more! → True or False? 3
SENTENCE
 哲學系長得最難看的老師是楊俊賢。
 楊俊賢是哲學系長得最難看的老師。

 It is raining now
 現在正在下雨

 Are they the same sentence?

 It seems not
 But they express the same meaning / They have the same content

4
PROPOSITION
 Proposition ( 命 題 ) is the information content/meaning of a declarative
sentence.
 Proposition is either true or false.
 Difference sentences in the same language may express the same proposition.
 哲學系長得最難看的老師是楊俊賢。
 楊俊賢是哲學系長得最難看的老師。

 因獲皇上連續召寢三日，瓔珞引得眾嬪妃忌妒。
 因獲皇上連續召寢三日，眾嬪妃忌妒瓔珞。

5
PROPOSITION
 Sentences in the difference language may express the same
proposition

 1+1=2
 One plus one equals two.
 Eins plus eins ergibt zwei.
 1 プラス 1 は 2 に等しい。
 一加一等於二。

6
WHY WE NEED
PROPOSITION?
 When people use different sentences, or use sentences in different
languages, sometimes we would like to say they are talking about the
same thing/they express the same meaning.
 →They may express the same argument

 Proposition → abstract

7
ARGUMENT
 What is an argument?
 Normally speaking, an argument ( 論證 ) is a set of proposition consisting
of one or more than one premise and a conclusion, where the former is
claimed to be in support of the latter.
 Two Components of an argument
 Premise ( 前 提 ): a proposition that is used to support one of the other
propositions (the conclusion).
 Number ≥ 1
 Conclusion ( 結論 ): a proposition that is claimed to be supported by other
proposition(s).
 Number = 1
8
ARGUMENT
 Basic structure of an argument:

Claimed P1. All men are mortal.

Premise(s) evidence P2. Socrates is a man.
Support

Support
What is claimed to
Conclusion follow from the C. Socrates is mortal.
evidence 9
STANDARD FORM OF AN
ARGUMENT
 To present an argument in standard form:

minimally

Premise1
Premise2 P1. Both Plato and Aristotle are great
Premise3 philosophers.
︙
Premisen (n≧1) C. Plato is a great philosopher.

∴ Conclusion
10
 STANDARD FORM OF AN
ARGUMENT
 The argument of the problem of evil:
P1. If God exists, then he is all-powerful and all-good.
P2. If God is all-powerful, he is able to eliminate all evil.
5 P3. If God is all-good, he is willing to eliminate all evil.
P4. If God is able and willing to eliminate all evil, there will be no evil
in the world.
P5. There is evil in the world.

C. Therefore, God does not exist.

11
RE-CAP
 Why we need the notion of proposition?

 Argument consists of propositions.

12
WHY WE NEED THE NOTION
OF PROPOSITION?
 Are they the same argument?

P1. All men are mortal. P1. 所有人都會死。

P2. Socrates is a man. P2. 蘇格拉底是人。

C. Socrates is mortal. C. 蘇格拉底會死。

13
WHY WE NEED THE NOTION
OF PROPOSITION?
 The study of reasoning → the study of evaluating arguments!
 What we are concerned with in logic is the logical relation between
the premises and the conclusion (whether the premises can support the
conclusion)
 So, if we express an argument in two different languages (or in two
different forms of expression), but they express the same propositions,
then the logical relation between the premises and the conclusion
would remain the same
 So we would like to say that they are the same argument

14
WHY WE NEED THE NOTION
OF PROPOSITION?
 Because the logical relation between the premises and conclusion
remains the same when we use different languages or different ways
of expressions to express the argument, if we say that an argument is a
good argument in one language / one form of expression, we should
say that it is still a good argument when expressed in other languages /
forms.
 In other words, we need not evaluate the argument again!
 So it seems reasonable to say that it is still the same argument
 So it is reasonable to define “argument” in terms of proposition

15
TWO TYPES OF
ARGUMENTS
 Deductive argument vs Inductive argument

16
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 In deductive argument ( 演繹論證 ), the premise(s) is claimed to
guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

P1. 小明跑得快過動感號。
P2. 動感號跑得快過中大校巴。

C. 小明跑得快過中大校巴。

17
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 In inductive argument ( 歸納論證 ), the premise(s) is claimed to
support the claim that the conclusion is probably true.

P1. 以前太陽每天從東邊升起。

C. 太陽明天從東邊升起。

18
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
P1. 能成為密友大概總帶着愛。
P2. 孫悟空和唐三藏是密友。

C. 孫悟空和唐三藏帶着愛。

19
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
P1. 小明買了很多碳。
P2. 小明要去燒烤。

C. 小明買那些碳用來燒烤。

20
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 Inductive Argument = 「歸納」？ From many to one ？

21
VALIDITY
 How do the premises support the conclusion in a good deductive
argument?
 The premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

 Evaluation
 Do the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion?

22
VALIDITY
 A valid argument
 The premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

 If all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
 It is logically impossible that all the premises are true but the conclusion is
false.
 The best formulation: It is logically impossible that all the premises
are true but the conclusion is false.

23
POSSIBILITY
 Technological Possibility
 Do not exceed our current technological constraints.

 Physical Possibility
 Do not exceed our physical constraints.

 Logical Possibility
 Do not exceed our logical constraints.
 A proposition is logically impossible if there is logical contradiction
 E.g. 我有去吃飯但我沒有去吃飯
 This sentence is logically impossible to be true
 All other things / sentence that would not produce logical contradiction is logically
possible
24
 POSSIBILITY
Circle-square
Circle-square

Move
Move faster
faster than
than light.
light.

Logical Possibility

Physical Possibility Westworld’s robots

Westworld’s robots

Technological Possibility 32GB

32GB USB
USB flash
flash drive
drive

25
EXAMPLES
P1: All dogs are mammals.
P2: All mammals are animals.

C: All dogs are animals.

26
EXAMPLES
P1: All dogs are mammals.
P2: Some mammals are animals.

C: All dogs are animals.

Invalid Argument!

27
EXAMPLES
P1. 小明想讀畢業後在香港最賺錢的學科
。
P2. 哲學是畢業後在香港最賺錢的學科。
Valid
C. 小明想讀哲學。
P1. 小明跑得快過火車。
P2. 火車開得比火箭更快。

C. 小明跑得快過火箭。 Valid
28
LESSON TO LEARN
 The validity of an argument is independent of whether the premises
are actually true.
 It depends only on whether the conclusion must be true, if all the
premises are true.

P1. 小明想讀畢業後在香港最賺錢的學科
。  False
P2. 哲學是畢業後在香港最賺錢的學科。
Still Valid!
C. 小明想讀哲學。 !
29
SPECIAL EXAMPLES
P1. All cats are dogs.
P2. All dogs have 4 wings.

C. All cats have 4 wings. Valid

30
LESSON TO LEARN
 The validity of an argument is independent of whether the conclusion
is true.
 就算前提結論全是假的，論證也可能是 valid 。

P1. All cats are dogs.  False

P2. All dogs have 4 wings.  False
C. All cats have 4 wings.  False Still Valid!
!
31
SPECIAL EXAMPLES
P1. 有些勇敢的人是愚蠢的。
P2. 有些愚蠢的人是好色的。

C. 有些勇敢的人是好色的。 Inval
id

32
SPECIAL EXAMPLES
 這論證是 invalid 的，因為雖然愚蠢的人中有些是勇敢的，有些是
好色的，但剛好他們並不重疊。在這情況下，前提為真但結論可
為假，而這顯示了這論證並不 valid 。

33
LESSON TO LEARN
 The validity of an argument is independent of whether the conclusion
is true.
 就算前提結論全是真的，論證也可能是 invalid 。

P1. 有些勇敢的人是愚蠢的。  True

P2. 有些愚蠢的人是好色的。  True
C. 有些勇敢的人是好色的。  True Still Invali
d !!
34
VALIDITY
 Valid argument
 Truth preserving
 If you input true premises, then it guarantees the conclusion must also be
true

35
SOUNDNESS
 But an argument is valid does not mean its premises are all true

 A good deductive argument should be..

 Valid
 With all true premises

 Then it would guarantee that the conclusion is true

36
SOUNDNESS
 An argument is sound if and only if…
 It is valid
 All the premises are true

 A good dedcutive argument should be both valid and sound

37
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 How about inductive argument?
 Should we use the same criteria to evaluate the argument?

38
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 In an inductive argument, the premise(s) is claimed to support the
claim that the conclusion is probably true.

 While in a deductive argument, the premises(s) is claimed to

guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

39
EVALUATING AN
ARGUMENT
 When evaluating a deductive argument, we evaluate the argument
from two aspects:

1. Whether the premise(s) provide enough support for the conclusion?

 Validity

2. Whether the premise(s) is true (if the argument is valid)?

 Soundness

40
EVALUATING AN
ARGUMENT
 Validity and Soundness are inappropriate criteria of evaluation for an
inductive argument.

 Because an inductive argument never claims the premise(s) guarantees

the truth of the conclusion.

 An invalid argument can thus be a good argument in the inductive

sense.

41
EVALUATING AN
ARGUMENT
 We have two parallel criteria for evaluating an inductive argument.

 Strength
Whether the premise(s) provide enough support to the conclusion

 Cogency
Whether the premises(s) are true (given that the argument is strong)

42
STRENGTH
 In an inductive argument, the premise(s) is claimed to support the
claim that the conclusion is probably true.

 So an argument is a strong argument if…

 If the premises are all true, then it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false.

 It is parallel to the definition of a valid argument:

 If the premises are all true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false 43
STRENGTH
 Here is an example of strong argument:

P1. 太陽之前每天都從東邊升起。

C. 太陽明天會從東邊升起。

 If the premise is true, then it is improbable that the conclusion is false.

44
STRENGTH
 Here is an example of weak argument:

P1. 跟我一起過的男人都是壞人。

C. 所有男人都是壞人。

 Why is it weak?
 How many men have you met?
 Even if the premise is true, it is not improbable that the conclusion is
true! 45
COGENCY
 Just like the case of valid argument, a strong argument can have false
premise(s).
 An argument is strong if its conclusion is improbable to be false, if the
premises are all true.
 So a strong argument is a good inductive argument only if its premises
are also true.

When a strong argument have all true premises, then the

conclusion is probably true.

46
COGENCY
 A cogent argument is a strong argument with all true premises.

 It is parallel to a sound argument when we evaluate a deductive

argument.

47
STRENGTH VS. VALIDITY
 2 major differences:

Validity Strength
 Black and white  A matter of degree
 An argument is either valid or  An argument can have
invalid. different degree of strength.

48
STRENGTH VS. VALIDITY
 Validity
 You cannot turn an arugment invalid by adding one more premise to the argument.

P1. 所有人都有八手八腳。
P2. 所有有八手八腳的都是八爪魚。

C. 所有人都是八爪魚。

 What premise can you add to turn this valid argument into invalid? No.

49
STRENGTH VS. VALIDITY
 Because for a valid argument, it is logically impossible that all the premises are
true and the conclusion is false, it means that you have considered all logically
possible worlds and there are no such case
 So if you add one more premise (for example ‘ 天空是藍色的’ ), now we have
to consider whether there exists a possible world in which all three premises are
true and the conclusion is false
 But the possible worlds in which the two original premises and this new premise
are true, have already been considered when there are only two premises
 Because those possible worlds where all three premises must also be possible
worlds in where all two original premises are true

50
STRENGTH VS. VALIDITY
 Strength
 You may turn a strong argument into a weak one, simply by adding one more premise.

P1. 接受調查的 5000 個中大學生都擁有手提電話

。
P2. 小強是中大學生。

C. 小強有手提電話。
 This is a strong argument.
 But it will become a weak argument if we add the additional premise “ 小強有手
提電話敏感” .
51