logic final exam

Logic

coming from greek word logos, the study or formal reasoning. Trying to differentiate between right and wrong or true and false through correct reasoning. Exposing faulty arguments and examining assumptions. There are two forms of reasoning logic can take, deductive or inductive

Deduction

involves drawing a specific conclusion from a general statement from big to small picture. Ex. all birds have a beaks, so if I am a bird i must have a beak

Induction

involves drawing a general conclusion from a specific statement/premise. Small picture to big picture. Ex. this bird has a beak so all birds must have beaks

Aristotle on logic

discussed tools of logic in his work Organon. He was the first to suggest that logic should not be treated as a unique discipline but it should be applied in every branch of logic. He developed the three laws of thought

Aristotle’s three laws of thought

1⟹ law of noncontradiction, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Law of excluded middle⟹ something must either be or not be, there’s no other option. Law of identity⟹ something is what it is it cannot be something else

Kurt godel on logic and math

showed that some mathematical concepts cannot be proven, even if the correct rules/principles are applied. Therefore math is not a complete or finished discipline

An argument

groups of statement with premise(s) designed to justify a conclusion

Premise

factual statement or proposition

Conclusion

statement that follow premise(s)

Logical consistency

in an argument, statements that don’t contradict each other

Logical contradiction

statements that contradict each other

Abductive reasoning

seeking the simplest and most likely conclusion from observations/premises. The “best guess”

Truth VS validity

truth is the actual truth and correctness of the statement, validity is if you’re using correct reasoning/structure. If the statements are truth and the reasoning is valid, the argument is sound.

Syllogisms (general)

a formal argument consisting of a major and minor premise and a conclusion

Categorical syllogism

syllogism that states if objects belong/don’t belong in a category by going from a general premise to specific conclusion. Includes a major and minor premise, middle term, predicate term, and subject.

Disjunctive syllogism

syllogism involving choice using an either or statement. In the premise, one alternative is denied and the conclusion reaffirms the other.

Hypothetical syllogism

syllogism expressing a hypothesis always using the word if. Hypothesis followed by statement then conclusion. Automatically considered correct if it is built correctly.

Fuzzy logic

logic that operates in “shades” of truth or falseness as opposed to absolute truth

Boolean logic

opposite of fuzzy logic, results are absolute truth or falseness

Argument by analogy

type of inductive reasoning proposing similarities between items because of other similarities

False or weak analogy

type of fallacy questioning relevance, is there enough information to establish this connection?

Ockham’s razor

if you have two competing options you should choose the simpler one as it is usually the right choice (abductive reasoning). Favours the simplest solution using the fewest possible entities to solve the problem.

Fallacy (general)

flaw or fault in an argument. Trying to persuade without proper grounds for the conclusion.

Formal fallacy

structural error in deductive logic

Informal fallacy

argument that persudaes by means other than reason. Three main categories all with many subcategories. Relevance, ambiguity, and presumption

Ad Hominem fallacy

fallacy of relevance. Attacking the source of the argument often an attack against the preson

hasty generalization fallacy

fallacy of presumption. Tries to draw a broad generalization out of a specific case

Equivocation fallacy

fallacy of ambiguity. Using an ambiguous word in two or more ways in the same argument

Big questions of philosophy and science

is science truly objective? Can scientific theories be proven. Can science alone tell us what the world is truly like?

Science first order questions

how does it work?

Philosophy second order questions

why does it work?can we know the reason? Is it morally right?

Pre

socratic science of philosophy

Aristotle and the philosophy of science

first true philosopher of science. Collected specimens, observed, recorded, and classified them. Influenced christian and muslim thinkers.

Ptolemy

proposed way of thinking accepted until the late renaissance. In the geocentric solar system, earth is at the center. Fit with christian teaching about god and creation

NOMA

non overlapping magisteria; principle that says science and religion are two distinct fields of study.richard dawkins argues that these fields cannot be separate this division is caused by the religious belief in “miracles” which directly opposes science. Created by stefan jay gould. Richard dawkins criticized noma.

Paradigm shift

a paradigm is a way of thinking, a certain worldview. A paradigm shift occurs when a certain way of thinking or belief is discredited. Once you move to this new paradigm, you find the other stupid

Hume and causation

david hume dismissed our standard accounts of casualty and that our preceptions of cause and effect are grounded in habits of thinking. He created the term circular thinking to describe using induction to explain induction

Aristotle (logic)

greek philosopher who first suggested that logic should not be treated as a unique discipline but it should be applied in every branch of logic. First true philosopher of science. He developed his three laws of thought

Francis Bacon (logic)

developed the scientific method after the focus of logic switched inductive reasoning.

Kurt Godel (logic)

philosopher who showed that some mathematical concepts cannot be proven, even if the correct rules/principles are applied. Therefore math is not a complete or finished discipline.

Charles Sanders Pierce (logic)

coined abductive reasoning, a type of inductive reasoning.

Copernicus (logic)

came up with the heliocentric universe theory, later supported by Galileo and Kepler

Charles Darwin (logic)

questioned god, leading to the conflict between science and religion. Applied inductive reasoning to create his theory of natural selection. Demonstrated the significant scientific conclusions that come from collecting empirical evidence.

Thomas Kuhn (logic)

coined the term paradigm shift. Said that normal science is puzzle solving. Scientists operate within a paradigm they have been trained in. they push boundaries but never question the paradigm. Science is a lens with which we view the world and isn’t more valid than other types of knowledge.

David hume (logic)

david hume dismissed our standard accounts of casualty and that our preceptions of cause and effect are grounded in habits of thinking. He created the term circular thinking to describe using induction to explain induction

Can scientifc theories be proven/ is science objective

Thomas Kuhn - 

• coined the term paradigm shift. He believed that “normal science” is simply puzzle solving. 

• Scientists work in a paradigm they’ve been trained in. they push the boundaries of that paradigm, but never question it. 

• Science is nothing more  than another lens we use to view the world, making it no more valid than other types of knowledge. 

Materialist/scientific realist response -

•  believe that theories are able to be objectively true because the objects used for study and theorizing are separate from the scientists themselves. They base this on two claims 

1. Materiel reality exists apart from people’s mental concept of it

2. Humans have the ability to know what exists and what is true about the laws and theories surrounding it

Karl poppers response -

•  believed that ongoing effort to disprove and rebuild what we think we know about scientific theory is at the core of scientific method. 

• Science is the search for truth. Scientific theories can never be proven they can only avoid falsification

Logical positivist response

• Science is the systematic accumulation of observable facts. Therefore knowledge is amassed

• Statement of fact are meant to meaningful only if they are true by definition or have verifiable evidence

• Statements that cannot be verified are meaningless, however, very few statements meet this criteria

Heisenburg principle

• Measures of certain systems can’t be made without affecting the systems