Right now, we're onto the third week now, and this week we're going to learn how to identify and how to analyse arguments and how to set them out.
Logic, books, style.
And the point of doing this is it enables you to get rid of all sorts of things that were relevant to the argument and you set up the arguments.
So the structure of the argument is very clear. That way it's much easier to evaluate.
Okay, let's get started. Okay, just a brief recap, as usual, on last week.
If you remember, we looked at the fact that there are two basic types of argument, deductive and inductive.
And we saw that deductive arguments are such that.
Come on, tell me. Don't look at your handouts. Tell me what a deed of argument is.
How do you recognise it? Oh, woo hoo!
I'm too good. Haven't you done well? You're absolutely right. That's right.
The truth of the premise makes that the truth of conclusion certain.
Or those of you who use the word guarantee. The truth of the premise guarantees the truth as a conclusion.
Well done. That's absolutely right. Okay, then inductive arguments are such that.
Good. Okay, I can hear that you've got it as well.
I can put it slightly differently this week because if you remember last week we got into trouble with the
way I phrase this is more or less because we don't want promises making less probable the conclusion,
do we? So I've said the truth of the premise makes the truth of the conclusion more likely.
And of course, as you know, it's either much more likely, as in the case of the sun has risen in there every day in the whole history of the universe.
Therefore, it's likely it'll rise tomorrow. And it's really pretty likely, isn't it?
It's almost certain or slightly more likely.
So the fact that every time you've seen me I'd be wearing earrings makes it slightly more likely that the next time you see me,
I'll be wearing earrings. So the the whereas deduction is an either or thing.
Induction is a matter of degree. An argument is more or less strong.
Good. We then looked at some examples of arguments that a deductively valid in virtue of their form.
And you remember I was using the PS and Qs and so on to talk about things like modus opponent's modus tolan's and so on.
So we've got if P, then Q P, therefore.
Q That's valid in Virtu its form because it doesn't matter what you're talking about.
It doesn't matter what sentences you put in for P or Q if these, if the structure of the argument is if P then Q P therefore.
Q It will be valid. Okay, so then we looked at some arguments.
Does the deductively valid in virtue of their contents. Can you remember any of those.
This is a bit harder because they were only examples that we gave. Not quite sure.
Lying is wrong, therefore we shouldn't lie. Exactly.
Do you see how that is? If that's a deductively valid argument, it's in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong, isn't it?
Lying is wrong. Therefore, we shouldn't lie. So the thought is that if you understand the word wrong properly, you'll see that if lying is wrong.
If you believe lying is wrong, then you will also believe that you shouldn't lie.
Doesn't mean you won't lie. But it does mean that if you do, you'll feel guilty or whatever.
But that's in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong.
Could you remember any other arguments that were valid in virtue of the content, the meaning of particular words?
Um, right. I can't remember the particular example I used to, um.
I didn't think that would have been one, actually.
I might be wrong about that, but I have a feeling that was an example that I used of one of the ones that's valid in virtual form.
OK. No, that came later.
Temporal. Yes. OK. That was one. Can you remember how that went?
OK. That's right.
It's raining today. Therefore, tomorrow it will have rained today.
Okay. And that that's because of the word tomorrow and our understanding of before and after and yesterday and today and so on.
OK, good. Then we moved onto inductive arguments and we looked at several different examples of an inductive argument.
Can you remember any of those? You mentioned wonderments ago. Yes.
What was it about Einstein? It was an argument from authority.
Good. Okay. So this man's an authority on this.
Therefore, he said this. Therefore he's an authority on this. That's a bad way of looking at it.
But but you can see it. That assumes the principle of what?
What's behind every inductive argument? Logic.
Yes. Continuity.
Yes. Can anyone put it in the way I put it last week? There's a principle that Hume is most famous for.
David Hume. He said the principle of the uniformity of of nature.
That's right. So what's happened in the past will happen in the future.
If it was like that in the past, it's going to be like that in the future.
And so that's the principle of the uniformity of nature, which underlies every inductive argument and which can't itself be argued for.
Because arguing for it takes us in a circle. Why is the future like the past?
Because it always has been. Well, again, we're relying on induction, aren't we?
OK, so we looked at some examples this week.
We're going to be learning how to identify and analyse arguments and how to set them out to logic book style.
So if you've got some arguments from this week that you had trouble analysing or you had trouble recognising,
you'll be able to use the arguments that you found this week to practise what we're going to learn today.
OK, so let's start by seeing an argument set out logic bookstall.
You're getting sick of this argument, aren't you? I'm getting sick of this argument, but here it is again, set out logic, book style.
Okay. You don't have to write out premise one in full. You can just put P one or you don't even have to put that.
You can just assume that the premises come first and then the conclusion.
But that's no argument set out logic bookstall. And you might say, well, what's the point of setting out arguments.
Logic bookstall. Has anyone got any idea why. Why do we bother setting out arguments.
Logic bookstall. Yes absolutely.
It should make it stronger because what you're doing is setting out an argument logic bookstall is just identifying the argument.
You therefore you shouldn't you shouldn't be able to make it either stronger or weaker.
All you're doing is identifying what the argument is. So we're not evaluating it at the moment.
We're just analysing it, just setting it out. Logic bookstall might social good.
Absolutely. That's that's right. What we do in setting out an argument logic bookstall is we actually identify all the premises.
So if there's this is a suppressed premise or an assumption, as Paul says,
we try and make it explicit if we can do it in order to rearrange the sentences to work on the premises.
Absolutely. It's a set format. So if you remember what was on there, you what premise.
Premise, conclusion. So we know exactly what is being argued for.
Because that's what the conclusion is, isn't it? And we know exactly what's being put forward as reasons for believing that thing.
Which are the premises. Any other ideas on this one. One, two.
And then we'll move on. That's right, because if you remember, I was asking you to identify the premises and the conclusion.
Of course, you have to be able to do that to set out an argument, logic bookstall.
But once you've done it, once you've set it out, logic Worstall, then it's obvious.
Yeah. One, two gentlemen behind you is this. Yes.
Or just going on out and it can do.
Yes. Yes. Yes. That might also come later.
Again, we'll have a look at that later on. One more. Easy to spot.
Up to a point. As we'll see, Lord Copper. OK.
I put down. That's the one we mentioned. It enables us to add suppressed premises.
It enables us to eliminate cross references, irrelevancies and inconsistent terms.
Okay. And that makes it much easier to identify the argument.
We'll go through all this. So if you don't quite understand what I mean here, don't worry about it.
Will, we'll cover it in a minute. And it makes it much, much easier to evaluate the argument, as I hope you'll see today.
Okay. Right. On the surface of it, it's easy to set out arguments, logic bookstall.
Let's try this one. You've you're familiar with this you've seen this argument before.
First of all, tell me, what's the conclusion of this argument? Tell me what the. Which is the conclusion.
Good. Edinburgh is north of Oxford. So premise one.
Good. And I'm glad you left out the words since, because that's a logical word, isn't it?
That doesn't. That's not actually part of the sentence. That is the premise.
So you were absolutely right to leave this out. OK, premiss one then.
So you're writing down Premiss one. Manchester is north of Oxford. Premies to Edinburgh is north of Manchester.
Good. And the conclusion at Dobros, north of Oxford. And you left out since and and welldone.
Those two are the logical words there, the words on which the validity of the argument hangs.
As we'll see later. But we leave them out of the identification of the premise and the conclusion.
Okay, let's try this one. What's the conclusion? Which is float.
Yes. OK. The conclusion is which float premise one. Which is a made of wood.
Wood floats. Good. Again, you left out the logical choice and that's right.
Can I just give you a warning of this? And is a logical word.
But and here is connecting which two parts of language.
I mean, two of the same parts of language. What's it connecting here to?
Two premises. Okay. But what a premises there. Sentences. So.
And here is a sentence connector. Okay.
We can connect any sentences we want here. Here it is used again connecting these two sentences.
But what about this one? Oedipus is a black and white cat.
Okay. It's and working as a sentence connective. There Oedipus is a black and white cat.
What's it connecting their two adjectives or two predicates, as we would say in logic.
So you've got to be a bit careful.
And when you see and in a sentence sometimes and will be part of the content if it's not combining two sentences, but two predicates, are you with me?
So just watch out for that. Keep keep an eye open for that.
Right. Good. Well, we've set those two out logic bookstore's. Okay.
Now try this one. Okay.
Now I'm not serious about. You're trying that one right and minute, but we are going to do that one before the end of today.
Okay. But this is another reason we set it out.
Logic bookstall because you could look straight at those arguments and you can pretty well see what the form is, can't you.
You can see the other ones. You can see whether they're good arguments, you can tell straight off.
But this is now those of you who found arguments from magazines or newspapers this week.
Were your arguments more like that one or more. Yes, I can.
This is why they're so difficult, because actually when we're in the pub arguing with each other about whether
euthanasia is acceptable or not or whether we should go for assisted suicide or not.
We had all sorts of things to our arguments. We say things like, well, if that's true, I'm a Dutchman.
What does that mean? If that's true, I'm a Dutchman, what does that mean in English?
It's not true. So when I say if that's true, I'm a Dutchman.
All I'm actually saying is that's not true. Okay. Let's see if I can think of another one.
No, I can't, because I'm doing this off the top of my head. But in English, when we're talking, we use all sorts of colloquialisms.
We add all sorts things. We add. We have all sorts of ums and ahs and ers.
And it makes it very difficult to identify the argument itself.
And that's what you're doing when you set out an argument. Logic book style is you're getting rid of all the irrelevancies.
Okay, here's a set of steps for analysing arguments.
I'm not using this microphone, by the way. Can people at the back hear me?
Yeah. Okay, here's a set of steps for analysing arguments.
We're going to follow these steps today. And I meant to actually write them out on the board and I forgot.
So you'll have to keep referring back as I ask you, what do we do next?
You'll have to keep referring back to slide eleven. Okay.
Firstly, let's look at identifying premises and conclusions. We've we've already done quite a lot of this, so this is fairly easy.
We looked to the argument indicators and I've given quite a few here and.
Then we identify. Well, okay. In identifying the conclusion. What are we looking for?
What? Tell me again what a conclusion is. Now the bit of revision.
Now, careful. What is the conclusion? It's not the reason for the truth of the other premises.
The other premises is what she said, that she isn't it. What? Stealthiness.
That's right. It's what it is you're arguing for, isn't it?
It's it's the final. You were just getting mixed up then. It's very easy to get mixed up.
And when you get mixed up, of course, you invert it, which gets everything wrong. But that's easy to do.
But the conclusion you can only tell,
which is the conclusion by looking at the function of that sentence in the argument and what the conclusion is, is the thing you are arguing for.
It's in effect, the statement you're making and then the premises are.
The supporting evidence or the supporting reasons got to be a bit careful with
evidence because they're not always their arguments rather than evidence.
Yeah, exactly. So, yeah. Okay, good. Let's here's an easy one.
Identify the argument indicators in these arguments.
What about the first one, which is the argument indicator in this one.
There are two actually since. Good. Is there another one.
Four. Well done. You're getting good at this. Okay. What about this one?
Put up your hands this time. I'm going to. Okay.
What's the argument indicator in this one. Stick your hand up if you're. Once you found it.
Because some people and I have to admit, I'm one of them.
I think quite slowly. And if people yell out it's.
They don't get a chance to think. OK, now you can all yell out together, because that's right.
Yep. Good. What about this one? Put your hands up again. Quite easy, this one, isn't it?
OK. Again, yep, there we are. And there it is.
You got them all right. Oh, it's actually the red isn't very good, is it? Can you see that?
I've marched on the mall in red. If you can't see, you'll see it on your hands out.
That's a shame. I didn't realise that the red doesn't show. Okay, now we're going to practise looking at conclusions.
We can we've done this before. So this is a difficult tool.
What's the conclusion here? What is it?
Have another shot. Don't yell out, okay? Have another look at the argument.
Remind yourself what a conclusion is. And tell me Socrates is mortal.
Yes. Why did you get that confused? I mean, there's a very good reason for getting it confused.
What is it? What or what? It's not at the end.
You are your you've been expecting to see the conclusion at the end.
Haven't you? But but as you see from this one, it doesn't need to be at the end in this one.
It's in the middle, isn't it?
So it's a remember what I say that you can only tell, which is the conclusion by looking at the function of played by a particular sentence.
The conclusion is the sentence you are arguing for. Okay, so here's the.
And it's this in red. Just as you said, Socrates is mortal.
Is the conclusion. Okay. Find the conclusion of this argument.
Now put up your hand again rather than yelling out. And don't worry, if it takes you a bit of time.
Some people just do think more slowly and that's fine. OK.
What is it that you're brilliant?
You are exactly right. Socialism was doomed to failure. OK.
As picked out in red. And what about this one?
Hands up. OK.
Would you like to have a go? Yes.
OK. They will continue to need help from industrial nations. Now here's a little hint for something that's come into you.
Remember I said that setting something out logic bookstall enables you to remove cross references, irrelevancies and whatever the other one was.
Okay, look at this one. Can you have an idea of what I meant there?
Because this put up your hand if you can. If you think you see what I can mean.
Okay. No, that's that's actually not what I mean there.
I was thinking.
I think you thought I meant in the whole argument, but actually I just mentioned they will continue to need help from industrial nations.
Just look at the conclusion there.
Can you see what I might have meant by saying we need to remove cross references and inconsistent terms and so on, these newly emerging nations?
Well done. Will continue because this they is an honour for reference, isn't it?
It takes us back to something that's already been said. And we need to identify that, because when we separate it out as the conclusion,
we're left with a statement that actually that has no meaning does it in the they will continue to need to.
Well, who's they? So we need to remove that cross reference and we'll be seeing how to do that later.
Indeed there is. And we'll be looking at that later, I think. Good. Well done.
OK. There's the conclusion, though. Picked out in red.
I'll pick it out in green next week. Yes.
Okay. That's a good idea. I'll do that. Yes, because it's already in bold.
But I could easily do it. Or I could do it in capital letters. Good.
OK. Identify all the premises of this argument.
And don't forget that they might be a suppressed premise. Now, this is going to take you a little longer.
Don't call out. You might have to write it down and put up your hands when you've identified the premises of that argument.
And a hint. There are two of them. Put up your hand when you've finished.
You'll have to paraphrase a little bit. And if you're finding that, don't don't worry about it.
If you're thinking it can't be right because I'm not using exactly the same words.
Don't worry about that. Paraphrase is fine. What you mustn't do is change the meaning of anything.
But paraphrasing it to get the grammar right or whatever is fine. OK.
Right. Would you like to tell us, sir? Yes. You must have.
Yep, okay, that's premise one, right?
Right. Socialism does not provide the incentives, the incentives are needed.
Yes, that that would do OK. Any variation on those themes?
So here it is, premise one. Incentives are needed for a prosperous economy.
Premise to socialism did not provides incentives. Conclusion.
Socialism was doomed to failure. OK. Do you see where both those premises come from?
OK. They're needed. Which one is this suppressed premise? Yes, that's right.
The first one was suppressed in the original argument. But. But it's made explicit as we set out the argument logic bookstall.
And if you had any variation on this theme, that's fine, so long as it has the same meaning.
Does anyone want to cheque some? A prosperous, a prosperous economy.
Is needed. Well, I think what you'll think, well, is this what you're thinking of doomed to failure?
I mean, you want something like you will only succeed if you have a prosperous economy, don't you?
OK. That's really. You've got that in premise one, haven't you?
Or you can have something like you have succeeded only a you if you have a prosperous economy.
You could add that, OK. You don't need to me. I mean, quite honestly, if you make explicit everything, you might find yourself.
That my mobile. No, it's yours. Good but bad.
But better than this being mine. So sunset. Not everybody would think that not everybody was quite prosperous economy.
I completely accept your point. I think you could easily add another premise and then you could say prosperous companies are needed for success.
Incentives are needed for prosperous economies. Socialism did not provide incentives.
Therefore, socialism was not a success or something.
Do you see, I we could easily have added that one in as well and made explicit to suppress the premises.
Yep. Fair enough. Okay. Anyone else have anything. Not quite.
This. No. OK, good. Let's do it again with this one.
So since many newly emerging nations do not have the capital, resources needed is necessary for sustained growth.
They will continue to need help from industrial nations. You'll find actually, as you practise at this, it gets much, much easier.
And another trick is if you're not quite seen, it is to identify, identify the sentences that make up the premise.
If if you can I mean, here you've only got one sentence and then see what else you need to make.
Make an argument. OK, let's let's try some menu.
OK. So many newly emerging nations will continue to need help.
Yep. And you won't have anything different. Yes, that's certainly implicit in that argument, so you can make it explicit if you like.
Yep. OK. Well, no.
Now, now, now you've got to be careful, because when you're identifying the premise, don't put in anything that you happen to believe.
What you're doing is you're identifying the argument that whoever it is that wrote this is making now,
we haven't we're not yet evaluating the argument. We may decide that they're wrong in all sorts of ways.
But what we don't do is add things on.
All we're doing here is sticking to the meaning of the original.
We can paraphrase, but we mustn't change the meaning to change.
The meaning is really bad. Really, really bad.
OK. Is there anything else that anyone wants to try this.
Oh yes. One more resources.
Yup. Okay. And when when you're writing suppressed premises, try and be careful not to add more than you need for the argument that.
I mean, let's have a look. Let's see what I put down. And then let's see whether we still need that.
So I've put down many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources.
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations.
Conclusion many newly emerging nations will need help from industrial nations.
Well, is it? Now, remember, in the very first week, we looked at the difference between implication and entailment.
Does anyone remember what the difference between implication and entailment is?
And don't worry if you do it, because it's it's a very sophisticated distinction.
But it's important to realise if we've got an if then statement, all we asserting either is the antecedent the if clause or the consequent.
The then close. Or are we just saying if P, then Q.
We're not actually claiming that P or Q Alwi. If we say if P, then Q.
Are you with me? So. So is there a conclusion in if P, then Q.
Is does something of that structure have the premise and conclusion's structure that would make it an argument?
No, it doesn't, does it? What it has is two sentences combined with the logical phrase if then.
But actually, you're you're not claiming anything and you're not backing up anything by offering reasons.
So it's not an argument. It's an implication. Do you understand that Prospero's industrial nations.
And that would be a case of putting in a suppressed premise too far from my perspective.
And I think that's because we we haven't specified what help they need here.
We're just saying. OK.
You've got. If not, then that and that saying the F is.
True, if you like, so then that we don't actually need to spell out what that is.
I can see why you want that, but I would say it's not necessary for the argument.
World. You can just say what? Well, Van.
Would need help from the World Bank. You say you destroy the argument by saying, well, fine.
Well, results. Well, yes.
Did. The fact is what we're doing is we're identifying the argument.
We're not evaluating it yet. Do you see? Do you see the difference?
We're just identifying it. Then we evaluate it. So we do have to let the content go.
But he is quite right that if there is another suppressed premise that that's needed for the argument, we need to bring it out.
But I don't think that was one of them. Premise, the third one would be that the industrial nations have a spare capital.
Well, it's this argument saying what sort of help they need from.
I mean, I agree it's an implication there, but I don't think it's. OK.
So it could be that instead of it will need help, we should change that help to capital resources.
Do you see what I mean? So so it would then read many new names, emerging nations do not have capital resources.
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need capital resources from industrial nations.
Do you see what I mean? And then they in the same way would say many newly emerging nations will need capital
resources from sustain so that we would be getting the premise that you want in.
By removing inconsistent terms rather than by adding another premiss.
But. But I'm saying it is. Well, I'll tell you what. Let's come back to this when we've looked at inconsistent terms.
Because I hope then I'll be able to convince you that it is actually in there.
It's just in there in an inconsistent way. OK. But but do remind me to come back.
This is from industrial.
Well, no, because the conclusion is that they will need help. I mean, don't forget, the premises may be false.
I mean, nobody's saying that the premises are true at the moment. We're just wanting to identify the premise that, well,
that's we worry about later when we're not evaluating the arguments at the moment, we're just analysing it.
We're putting down exactly what was said in the argument or what was said and what was implied in the argument.
Why? Well, I think if we change that to capital resources, it does say that.
I mean,
aren't we implying in this argument that the help that the industrialised nations are giving to the newly emerging nations is capital resources?
Yes, absolutely, yes. But that's why when when we get round to removing inconsistent terms, which we haven't got round to yet.
That's one of the things we would want to make explicit.
So there are different ways of making things explicit. One is by adding suppressed premises.
And another is by by removing inconsistent terms.
And well, I've already promised we'll come back to this argument when we've done that and make sure that we're clear on that.
I wouldn't not at the moment, I wouldn't.
OK, now you've done so well. We're going to try. The really complicated argument.
Okay. We'll do that for the rest of this session. Here's the argument.
Okay. This is the one by the end of this session, you will have analysed this argument and seen how it works.
Okay. Firstly, identify the conclusion of this argument.
Okay. Right. Who wants to. Who hasn't had to go. Would you like to have a go.
What's the answer. Oh sorry. I was asking the lady the.
You deserve to get stretched. There's a bit more to it than that.
That is part of the conclusion. Well, it's not if you tickler tummy's it, it's if you if.
OK. Somebody is somebody else. She didn't just she didn't want you to tickle a tummy, OK?
Nope, wrong. So if the cool thing did.
Absolutely as the whole sentence.
It's actually a conditional conclusion, if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
So it's not that you deserve to get scratched on its own because it's you only deserve to get scratch.
If she did want you to tickle her tummy. Do you see what I mean?
That's the whole thing is a conditional conclusion.
And you said something like, if you tickled to me and I wasn't sure whether you were leaving out there, if she wanted you to tickle her tummy,
because actually that's that's very important because there's a big difference between you tickled her tummy and she wanted you to tickle her tummy,
isn't there? And for the purposes of this argument, that's actually quite an important difference.
So the conclusion and I said there was a nice large argument indicator right in front of it and here it is.
So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
That's the conclusion. OK, everyone happy with that?
Can you see that the fact that it's a conditional sentence, a complex sentence doesn't stop it from being a conclusion because a conclusion is what?
Again, it's it's the declaim for which you're arguing.
That's right. It's a statement you're making and that you're backing up with reasons.
OK. What's the next thing we do? Having identified the conclusion, we identify the premises.
OK. Identify the premises of that argument. Yes.
Yes. There's sometimes within an argument. You get sort of sub arguments, but don't worry about that.
Treat it as a premise, not a conclusion. Okay. I think we're getting there.
I'm going to reveal what I've got. And then you can tell me if you've got something else.
Okay. This is premise one. Well, perhaps she didn't want you to take all her tummy or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
Now, I've just realised that I've I've misled you in something because I can.
I praised you for leaving out the argument indicators, whereas actually the only argument in the cases I want you to leave out of that,
since this is in full force and so on, this or here is making this these two sentences into a complex sentence.
So it's you should leave that in. OK.
So the premise that you can see the structure that can't you P or Q So the or is part of it.
Yeah. No you mustn't.
The only one you can actually separate like that is and because if you have P and Q then just two separate premises will do.
But if you have P or Q do you see that the or is rather different isn't it logically.
You can't just have one. If, if I say look, here's a way of doing it.
And we're taking. If I've got a pen. Yes. Right.
We're moving ahead a little bit here and what I'm going to tell you. So if you start getting confused, just stop your ears up.
When we eventually get round to evaluating arguments, what we try and do is to set out the conditions under which each premise is true.
So we can then set out the conditions under which they're all true together.
Okay. Don't worry about how we do that at the moment. It's just that's what we try and do.
Now, if I look at P and Q, I can say, well, this is true.
This whole sentence is true, isn't it? If there's one world in which P is true and Q is true, is that right?
Do you see intuitively that. So what is it for P and Q to be true.
Well it's for P to be true and Q to be true in the same world or in the same situation if you prefer.
So I can represent it just with one line and putting P and Q on the same line.
Whereas if I say P or Q I can't do that can I.
P or Q is true just in case. What's your eyes appears true or Q is true, or sometimes both.
So I'll have to draw two lines and put P on one line and Q on the other wouldn't I.
In order to say P or Q, so they have the different words, different logical words.
And you see how if I separate the P and Q in one premiss, it doesn't really matter.
Whereas if I separate the P or Q, it does matter because then I've only got one on each line.
So I must keep it together.
In fact, what I should do is keep them all together just because at this moment you don't know what the difference between and and or and so on is.
So. Any any complex sentence. Just keep them together.
OK. Did anyone have something different from that other than just separating the two sentences and then actually you're separating the two sentences,
was because I misled you in the beginning, so don't knock yourself for that.
Just saying my complete confusion. I can't understand why not separate.
I could understand if there was some sort of dependence on the other part.
There doesn't seem to be any. Well, what. Think about what we're doing here.
Do you remember I said we've got to keep the meaning. The meaning has got to be the same whatever else we do.
Now, this sentence is saying either this is true, all this is true.
Is that right? OK. So if we separate them, so we've lost the all.
We've just got this is true. And this is true just she did not want you to take and it doesn't matter whether she realises what you're doing or not,
she still doesn't want you to take her. So they still stand independently. Regardless, they there are two independent senators.
I completely agree you. I mean, it might be true that she did what you didn't want you to tickler,
and it might be true that she didn't realise that you were going to take her. But what this sentence says is that either this or this.
And that's what we have to get. I mean, I'll tell you what. OK.
So so the premise of the argument is we start off with either this or this.
Do you remember the first when we were doing the arguments on either side?
We'll look at P or Q P.
Sorry, not P, therefore. Q Okay.
Do you remember that argument, P or Q not P, therefore.
Q I understand. Okay. It's not the same here.
What. OK. One. OK. Now I'm not understanding why not. There is a statement which she doesn't want you to take a look at me.
Now if that is the case, it doesn't matter whether she realised you wanted to see me or not.
Her reaction was independent of knowing. But why is that a problem?
Because remember here, the two sentences are completely independent of each other.
We talked about it. It's if it's it's either sunny or rainy.
Now, that shouldn't give you the. Because we could say it's either sunny or windy.
But you can't say if it's sunny, then it's not windy.
But we haven't said that. If then is completely different from or if there is a different logical claim.
So what was this, again, the right time? No, no, I'm sure you're not the only person who's confused by this.
All this has here is either this is true or this is true.
The next witness and this says this isn't true.
Therefore, this must be. So listen to the logic again. Either this or this.
Sorry, I ultra either this or that. Not.
This therefore that. And it doesn't matter what this all that is.
Do you see what I mean? So so here we say she didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise what you were going to do.
She didn't want you to tickle. There he is.
Well, yeah, but yeah, but hang on. This is old, but nothing follows from this is only one premiss.
We've got to get the whole argument before anything follows. You don't have to be able to do that.
No, I was just using that to illustrate that the all can stand between two.
Two Independents sentence's. Doesn't matter what the sentences are, their content is irrelevant.
OK. If you still don't understand that CMA offers a is anyone else still bothered by that?
Put your hands up if you want me to go over that again. No.
OK. See me afterwards. If you're still hung, goes it OK?
Does anyone have anything else for Premiss one than this other than having divided the two up?
No. OK. Good. Premise two. If she didn't realise, then you obviously went about it in the wrong way.
Does anyone have something different for that? No premise three.
In that case, you deserve to get scratched unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat, should understand what Wolf meant.
Roll over. Sorry, say that again.
Why do you think that space you deserve? What you is unless you really thought you were such a.
Well,
because remember that you're not evaluating the argument at this point or what you're doing is you're trying to capture the meaning of each premise.
If you left out in that case, you deserved to get scratched.
Unless. So you just have.
Unless you just have unless you really thought she was such a perceptive, got all that [INAUDIBLE], and that's not even a sentence, is it?
In order to be a premise, it has to be a sentence. It might be a complex sentence, but it has to be a sentence.
Yep. You want to have anything different there? No good.
You're doing very well. Premise four, if you thought that you're an idiot but you're not an idiot.
You're just twisted. Anyone have anything different for that?
If you thought that you were sorry, what did you have? OK.
OK. At this point, I actually sympathise with your having left that out and you'll see why in a minute.
But you shouldn't have left it out at this point because it is actually in there.
So. So you should put it in. What are you going to say?
Well, I was like, OK, at the moment we're not removing irrelevancies, but perhaps when we do, we'll take this out.
But at the moment, we'll leave it in. Okay. But but your intuition that it's irrelevant is is a good one.
As you'll see in a minute. Okay. So there's the arguments set out, logic books style as it actually stands at the moment.
But of course, we haven't finished at the moment because we need to remove all sorts of bits and pieces.
So on your list of the steps to set out an argument logic bookstall, what's the third step?
We've identified the premises and the conclusions. What do we do next. Sorry.
Right. Actually, I'll tell you now there aren't any suppressed premises so.
So we don't have to worry with that here. What's the next step. Remove irrelevancies.
Okay. Let me see how we've done that.
Okay. What we need to do is take each premiss separately.
Now the nice thing about having identified the premises and the conclusions separate is we can treat each one separately now.
We do not have to do them all all at the same time. And that that's helps us.
So let's look at Premiss one and let's remove the irrelevancies from Premiss one.
Just get rid of any words that are not contributing to what that sentence means.
This is just bits of fluff, if you like. Well, yes, that can go Cantet.
I mean, that doesn't do anything. What else? Anything else?
Perhaps. I think perhaps I can go as well. Yes. Okay. There's one more word I'd get rid of.
Actually. Not all.
No, tell me. Who said tell me?
Yeah, you can get rid of Tommy. Can't you?
So what you've got is she didn't want you to take her or she didn't realise that was what you were going to do.
So here we are. The green is green is in the red. Okay.
So if we get rid of well, perhaps and Tommy, we've got she didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
Okay. Let's try premise to.
What have you got then? And obviously, if she didn't realise, then I'll leave then.
Yes. But they obviously can go concert. The obvious is just a bit of, you know, whether it was obvious or not is completely irrelevant.
It might not have been obvious. It wouldn't really matter, would it?
Okay, so we take out the obviously next premise three you'd take out only really unless you really thought you can certainly take out.
Really? Yeah. Not in that case, why not in that case?
Can anyone exactly the reverse?
It says if this if that is true, then something so in that case is really very important.
Okay, I'll show you what I'd take out. I'd take out the lot. Yep.
In that case, you deserved to get scratched, because actually, if you look at the fourth premiss,
which I'd also take out completely, if you thought that you're an idiot but you're not an idiot, you're just twisted.
This is this is just a little insult that somebody is putting into the arguments in order to ram it home, isn't it?
Oh, come on, you idiot. You can't not believe this. Which means what?
Well, it means just this, doesn't it? If I say P and you're an idiot.
If you don't believe it. What? What am I saying? Just on the whole.
Well, yes. I'm also saying you're an idiot if I put it that way. But it so premises for previous for can go completely and premise three to see that.
Let's go back to the whole argument.
Okay, and let me read it out to you, because it's sometimes much easier if you ever find you're having trouble with an argument,
try reading it out loud, because that'll the tone you put on.
It will give you much better idea of of where you're going with the logic.
So let's read it out. Well, perhaps she didn't want you to tickler her tummy or she didn't realise that's what you
were going to do if she didn't realise and you obviously went about it in the wrong way.
In that case, you deserved to get scratched.
Well, unless you'd really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she'd understand more fulfilment rolled over.
But if you thought that you're an idiot, you're not an idiot. You're just twisted.
So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
You see this? This actually cancels itself out from here because you're saying let's let's look at the structure of it.
P. Unless. Q Okay.
Q Is you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that you should understand.
Wohlforth meant roll over. Okay. If if you thought so.
If Q. Then you're an idiot.
If cu, then, ah. But not off.
And you're just twisted is just an insult added on p unless.
Q If cu then all but not all. Can you see how that all cancels each other out.
P Unless. Q. If Q.
Then all but not all. So it all just becomes.
But but again, don't worry about the figures. The letters I've put in here.
Just do it in a row. Try reading it out and see what really counts.
Okay, let's. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies.
Oh, okay. One more thing. The conclusion I've just taken out the tummy again because we took out the tummy from the first premise.
So do it in the confusion. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies removed.
And I hope you agree it starts to look much more simple, much easier to evaluate.
She didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do if she didn't realise.
Then you went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserved to get scratched.
So if the poor thing did want you to take her, you deserved to get scratched.
But let's continue. What's the next step? So question first. It could be a conclusion.
But don't forget, anything could be a conclusion, a conclusion is just the role that something plays in an argument.
And in this argument, this is not playing the role of a conclusion.
It is perhaps playing the role of a sub conclusion. But but this is the conclusion.
You seem again, remember that the conclusion is that for which you are arguing and that's the only thing that makes this a conclusion.
But you're absolutely right. That could play the role of of a conclusion.
OK, what's the next step? No removing consistent terms.
OK. And cross references. OK. Inconsistent terms.
What do we mean by inconsistent terms? Well, if we go back to that argument that we were looking at earlier.
OK, this one. Do you see how people wanted to have another premiss in there?
Something about industrial nations need to give emerging nations capital the capital resources or whatever it was.
If we look rounds to this one, if a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources,
it will need help from industrial nations. What does this it need help mean?
It will need what's what's the help that is implied here?
Capital Resources. So we're using two different terms for capital resources, aren't we?
Here we're using capital resources and here we're using just help.
But actually, they mean the same thing, don't they? So actually, the way this argument,
we can reveal the argument much more carefully by saying many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources.
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need capital resources from industrial nations.
Many newly emerging nations will need help, need capital resources from emerging nations.
Could you use powder then? Can you use what sorry pronoun, like they said, is the.
Well, you couldn't use them there. Well, it may. Many newly emerging nations will need.
Oh, then you mean capital resources. I see. I'm sorry. No.
What? Well, what you're aiming to do is to reveal the structure of the argument.
And you do that by getting rid of as many things that are distracting you from the structure of the argument as you can.
And one of the things that's distracting you here is the fact that's two different words or phrases are used for the same thing.
So what you do is you change them so that they you've using the same word throughout the arguments.
Now, you could just use many newly emerging nations do not have help.
Help is necessary for sustained growth. I mean, this suggests we shouldn't use help, doesn't it?
Okay, so let's use capital resources instead. Then is actually a pronoun that you on the whole, you're trying to get rid of rather than put in.
So I wouldn't use that. But I see why you wanted to.
OK. Do you see what I mean about removing inconsistent terms?
Have I convinced you you were right about what the.
So you need to book. So that should be capital resources. Yes.
Yes. You were right about that. But I hope I was right that that wasn't a suppressed premiss.
It's a matter of an inconsistent term needing to be removed or needing to be made consistent.
So let's try it with this. The argument we're looking at now, I've now forgotten which side we were on.
You know, I was just explaining what inconsistent terms are. OK?
That's what an inconsistent term is. What about a cross reference?
If we've got Marianne always wears jeans on Friday, she is wearing jeans.
Forgotten what they own. What do we got there that we could? It's like an inconsistent term.
This is not the jeans, but she because she is referring to Marianne.
So either make both she that would be fine, but but it might fall down elsewhere in the argument or make both Marianne.
So remove the she and make it explicit that you mean Marianne.
So let's try that in this premiss. Now I'm just got a hint here.
We're going to leave the she in here because throughout the argument, it's she isn't it?
We're never introduced to the cat's name. We don't know what her name is and nor is she referred to as the cat at any point or anything like that.
So in fact, this isn't an inconsistent term.
It's consistent throughout, even though it's exactly the sort of thing that you would usually be removing.
OK. So she didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
Anyone can see anything that once you want to put put up your hand.
If you see something that you'd like to remove, she didn't want you to take her or she didn't realise you were going to tickle her.
That was what you were going to do. Stands in for.
You were going to tickle her, doesn't it? We're not changing the meaning, but by making those two terms consistent.
We're just making explicit something that in the original premise is left implicit inheritors.
She didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that you were going to tickle her.
I'd left that out. But that doesn't matter. OK. You won't have any problems with that?
No. OK, let's move on. What about premiss, too? If she didn't realise, then you went about it in the wrong way.
Very nearly. Right. The first bit was certainly right. If she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, you.
Did you see you need to add this in because otherwise,
if you didn't if she didn't realise isn't actually a sentence, is it, until you add you were going to tickle her.
So you complete that sentence by adding that in. What about the second half?
Anyone have any ideas here? Then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way.
Yes, something like that. Keep it as similar as possible, because all you're doing is trying to get rid of the complications.
You're trying to make it as simple as possible so as to reveal the structure of the arguments.
And you do that by getting rid of all the things that that are just confusing you.
So if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way.
Okay. Anyone any questions about that? Good premise.
Three. Good. Well done. In that case, refers back to the previous premise, doesn't it?
And it says if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched.
There's two quite separate sentences, aren't there? You are going to tickle her in the wrong way.
And she didn't realise you were going to tickle her. Now, those are different sentences.
You mustn't complete them because actually they matter to the arguments as very much so.
OK. Any other questions about premies? Three. No.
Let's move on. What about the conclusion? It's an easy one, isn't it?
Okay. If she did want you to tell her you deserved to get scratched.
Okay. So we take out the poor thing and put in she. Okay.
Question. Yes. Does the conclusion have to stand as a sentence that makes sense?
Me from the very beginning. Well, I want you to take her.
You deserve to get scratched. Doesn't make any sense. Yes, it does.
What makes what does that tell you? She wanted you to take. You deserve it.
Well, if the poor cat wanted you to tickle her. Oh, I see.
You think. OK. If she wanted you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched.
Isn't isn't. Isn't it. Okay. I see where you're going.
It is a sentence but your wanting. Okay.
Shall I tell you what you're doing. And I completely sympathise with what you're doing.
And what's more, you are not the only person in this room who's doing it. You're probably the only person who's got the courage to question me on it.
What you're doing is you're trying to put the logic in here, okay?
You're you're trying to to make this you're trying to make it all follow so that it makes sense as an argument.
And what you should be doing is just trying to identify what is said here.
What do you want to put in is this. I think so. If she did want you to tickle her.
But you went about it in the wrong way or something like that, then you deserve to get scratches.
Is that right? The conclusion is that there's a missing link to the premises for me.
But. But the conclusion. Yeah, you're wrong.
Okay. That's all I'll say right now. You're wrong.
And what you should do is have a look at the argument so that we can even if you're still thinking that if you still don't see what I'm saying,
come and see me next week and I'll I'll explain again. This will convince you.
I'm going to reveal the structure of this argument by formalising it.
And if that doesn't convince you, nothing will. Okay.
We're going to put it into P's and Q's and it'll be a revelation to you how putting it into P's and Q's will make it make much more sense.
OK. What we've got to do is identify each of the constituent sentences of the argument and assign it a sentence letter.
Now, have I gone? No account on this. OK, let's look at Premiss one.
We've got to identify the constituent sentences of that premiss and assign it a letter.
So just looking at Premiss one, what are the constituent sentences?
What's the first one? She didn't want you to tickle her.
OK. And the other one, she didn't realise you were only going.
To tickle her. Okay, well, here are two sentences.
Let's provide them with sentence letters. I'd ask you which ones you wanted, but I want you to choose certain ones so you can choose either P or Q.
And I'd rather not P for this one.
Good. Okay. What? What about the next one? Q Well done.
Good choices I have to say. Okay. So whenever we use the sentence letter P, that that means that sentence is just standing in for that sentence.
Okay. And whenever you use the sentence that a Q that just stands in for that sentence.
Okay. It's dead simple. Nothing magical about these things at all.
And the reason we use capital letters from this side. This part of the alphabet that's just conventional.
Well, if we use capital letters like F, G, etc., we tend to use them for other parts of the language.
And if we use lowercase letters like A, B, C, that's for another part of language.
So there is a conventions about which part of language used for which sentence letters.
So that's why I want you to use letters from here. Okay, so Premiss one has two constituent sentences.
She didn't want you to tickle her and she didn't realise you were only going to take her.
And we've labelled them P and Q Okay. Previous to what the constituent sentences in this letter.
This one was the first one. She didn't realise you were only going to Tickler.
Well, we've got that already, haven't we? So we don't need to put that down. What about the other one?
You were going to take her in the wrong way, okay? You were going to tickle her in the wrong way, okay.
It needs a sentence letter. What should we have? Oh, good.
Yes. Well done. You've got the idea here.
So you can formalise things steady easily. Okay.
That's premise too, isn't it. Good. Premise three.
Okay. You are going to take her in the wrong way. Yes, that's right.
That's Oregon. You deserve to get stretched. Okay. You deserve to get scratched.
What should we call that? Yes. Good.
Okay. And conclusion. So if she did want you to take all her.
Now, that's interesting because up here, we've got she didn't want you to take her now do it.
I'm going to put her outside the room. No, don't you.
This is. It's very good that you question things, because that's important.
We won't need another sentence lesser because what can we use instead? Not pee, can't we?
You don't you certainly don't need pee and not pee because you've got that just in having pee and the wet and the logical word not.
Okay. So if she did want you to take her, you deserved to get scratched.
Do we need anything else that says already?
Exactly. So we're here. We've got all the sentences that that make up the argument tumbly, all the sentences that that constitute the argument.
Now, I need somebody to hold this, please. Somebody come up and hold this for me.
OK, there we are. There we have an interpretation. That's what that's called an interpretation.
Now, Premiss one. What's the form of that?
There's a logical word in that that's holding together two sentences.
What are the sentences and what are the logical words, P or Q?
Good. That's premiss one, isn't it. What's premiss to. So if there's a coup, she didn't realise, okay,
if CU then not therefore your confusing implication and entailment, whoever that was, if coup then s was it.
Ah OK. Then the third premiss, if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched.
If all then s. And the conclusion is, if not, she she didn't want you.
If not P, then let W not.
Where's the not. That's not wrong.
You'll be outside here in a minute. There was no not no.
I'm putting it. I got it. I'm putting the not in front of the P because we've got P was.
She didn't want you to tickler. And the note here is if she did want you to take her.
OK. But this says you deserve to get scratched, doesn't it.
And this says you deserve to get scratched. There's no not snuck in here.
I'm saying not pee, but I'm not saying not s. Am I making you make something or do you have to put it mildly?
No, you don't. No, because.
Well, what do you put. Actually, if you use if you you know, this is if not P then s woops.
No, that's. OK.
It's only the pea that's been negated. Not the S, not the S.
OK. You get me confused now.
Hold on. We've got four minutes to go. Let let's finish. OK, that's fine, because, you know, we might need this.
Stay there. OK, so this p q r s and his premise one.
Oh I was going to make you do it like this but. So. Right. You've done it.
So. Here, so there's the whole argument, which is exactly what you've had there, what you've got there.
Whoops. I should have put a not there, shouldn't I?
And I haven't. But that's my mistake. Okay. There's only a not there.
She didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise you were going to Tickler.
Okay. That's a straightforward either or isn't it either.
This is the case. Or that's the case.
Then this says, if she didn't realise that you were going to Tickler, then you were going to Tickler in the wrong way.
Now, obviously, if you like, something's happened. She's scratched you.
Hasn't she? And somebody said if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then obviously you went about it in the wrong way.
So going about it gently, puss, puss, puss, you shoved your hand into a tummy and scratched.
So if she didn't realise you were going to Tickler, then she and the implication there is that if she had realised, you wouldn't have got scratched.
Is that right? That's the implication there.
If she had realised, you wouldn't have got scratched. OK.
No, no, we're not talking about one thing here at all. No.
But the premises are separate. The premises are completely separate.
We're looking at the meaning of each one separately. OK.
So this one, the implication is if she had realised that, then you wouldn't have got scratched.
If you're going to tickler in the wrong way, you you deserve to get scratched. Showcases the question of desserts coming in here.
And so the conclusion is, if she did want you to tickle her and you went about it in the wrong way, then you deserve to get scratched.
So the poor thing was longing for you to take her. And what she did when you did Tickler was scratch you.
Well, why did that happen? Because you went about it in the wrong way.
Have we got to have it stand in its own right and makes sense without the premises?
Is that right? I'm going to shut you up now. OK, let's.
I do. I don't want to leave on a note of confusion.
The important thing is that what we've done today is we've taken an argument that you looked at and when you looked at it, you want.
Didn't you? OK, well, I said we're going to set it out longit bookstall of all we're going to do is identify the argument.
We're going to analyse the argument, reveal its structure.
So what we've done is we've taken the argument, we identified the conclusion of the argument.
We all did that fairly easily. We identified each premise. We all did that fairly easily.
Yes. OK. We looked for suppressed premises, but I told you there weren't any.
So. So we didn't bother with that one. Then we went through each premise and we removed inconsistent terms,
cross references and irrelevancies and revealed the arguments, which might be a very bad argument for all we know.
But but we revealed the argument that was there.
What we didn't do is try and impose the argument we would have made because it would have been a better one.
On the argument that we were trying to analyse. Are you with me?
So all we've done is revealed the arguments here. We've revealed the structure.
We've even got it down to piece cues, R's and S's.
Now, what you should do for for next week is take one of the arguments that you found this week and try and do that.
And an awful lot of that's going to be removing irrelevancies, cross references and things like that and adding suppressed premises.
But it'll give you practise in doing it. And don't forget, this is the important thing.
You can apply this methodology either to somebody else's arguments, which is what we've been doing here.
And what you will do if you look at arguments from the newspaper or you can apply it to your own arguments and you
think of something for which you often argue climate change or something like that or I don't know what's up.
Okay. That's a good one. That'll do. Anyway, find something for which you like to argue in the pub,
write down your conclusion and write down your premises and try and make the argument, the argument you actually give.
So then when we start evaluating arguments, we can look at it. But you will have identified your own arguments and set it out.
Logic book style,
because people often don't do that with their own arguments and therefore don't see that they're missing out a huge premiss or that this is happening,
all that's happening or whatever. Okay. Save your home for this week.
Either take the arguments you found last week and set them out logic bookstall or
choose a client claim you'd like to make and see if you can set it out as an argument.
Logic bookstall. Okay, cool. I'm exhausted.