1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:08,580
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.
2
00:00:08,580 --> 00:00:13,700
Logic, books, style. And the point of doing this is it enables you to get rid of all sorts of things.
3
00:00:13,700 --> 00:00:20,250
The true relevance of the argument and you set out the arguments of the structure of the arguments is very clear.
4
00:00:20,250 --> 00:00:25,980
That way it's much easier to evaluate. Okay, let's get started.
5
00:00:25,980 --> 00:00:29,640
Okay, just a brief recap, as usual, on last week.
6
00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:36,970
If you remember, we looked at the fact that there are two basic types of argument, deductive and inductive.
7
00:00:36,970 --> 00:00:42,750
And we saw that deductive arguments are such that.
8
00:00:42,750 --> 00:00:47,310
Come on, tell me. Don't look at your handouts. Tell me what a deductive argument is.
9
00:00:47,310 --> 00:00:53,390
How do you recognise it? Oh, woo hoo!
10
00:00:53,390 --> 00:00:58,470
I'm too good. Haven't you done well? You're absolutely right. That's right.
11
00:00:58,470 --> 00:01:02,700
The truth of the premise makes the truth of conclusion certain.
12
00:01:02,700 --> 00:01:08,400
Or those of you who use the word guarantee. The truth of the premise guarantees the truth as a conclusion.
13
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:18,070
Well done. That's absolutely right. Okay, then. Inductive arguments are such that.
14
00:01:18,070 --> 00:01:21,200
Good. Okay, I can hear that you've got it as well. Okay.
15
00:01:21,200 --> 00:01:25,500
I'll put it slightly differently this week because if you remember last week we got into trouble with the
16
00:01:25,500 --> 00:01:32,130
way I phrase this is more or less because we don't want promises making less probable the conclusion do it.
17
00:01:32,130 --> 00:01:37,380
So I've said the truth of the premise makes the truth of the conclusion more likely.
18
00:01:37,380 --> 00:01:46,890
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.
19
00:01:46,890 --> 00:01:52,170
Therefore, it's likely it'll rise tomorrow. And it's really pretty likely, isn't it?
20
00:01:52,170 --> 00:01:57,150
It's almost certain or slightly more likely.
21
00:01:57,150 --> 00:02:04,320
So the fact that every time you see me I'd be wearing earrings makes it slightly more likely that the next time you see me, I'll be wearing earrings.
22
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:10,740
So the the whereas deduction is an either or thing.
23
00:02:10,740 --> 00:02:17,710
Induction is a matter of degree. An argument is more or less strong.
24
00:02:17,710 --> 00:02:23,790
Good. We then looked at some examples of arguments that a deductively valid in virtue of their form.
25
00:02:23,790 --> 00:02:30,430
And you remember I was using the PS and Qs and so on to talk about things like Motus Poland's Modus Tolan's and so on.
26
00:02:30,430 --> 00:02:34,170
So we've got if P, then Q P, therefore.
27
00:02:34,170 --> 00:02:40,380
Q That's valid in Virtu its form because it doesn't matter what you're talking about,
28
00:02:40,380 --> 00:02:50,100
it doesn't matter what sentences you put in for P or Q and if these, if the structure of the argument is if P then Q P therefore.
29
00:02:50,100 --> 00:02:55,830
Q it will be valid. Okay, so then we looked at some arguments.
30
00:02:55,830 --> 00:03:04,070
Does the deductively valid in virtue of their contents. Can you remember any of those.
31
00:03:04,070 --> 00:03:16,110
This is a bit harder because they were only examples that we gave. Not quite.
32
00:03:16,110 --> 00:03:20,370
Lying is wrong, therefore we shouldn't lie. Exactly.
33
00:03:20,370 --> 00:03:30,060
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?
34
00:03:30,060 --> 00:03:38,190
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.
35
00:03:38,190 --> 00:03:42,960
If you believe lying is wrong, then you will also believe that you shouldn't lie.
36
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:48,870
Doesn't mean you won't lie. But it does mean that if you do, you'll feel guilty or whatever.
37
00:03:48,870 --> 00:03:51,690
But that's in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong.
38
00:03:51,690 --> 00:04:02,890
Can you remember any other arguments that were valid in virtue of the content, the meaning of particular words?
39
00:04:02,890 --> 00:04:10,180
Jessica. Right.
40
00:04:10,180 --> 00:04:18,550
I can't remember the particular example I used the. I didn't think that would have been one, actually.
41
00:04:18,550 --> 00:04:25,150
I might be wrong about that, but have a feeling that was an example that I used of one of the ones that's valid in virtual form.
42
00:04:25,150 --> 00:04:29,290
OK. No, that came later.
43
00:04:29,290 --> 00:04:34,880
Temporal. Yes. OK. That was one. Can you remember how that went?
44
00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:38,440
OK. That's right.
45
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:43,030
It's raining today. Therefore, tomorrow it will have rained today.
46
00:04:43,030 --> 00:04:52,300
Okay. And that that's because of the word tomorrow and our understanding of before and after and yesterday and today and so on.
47
00:04:52,300 --> 00:04:59,320
OK, good. Then we moved on to inductive arguments and we looked at several different examples of an inductive argument.
48
00:04:59,320 --> 00:05:05,230
Can you remember any of those? You mentioned wonderments ago. Yes.
49
00:05:05,230 --> 00:05:09,040
What was it about Einstein? It was an argument from authority.
50
00:05:09,040 --> 00:05:13,570
Good. Okay. So this man's an authority on this.
51
00:05:13,570 --> 00:05:18,690
Therefore, he said this. Therefore he's an authority on this. That's a bad way of looking at it.
52
00:05:18,690 --> 00:05:29,590
But you can see it. That assumes the principle of what what's behind every inductive argument?
53
00:05:29,590 --> 00:05:34,390
Logic. Yes. Continuity.
54
00:05:34,390 --> 00:05:40,060
Yes. Can anyone put it in the way I put it last week? There's a principle that Hume is most famous for.
55
00:05:40,060 --> 00:05:46,300
David Hume. He said the principle of the uniformity of of nature.
56
00:05:46,300 --> 00:05:50,740
That's right. So what's happened in the past will happen in the future.
57
00:05:50,740 --> 00:05:54,370
If it was like that in the past, it's going to be like that in the future.
58
00:05:54,370 --> 00:06:03,820
And so that's the principle of the uniformity of nature, which underlies every inductive argument and which can't itself be argued for.
59
00:06:03,820 --> 00:06:08,080
Because arguing for it takes us in a circle. Why is the future like the past?
60
00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:13,950
Because it always has been. Well, again, we're relying on induction, aren't we?
61
00:06:13,950 --> 00:06:17,290
Okay. So we looked at some examples this week.
62
00:06:17,290 --> 00:06:23,860
We're going to be learning how to identify and analyse arguments and how to set them out to logic books style.
63
00:06:23,860 --> 00:06:30,400
So if you've got some arguments from this week that you had trouble analysing or you had trouble recognising,
64
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:37,940
you'll be able to use the arguments that you found this week to practise what we're going to learn today.
65
00:06:37,940 --> 00:06:42,400
Okay, so let's start by seeing an argument set out logic bookstall.
66
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:49,620
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.
67
00:06:49,620 --> 00:06:54,630
Okay. You don't have to write out premiss one in full. You can just put P one or you don't even have to put that.
68
00:06:54,630 --> 00:06:58,930
You can just assume that the premises come first and then the conclusion.
69
00:06:58,930 --> 00:07:06,220
But that's an argument set out logic bookstall. And you might say, well, what's the point of setting out arguments.
70
00:07:06,220 --> 00:07:11,530
Logic bookstall. Has anyone got any idea why. Why do we bother setting out arguments.
71
00:07:11,530 --> 00:07:16,960
Logic bookstall. Yes, absolutely.
72
00:07:16,960 --> 00:07:23,290
Yes. What makes it so much stronger?
73
00:07:23,290 --> 00:07:30,230
It should make it stronger because what you're doing is setting out an argument logic bookstall is just identifying the arguments.
74
00:07:30,230 --> 00:07:34,900
You therefore you shouldn't you shouldn't be able to make it either stronger or weaker.
75
00:07:34,900 --> 00:07:40,540
All you're doing is identifying what the argument is. So we're not evaluating it at the moment.
76
00:07:40,540 --> 00:07:48,580
We're just analysing it. Just setting it out. Logic bookstall.
77
00:07:48,580 --> 00:07:55,790
Include assumptions, goodtimes and logic you would have to include.
78
00:07:55,790 --> 00:08:02,600
Absolutely, that's. That's right. What we do in setting out an argument logic bookstall is we actually identify all the premises.
79
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:07,100
So if there's this is a suppressed premise or an assumption, as Paul says,
80
00:08:07,100 --> 00:08:20,060
we try and make it explicit if we can do it in a sense, to rearrange the sentences, to work out what the premises.
81
00:08:20,060 --> 00:08:24,320
Absolutely. It's a set format. So if you remember what was on there, you what premise.
82
00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:28,910
Premise, conclusion. So we know exactly what is being argued for.
83
00:08:28,910 --> 00:08:35,720
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.
84
00:08:35,720 --> 00:08:39,350
Which are the premises? Any other ideas on this one. One, two.
85
00:08:39,350 --> 00:08:58,330
And then we'll move on. It's. That's right, because if you remember, I was asking you to identify the premises and the conclusion.
86
00:08:58,330 --> 00:09:02,890
Of course, you have to be able to do that to set out an argument, logic bookstall.
87
00:09:02,890 --> 00:09:06,840
But once you've done it, once you've set it out logic stall, then it's obvious.
88
00:09:06,840 --> 00:09:11,640
Yeah. One, two. Gentlemen behind you is this.
89
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:18,770
Yes. And by just building on that point, it enables you to identify what form of arguments.
90
00:09:18,770 --> 00:09:23,210
And it can do. Yes, yes, yes.
91
00:09:23,210 --> 00:09:32,830
That might also come later again, we'll have a look at that later on. One more.
92
00:09:32,830 --> 00:09:37,990
Up to a point, as we'll see, Lord Copper. OK.
93
00:09:37,990 --> 00:09:43,780
I put down. That's the one we mentioned. It enables us to add suppressed premises.
94
00:09:43,780 --> 00:09:50,320
It enables us to eliminate cross references, irrelevancies and inconsistent terms.
95
00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:54,310
Okay. And that makes it much easier to identify the argument.
96
00:09:54,310 --> 00:09:58,410
We'll go through all this. So if you don't quite understand what I mean here, don't worry about it, Will.
97
00:09:58,410 --> 00:10:07,390
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.
98
00:10:07,390 --> 00:10:15,280
Okay. Right. On the surface of it, it's easy to set out arguments, logic bookstall.
99
00:10:15,280 --> 00:10:19,450
Let's try this one. If you're familiar with this, you've seen this argument before.
100
00:10:19,450 --> 00:10:26,260
First of all, tell me, what's the conclusion of this argument? Tell me what. Which is the conclusion.
101
00:10:26,260 --> 00:10:33,030
Good. Edinburgh's north of Oxford. So Premiss one. Good.
102
00:10:33,030 --> 00:10:36,930
And I'm glad you left out the words since. Because that's a logical word, isn't it?
103
00:10:36,930 --> 00:10:41,160
That doesn't. That's not actually part of the sentence. That is the premise.
104
00:10:41,160 --> 00:10:45,150
So you were absolutely right to leave that out. OK. Premiss one, then.
105
00:10:45,150 --> 00:10:53,550
So you're writing down Premiss one. Manchester is north of Oxford. Premiss to Edinburgh is north of Manchester.
106
00:10:53,550 --> 00:10:58,460
Good. And the conclusion? Edinburgh is north of Oxford. And you left out since and.
107
00:10:58,460 --> 00:11:05,070
Well done. Those two are the logical words. They're the words on which the validity of the argument hangs.
108
00:11:05,070 --> 00:11:11,470
As we'll see later. But we leave them out of the identification of the premise and the conclusion.
109
00:11:11,470 --> 00:11:18,890
Okay, let's try this one. What's the conclusion?
110
00:11:18,890 --> 00:11:25,880
Which is float? Yep. OK. The conclusion is which float premise one.
111
00:11:25,880 --> 00:11:29,840
Which is a made of wood. Wood floats. Good.
112
00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:34,400
Again, you left out the logical choice and that's right. Can I just give you a warning of this?
113
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:44,300
And is a logical word. But and here is connecting which two parts of language and two of the same parts of language.
114
00:11:44,300 --> 00:11:50,370
What's it connecting here? To use two premises.
115
00:11:50,370 --> 00:11:57,540
OK. But what a premises, their sentences. So and here is a sentence connecter.
116
00:11:57,540 --> 00:12:03,510
Okay, we can connect any sentences we want here. Here it is used again, connecting these two sentences.
117
00:12:03,510 --> 00:12:08,500
But what about this one? Oedipus is a black and white cat.
118
00:12:08,500 --> 00:12:15,420
OK. And working as a sentence connective there, Oedipus is a black and white cat.
119
00:12:15,420 --> 00:12:21,330
What's it connecting their two adjectives or two predicates, as we would say in logic.
120
00:12:21,330 --> 00:12:29,490
So you've got to be a bit careful when you see and in a sentence sometimes and will be part of the content if it's not.
121
00:12:29,490 --> 00:12:34,260
Combining two sentences but two predicates. Are you with me?
122
00:12:34,260 --> 00:12:38,920
So just watch out for that. Keep keep an eye open for that.
123
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:42,450
Right. Good. Well, we've set those two out logic bookstores. Okay.
124
00:12:42,450 --> 00:12:46,230
Now try this one. Okay.
125
00:12:46,230 --> 00:12:52,020
Now I'm not serious about your trying that one right and minute, but we are going to do that one before the end of today.
126
00:12:52,020 --> 00:12:54,720
Okay. But this is another reason we set it out.
127
00:12:54,720 --> 00:13:01,170
Logic book style, because you can look straight at those arguments and you can pretty well see what the form is, can't you?
128
00:13:01,170 --> 00:13:05,340
You can see the other ones. You can see whether they're good arguments. You can tell straight off.
129
00:13:05,340 --> 00:13:14,880
But this is now those of you who found arguments from magazines or newspapers that this week were your arguments more like that one or more?
130
00:13:14,880 --> 00:13:18,180
Yes. Again, this is why they're so difficult, because actually,
131
00:13:18,180 --> 00:13:25,080
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.
132
00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:31,740
We had all sorts of things to our arguments. We say things like, well, if that's true, I'm a Dutchman.
133
00:13:31,740 --> 00:13:37,050
What does that mean? If that's true, I'm a Dutchman.
134
00:13:37,050 --> 00:13:41,310
What does that mean in English? It's not true.
135
00:13:41,310 --> 00:13:46,920
So when I say if that's true, I'm a Dutchman. All I'm actually saying is that's not true.
136
00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:53,040
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.
137
00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:58,080
But in English, when we're talking, we use all sorts of colloquialisms. We add all sorts of things.
138
00:13:58,080 --> 00:14:07,650
We add. We have all sorts of ums and ahs and ers. And it makes it very difficult to identify the argument itself.
139
00:14:07,650 --> 00:14:16,530
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.
140
00:14:16,530 --> 00:14:20,600
OK, here's a set of steps for analysing arguments.
141
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:24,750
I'm not using this microphone. By the way, can people at the back hear me?
142
00:14:24,750 --> 00:14:29,360
Yeah. Okay, here's a set of steps for for analysing arguments.
143
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:36,890
We're going to follow these steps today. And I meant to actually write them out on the board and I forgot.
144
00:14:36,890 --> 00:14:40,580
So you'll have to keep referring back as I ask you, what do we do next?
145
00:14:40,580 --> 00:14:45,650
You'll have to keep referring back to slide eleven. Okay.
146
00:14:45,650 --> 00:14:52,970
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.
147
00:14:52,970 --> 00:15:00,110
We look for the argument indicators, and I've given quite a few here and.
148
00:15:00,110 --> 00:15:04,670
Then we identify. Well, OK. I didn't find the conclusion. What are we looking for?
149
00:15:04,670 --> 00:15:16,420
What? Tell me again what a conclusion is. Another bit of revision.
150
00:15:16,420 --> 00:15:23,560
Now, careful. What is the conclusion? It's not the reason for the truth of the other premises.
151
00:15:23,560 --> 00:15:32,240
The other premises is what she said, that she isn't it. What? That's right.
152
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,430
It's what it is you're arguing for, isn't it?
153
00:15:35,430 --> 00:15:39,920
It's it's the final. You were just getting mixed up then. It's very easy to get mixed up.
154
00:15:39,920 --> 00:15:45,050
And when you get mixed up, course, you invert it, which gets everything wrong. But that's easy to do.
155
00:15:45,050 --> 00:15:47,090
But the conclusion you can only tell,
156
00:15:47,090 --> 00:15:56,090
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.
157
00:15:56,090 --> 00:16:03,830
It's in effect, the statement you're making. And then the premises are.
158
00:16:03,830 --> 00:16:08,360
The supporting evidence or the supporting reasons got to be a bit careful with
159
00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:14,520
evidence because they're not always their arguments rather than evidence.
160
00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:21,920
Yeah, exactly. So, yeah. Okay, good. Let's here's an easy one.
161
00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:25,490
Identify the argument indicators in these arguments.
162
00:16:25,490 --> 00:16:32,090
What about the first one, which is the argument indicator in this one though are actually since.
163
00:16:32,090 --> 00:16:35,950
Good. Is there another one four. Well done.
164
00:16:35,950 --> 00:16:42,280
You're getting good at this. Okay. What about this one? Put up your hands. This time I'm going to.
165
00:16:42,280 --> 00:16:48,160
Okay. What's the argument indicator in this one. Stick your hand up if you're.
166
00:16:48,160 --> 00:16:56,010
Once you found it. Because some people and I have to admit, I'm one of them.
167
00:16:56,010 --> 00:17:01,070
I think quite slowly. And if people yell out it's.
168
00:17:01,070 --> 00:17:09,050
They don't get a chance to think. OK, now you can all yell out together, because that's right.
169
00:17:09,050 --> 00:17:22,000
Yep, good. Okay, what about this one? Put your hands up again. Quite easy, this one, isn't it?
170
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:26,920
Okay, again. Yep, there we are. And there it is.
171
00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:30,550
You got them all right. Oh, it's actually the red isn't very good, is it? Can you see that?
172
00:17:30,550 --> 00:17:36,400
I've marched to the mall in red. If you can't see, you'll see it on your handout.
173
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:45,530
That's a shame. I didn't realise that the red doesn't show. OK, now we're going to practise looking at conclusions.
174
00:17:45,530 --> 00:17:49,390
We can. We've done this before. So this is difficult tool.
175
00:17:49,390 --> 00:17:57,170
What's the conclusion here? What is it?
176
00:17:57,170 --> 00:18:01,550
Have another. Don't yell out, okay? Have another look at the argument.
177
00:18:01,550 --> 00:18:08,210
Remind yourself what a conclusion is. And tell me Socrates is mortal.
178
00:18:08,210 --> 00:18:12,920
Yes. Why did you get that confused? I mean, there's a very good reason for getting it confused.
179
00:18:12,920 --> 00:18:18,920
What is it? What or what? It's not at the end.
180
00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:23,590
You are your you've been expecting to see the conclusion at the end, haven't you?
181
00:18:23,590 --> 00:18:27,710
But but as you see from this one, it doesn't need to be at the end in this one.
182
00:18:27,710 --> 00:18:31,610
It's in the middle, isn't it? So it's.
183
00:18:31,610 --> 00:18:40,190
Remember what I say that you can only tell which is the conclusion by looking at the function of played by a particular sentence.
184
00:18:40,190 --> 00:18:46,970
The conclusion is the sentence you are arguing for. Okay, so here's the.
185
00:18:46,970 --> 00:18:52,160
And it's this in red. Just as you said, Socrates is mortal.
186
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:59,370
Is the conclusion. Okay. Find the conclusion of this argument.
187
00:18:59,370 --> 00:19:15,600
Now put up your hand again rather than yelling out. And don't worry, if it takes you a bit of time.
188
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:24,640
Some people just do think more slowly and that's fine. OK.
189
00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:29,650
What is it that you're brilliant?
190
00:19:29,650 --> 00:19:33,800
You are exactly right. Socialism was doomed to failure. OK.
191
00:19:33,800 --> 00:19:48,360
As picked out in red. And what about this one?
192
00:19:48,360 --> 00:20:05,860
Hands up. OK, would you like to have a go?
193
00:20:05,860 --> 00:20:09,830
Yes. OK. They will continue to need help from industrial nations.
194
00:20:09,830 --> 00:20:12,260
Now here's a little hint for something that's come into you.
195
00:20:12,260 --> 00:20:21,120
Remember I said that setting something out logic bookstall enables you to remove cross references, irrelevancies and whatever the other one was.
196
00:20:21,120 --> 00:20:25,940
Okay, look at this one. Can you have an idea of what I meant there?
197
00:20:25,940 --> 00:20:30,860
Because this put up your hand if you can. If you think you see what I can mean.
198
00:20:30,860 --> 00:20:41,420
Okay. This. No, that's that's actually not what I mean there.
199
00:20:41,420 --> 00:20:43,160
I was thinking.
200
00:20:43,160 --> 00:20:50,810
I think you thought I mentioned the whole argument, but actually I just mentioned they will continue to need help from industrial nations.
201
00:20:50,810 --> 00:20:53,270
Just look at the conclusion there.
202
00:20:53,270 --> 00:21:04,520
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?
203
00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:10,430
Well done. Will continue because this lay is an honour for reference, isn't it?
204
00:21:10,430 --> 00:21:18,410
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,
205
00:21:18,410 --> 00:21:24,620
we're left with the statement that actually that has no meaning, does it, in the they will continue to need to.
206
00:21:24,620 --> 00:21:31,140
Well, who's they? So we need to remove that cross reference and we'll be seeing how to do that later.
207
00:21:31,140 --> 00:21:36,530
First. Indeed there is, and we'll be looking at that later.
208
00:21:36,530 --> 00:21:42,820
Thank. Well done. OK. There's the conclusion, though, picked out in red.
209
00:21:42,820 --> 00:21:49,270
I'll pick it out in green next week. Yes.
210
00:21:49,270 --> 00:21:53,820
Okay, that's good idea. I'll do that. Yes, because it's already in bold.
211
00:21:53,820 --> 00:21:58,080
But I could easily do it. Or I could do it in capital letters. Good.
212
00:21:58,080 --> 00:22:03,240
OK. Identify all the premises of this argument.
213
00:22:03,240 --> 00:22:08,250
And don't forget that they might be a suppressed private now. This is going to take you a little longer.
214
00:22:08,250 --> 00:22:14,950
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.
215
00:22:14,950 --> 00:22:56,040
And a hint. There are two of them. Put up your hand when you've finished.
216
00:22:56,040 --> 00:23:01,140
You'll have to paraphrase a little bit. And if you're finding that, don't don't worry about it.
217
00:23:01,140 --> 00:23:05,550
If you're thinking I can't be right because I'm not using exactly the same words.
218
00:23:05,550 --> 00:23:12,060
Don't worry about that. Paraphrase is fine. What you mustn't do is change the meaning of anything.
219
00:23:12,060 --> 00:23:19,540
But paraphrasing it to get the grammar right or whatever is fine. OK.
220
00:23:19,540 --> 00:23:28,390
Right. Would you like to tell us, sir? Yes. Yep.
221
00:23:28,390 --> 00:23:38,380
OK. That's premise one. I take it, as you were writing, socialism did not provide the incentives.
222
00:23:38,380 --> 00:23:43,740
Incentives are needed. Yes, that that would do OK.
223
00:23:43,740 --> 00:23:48,420
Any variation on those themes? So here it is, premise one.
224
00:23:48,420 --> 00:23:55,260
Incentives are needed for a prosperous economy. Premise to socialism did not provides incentives.
225
00:23:55,260 --> 00:23:59,260
Conclusion. Socialism was doomed to failure. Okay.
226
00:23:59,260 --> 00:24:02,730
Do you see where both those premises come from? OK.
227
00:24:02,730 --> 00:24:10,700
They're needed. Which one is this? Suppressed premiss. Yes, that's right.
228
00:24:10,700 --> 00:24:18,290
The first one was suppressed in the original arguments, but but it's made explicit as we set out the argument logic bookstall.
229
00:24:18,290 --> 00:24:24,650
And if you had any variation on this theme, that's fine, so long as it has to say meaning.
230
00:24:24,650 --> 00:24:44,790
Does anyone want to cheque some? A prosperous, a prosperous economy.
231
00:24:44,790 --> 00:24:50,760
Well, I think what you'll think, well, is this what you're thinking of doomed to failure?
232
00:24:50,760 --> 00:24:56,700
I mean, you want something like you will only succeed if you have a prosperous economy, don't you?
233
00:24:56,700 --> 00:25:06,510
OK. That's really and you've got that in premise one, haven't you?
234
00:25:06,510 --> 00:25:12,480
Or you can have something like you have succeeded only a few if you have a prosperous economy.
235
00:25:12,480 --> 00:25:22,030
You could add, that's OK. You don't need to me. I mean, quite honestly, if you make explicit everything, you might find yourself.
236
00:25:22,030 --> 00:25:28,150
Is that my mobile? No, it's yours. Good but bad.
237
00:25:28,150 --> 00:25:40,850
But better than this being my son's. Not everybody would.
238
00:25:40,850 --> 00:25:50,630
I completely accept your point. I think you could easily add another premise and then you could say prosperous companies are needed for success.
239
00:25:50,630 --> 00:25:55,760
Incentives are needed for prosperous economies. Socialism did not provide incentives.
240
00:25:55,760 --> 00:25:58,910
Therefore, socialism was not a success or something.
241
00:25:58,910 --> 00:26:06,150
Do you see, I we could easily have added that one in as well and made explicit to suppress the premises.
242
00:26:06,150 --> 00:26:11,550
Yep. Fair enough. Okay. Anyone else have anything. Not quite.
243
00:26:11,550 --> 00:26:18,430
This. No. Okay, good. Let's do it again with this one.
244
00:26:18,430 --> 00:26:25,810
So since many newly emerging nations do not have the capital resources needed for necessary for sustained growth,
245
00:26:25,810 --> 00:26:37,060
they will continue to need help from industrial nations. You'll find actually, as you practise at this, it gets much, much easier.
246
00:26:37,060 --> 00:26:44,470
And another trick is, if you have not quite seen it, is to identify, identify the sentences that make up the premise.
247
00:26:44,470 --> 00:26:50,680
If if you can I mean, here you've only got one sentence and then see what else you need to make.
248
00:26:50,680 --> 00:27:03,920
Make an argument. OK, let's let's try some value.
249
00:27:03,920 --> 00:27:07,950
OK. So many newly emerging nations will continue to need help.
250
00:27:07,950 --> 00:27:20,110
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.
251
00:27:20,110 --> 00:27:36,500
Yep. OK. Well, no.
252
00:27:36,500 --> 00:27:44,900
Now, now, now you've got to be careful, because when you're identifying the premise, don't put it in anything that you happen to believe.
253
00:27:44,900 --> 00:27:50,540
What you're doing is you're identifying the argument that whoever it is that wrote this is making.
254
00:27:50,540 --> 00:27:57,890
Now, we haven't we're not yet evaluating the argument. We may decide that they're wrong in all sorts of ways.
255
00:27:57,890 --> 00:28:01,850
But what we don't do is add things on.
256
00:28:01,850 --> 00:28:05,630
All we're doing here is sticking to the meaning of the original.
257
00:28:05,630 --> 00:28:10,070
We can paraphrase, but we mustn't change the meaning to change the meaning.
258
00:28:10,070 --> 00:28:14,730
It is really bad. Really, really bad.
259
00:28:14,730 --> 00:28:18,410
OK. Is there anything else that anyone wants to try this.
260
00:28:18,410 --> 00:28:30,900
Oh yes. One more. Yup.
261
00:28:30,900 --> 00:28:32,040
Okay.
262
00:28:32,040 --> 00:28:42,390
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 there.
263
00:28:42,390 --> 00:28:46,260
Let's see what I put down. And then let's see whether we still need that.
264
00:28:46,260 --> 00:28:51,540
So I've put down many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources.
265
00:28:51,540 --> 00:28:55,140
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
266
00:28:55,140 --> 00:29:03,300
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations.
267
00:29:03,300 --> 00:29:12,120
Conclusion many newly emerging nations will need help from industrial nations.
268
00:29:12,120 --> 00:29:20,920
Well, is it? Now, remember, in the very first week, we looked at the difference between implication and entailment.
269
00:29:20,920 --> 00:29:25,160
Does anyone remember what the difference between implication and entailment is?
270
00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:29,050
And don't worry if you do, because it's it's a very sophisticated distinction.
271
00:29:29,050 --> 00:29:44,060
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.
272
00:29:44,060 --> 00:29:50,280
The then Claus. Or are we just saying if P, then Q.
273
00:29:50,280 --> 00:29:59,110
We're not actually claiming that P or Q Alwi. If we say if P, then Q.
274
00:29:59,110 --> 00:30:06,260
Are you with me? So. So is there a conclusion in if P, then Q.
275
00:30:06,260 --> 00:30:14,990
Is does this something of that structure have the premiss and conclusion's structure that would make it an argument?
276
00:30:14,990 --> 00:30:22,550
No, it doesn't, does it? What it has is two sentences combined with the logical phrase if then.
277
00:30:22,550 --> 00:30:27,980
But actually you're you're not claiming anything and you're not backing up anything by offering reasons.
278
00:30:27,980 --> 00:30:43,620
So it's not an argument. It's an implication. Do you understand that person?
279
00:30:43,620 --> 00:30:50,810
And that would be a case of putting in a suppressed premise too far from my perspective.
280
00:30:50,810 --> 00:30:57,740
And I think that's because we we haven't specified what help they need here.
281
00:30:57,740 --> 00:31:01,940
We're just saying. OK.
282
00:31:01,940 --> 00:31:07,730
You've got. If not, then that.
283
00:31:07,730 --> 00:31:13,440
And that's saying the F is. True.
284
00:31:13,440 --> 00:31:20,010
If you like, so then that we don't actually need to spell out what that is.
285
00:31:20,010 --> 00:31:25,220
I can see why you want that, but I would say it's not necessary for the argument.
286
00:31:25,220 --> 00:31:30,510
Well. You can just say what? Well.
287
00:31:30,510 --> 00:31:38,410
Would need help from the World Bank. You say you could destroy the argument by saying, well, by.
288
00:31:38,410 --> 00:31:52,340
Well, results. Well, yes, I did.
289
00:31:52,340 --> 00:31:57,470
The fact is what we're doing is we're identifying the argument. We're not evaluating it yet.
290
00:31:57,470 --> 00:32:01,910
Do you see? Do you see the difference? We're just identifying it. Then we evaluate it.
291
00:32:01,910 --> 00:32:03,710
So we do have to let the content go.
292
00:32:03,710 --> 00:32:11,060
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.
293
00:32:11,060 --> 00:32:15,430
But I don't think that was one of them. At the third grade,
294
00:32:15,430 --> 00:32:19,810
I would have thought that the industrial nations have its fair capital resources
295
00:32:19,810 --> 00:32:23,950
because that would be the only way that they could provide help for the Middle East,
296
00:32:23,950 --> 00:32:40,100
for the. Well, it's this argument saying what sort of help they need from.
297
00:32:40,100 --> 00:32:52,120
I mean, I agree it's an implication there, but I don't think it's the only way.
298
00:32:52,120 --> 00:33:02,950
Ramming through the capital resources are necessary. OK.
299
00:33:02,950 --> 00:33:11,390
So it could be that instead of it will need help, we should change that help to capital resources.
300
00:33:11,390 --> 00:33:19,220
Do you see what I mean? So so it would then read many new names, emerging nations do not have capital resources.
301
00:33:19,220 --> 00:33:22,490
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
302
00:33:22,490 --> 00:33:31,870
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.
303
00:33:31,870 --> 00:33:37,850
Do you see what I mean? And then they in the same way would say many newly emerging nations will need capital
304
00:33:37,850 --> 00:33:42,800
resources from sustain so that we would be getting the premise that you want in.
305
00:33:42,800 --> 00:33:57,230
By removing inconsistent terms rather than by adding another premiss.
306
00:33:57,230 --> 00:34:03,530
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.
307
00:34:03,530 --> 00:34:07,460
Because I hope then I'll be able to convince you that it is actually in there.
308
00:34:07,460 --> 00:34:13,880
It's just in there in an inconsistent way. OK. But but do remind me to come back.
309
00:34:13,880 --> 00:34:24,680
This is from industrial.
310
00:34:24,680 --> 00:34:32,660
Well, no, because the conclusion is that they will need help. I mean, don't forget, the premises may be false.
311
00:34:32,660 --> 00:34:40,310
I mean, nobody's saying that the premises are true at the moment. We're just wanting to identify the premise that, well,
312
00:34:40,310 --> 00:34:47,210
that's we worry about later when we're not evaluating the arguments at the moment, we're just analysing it.
313
00:34:47,210 --> 00:34:55,270
We're putting down exactly what was said in the argument or what was said and what was implied in the argument.
314
00:34:55,270 --> 00:35:09,710
Say why? Well, I think if we change that to capital resources, it does say that.
315
00:35:09,710 --> 00:35:10,130
I mean,
316
00:35:10,130 --> 00:35:20,990
aren't we implying in this argument that the help that the industrialised nations are giving to the newly emerging nations is capital resources?
317
00:35:20,990 --> 00:35:29,300
Yes, absolutely, yes. But that's why when when we get round to removing inconsistent terms, which we haven't got round to yet.
318
00:35:29,300 --> 00:35:33,410
That's one of the things we would want to make explicit.
319
00:35:33,410 --> 00:35:38,930
So there are different ways of making things explicit. One is by adding suppressed premises.
320
00:35:38,930 --> 00:35:44,030
And another is by by removing inconsistent terms.
321
00:35:44,030 --> 00:35:54,950
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.
322
00:35:54,950 --> 00:36:02,270
I wouldn't not at the moment, I wouldn't.
323
00:36:02,270 --> 00:36:07,250
OK, now you've done so well. We're going to try the really complicated arguments.
324
00:36:07,250 --> 00:36:12,160
Okay, we'll do that for the rest of the session. Here's the argument.
325
00:36:12,160 --> 00:36:18,580
Okay. This is the one by the end of this session, you will have analysed this argument and seen how it works.
326
00:36:18,580 --> 00:36:24,270
Okay. Firstly, identify the conclusion of this argument.
327
00:36:24,270 --> 00:36:28,420
Okay. Right. Who wants to who hasn't had to go. Would you like to have a go.
328
00:36:28,420 --> 00:36:34,680
What's the answer. Oh sorry. I was asking the lady the.
329
00:36:34,680 --> 00:36:43,480
You deserve to get stretched. There's a bit more to it than that.
330
00:36:43,480 --> 00:37:00,170
That is part of the conclusion. Well, it's not if you titular Tom, it it's if you if.
331
00:37:00,170 --> 00:37:07,620
OK. Somebody is somebody else. She didn't want.
332
00:37:07,620 --> 00:37:20,810
Just she didn't want you to articulate me, OK? Nope, wrong. Absolutely as the whole sentence.
333
00:37:20,810 --> 00:37:29,480
It's actually a conditional conclusion, if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserve to get scratched.
334
00:37:29,480 --> 00:37:34,910
So it's not that you deserve to get scratched on its own because you only deserve to get scratch.
335
00:37:34,910 --> 00:37:38,810
If she did want you to tickle her tummy. Do you see what I mean?
336
00:37:38,810 --> 00:37:42,110
That's the whole thing is a conditional conclusion.
337
00:37:42,110 --> 00:37:51,410
And you said something like, if you tickled to tummy and I wasn't sure whether you were leaving out there if she wanted you to tickle her tummy,
338
00:37:51,410 --> 00:37:59,150
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,
339
00:37:59,150 --> 00:38:06,740
isn't there? And for the purposes of this argument, that's actually quite an important difference.
340
00:38:06,740 --> 00:38:14,720
So the conclusion and I said there was a nice large argument indicator right in front of it and here it is.
341
00:38:14,720 --> 00:38:19,190
So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
342
00:38:19,190 --> 00:38:22,840
That's the conclusion. OK.
343
00:38:22,840 --> 00:38:25,960
Ever unhappy with that?
344
00:38:25,960 --> 00:38:36,570
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?
345
00:38:36,570 --> 00:38:43,000
Again, it's it's the declaim for which you're arguing.
346
00:38:43,000 --> 00:38:47,520
That's right. It's a statement that you're making and that you're backing up with reasons.
347
00:38:47,520 --> 00:38:54,100
Okay. What's the next thing we do? Having identified the conclusion, we identify the premises.
348
00:38:54,100 --> 00:39:12,070
Okay. Identify the premises of that argument. Yes.
349
00:39:12,070 --> 00:39:20,860
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.
350
00:39:20,860 --> 00:39:25,270
Okay. I think we're getting there. I'm going to reveal what I've got.
351
00:39:25,270 --> 00:39:30,910
And then you can tell me if you've got something else. OK. This is premiss one.
352
00:39:30,910 --> 00:39:36,850
Well, perhaps she didn't want you to tickle her tummy or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
353
00:39:36,850 --> 00:39:42,430
Now, I've just realised that I've I've misled you in something because I can.
354
00:39:42,430 --> 00:39:45,850
I praised you for leaving out the argument indicators,
355
00:39:45,850 --> 00:39:51,850
whereas actually the only argument in two cases I want you to leave out of that since this is in full force and so on,
356
00:39:51,850 --> 00:39:59,020
this or here is making this these two sentences into a complex sentence.
357
00:39:59,020 --> 00:40:02,350
So it's you should leave that in. OK.
358
00:40:02,350 --> 00:40:10,040
So the premise that you can see the structure that can't you P or Q So the or is part of it.
359
00:40:10,040 --> 00:40:16,750
Yeah. No you mustn't.
360
00:40:16,750 --> 00:40:25,780
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.
361
00:40:25,780 --> 00:40:33,940
But if you have P or Q do you see that that's the or is rather the difference isn't it logically.
362
00:40:33,940 --> 00:40:39,480
You can't just have one sensor if I say, look, here's a way of doing it.
363
00:40:39,480 --> 00:40:46,290
And we're taking. If I've got a pen. Yes. Right.
364
00:40:46,290 --> 00:40:55,380
We're moving ahead a little bit here in what I'm going to tell you. So if you start getting confused, just stop your ears up.
365
00:40:55,380 --> 00:41:04,560
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
366
00:41:04,560 --> 00:41:08,770
so we can then set out the conditions under which they're all true together.
367
00:41:08,770 --> 00:41:13,230
OK. Don't worry about how we do that at the moment. It's just that's what we try and do.
368
00:41:13,230 --> 00:41:22,080
Now, if I look at P and Q, I can say, well, this is true.
369
00:41:22,080 --> 00:41:31,860
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?
370
00:41:31,860 --> 00:41:37,770
Do you see intuitively that. So what is it for P and Q to be true.
371
00:41:37,770 --> 00:41:46,650
Well it's four P to be true. And Q to be true in the same world or in the same situation, if you prefer.
372
00:41:46,650 --> 00:41:52,830
So I can represent it just with one line and putting P and Q on the same line.
373
00:41:52,830 --> 00:42:03,000
Whereas if I say P all Q. I can't do that, can I, p or Q is true just in case.
374
00:42:03,000 --> 00:42:12,120
What's. Yeah, either peer's true or Q is true or sometimes both.
375
00:42:12,120 --> 00:42:19,180
So I'll have to draw two lines and put P on one line and Q on the other wouldn't I.
376
00:42:19,180 --> 00:42:26,110
In order to say P or Q so they have the different words, different logical words,
377
00:42:26,110 --> 00:42:34,690
and you see how if I separate the P and Q in one premiss, it doesn't really matter.
378
00:42:34,690 --> 00:42:43,930
Whereas if I separate the P or Q, it does matter because then I've only got one on each line.
379
00:42:43,930 --> 00:42:46,720
So I was Keaton together.
380
00:42:46,720 --> 00:42:55,330
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.
381
00:42:55,330 --> 00:43:02,000
So any any complex sentence, just keep them together.
382
00:43:02,000 --> 00:43:08,090
OK. Did anyone have something different from that other than just separating the two sentences?
383
00:43:08,090 --> 00:43:14,690
And actually, you're separating the two sentences was because I misled you in the beginning, so don't knock yourself for that.
384
00:43:14,690 --> 00:43:17,210
Just saying my complete confusion.
385
00:43:17,210 --> 00:43:28,010
I can't understand why not separate study if there was some sort of dependence on the other, but there doesn't seem to be any.
386
00:43:28,010 --> 00:43:33,350
Well, what do you think about what we're doing here? Do you remember I said we've got to keep the meaning.
387
00:43:33,350 --> 00:43:42,470
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.
388
00:43:42,470 --> 00:43:50,210
Is that right? OK, so if we separate them, so we've lost the all.
389
00:43:50,210 --> 00:43:57,440
We've just got this is true and this is true just because she did not want you
390
00:43:57,440 --> 00:44:01,940
to take and it doesn't matter whether she realises what you're doing or not,
391
00:44:01,940 --> 00:44:09,260
she still doesn't want you to take her. So they still stand independently. Regardless, they there are two independent senators.
392
00:44:09,260 --> 00:44:13,670
I completely agree you. I mean, it might be true that she did what you didn't want you to tickler,
393
00:44:13,670 --> 00:44:23,080
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.
394
00:44:23,080 --> 00:44:30,220
And that's what we have to get. I mean, OK, so so the premise of the argument is we start off with either this or this.
395
00:44:30,220 --> 00:44:38,270
Do you remember the first when we were doing the arguments on either side?
396
00:44:38,270 --> 00:44:43,430
We'll look at P or Q P.
397
00:44:43,430 --> 00:44:46,820
Sorry, not P, therefore. Q Okay.
398
00:44:46,820 --> 00:44:51,200
Do you remember that argument, P or Q not P, therefore.
399
00:44:51,200 --> 00:44:55,100
Q Okay, it's not the same here.
400
00:44:55,100 --> 00:45:03,960
What. OK. One. Okay. Now I'm not understanding why not. There's a statement which she doesn't want you to take a hit on me.
401
00:45:03,960 --> 00:45:10,590
Now, if that is the case, it doesn't matter whether she realised you wanted to see me or not.
402
00:45:10,590 --> 00:45:15,750
Her reaction was independent of her knowing. But why is that a problem?
403
00:45:15,750 --> 00:45:21,180
Because remember here, the two sentences are completely independent of each other.
404
00:45:21,180 --> 00:45:25,170
We talked about it. It's if it's it's either sunny or rainy.
405
00:45:25,170 --> 00:45:33,080
Now, that shouldn't give you. Because we could say it's either sunny or windy.
406
00:45:33,080 --> 00:45:37,170
But you can't say if it's sunny, then it's not windy.
407
00:45:37,170 --> 00:45:44,910
But we haven't said that. If then is completely different from or if then is a different logical claim.
408
00:45:44,910 --> 00:45:53,460
So what was this, again, the right time? No, no, I'm sure you're not the only person who's confused by this.
409
00:45:53,460 --> 00:45:58,430
All this says here is either this is true or this is true.
410
00:45:58,430 --> 00:46:03,150
The next phase of this. And this is this isn't true.
411
00:46:03,150 --> 00:46:09,320
Therefore, this must be. So listen to the logic again. Either this or this.
412
00:46:09,320 --> 00:46:16,660
Sorry, I ultra either this or that. Not this, therefore that.
413
00:46:16,660 --> 00:46:22,430
And it doesn't matter what this or that is. Do you see what I mean?
414
00:46:22,430 --> 00:46:29,160
So so here we sit. She didn't want you to take. Or she didn't realise what you were going to do.
415
00:46:29,160 --> 00:46:34,600
She didn't want you to tickle her. There he is.
416
00:46:34,600 --> 00:46:40,960
Well, yeah, but yeah, but hang on. This is. But nothing follows from this is is only one premiss.
417
00:46:40,960 --> 00:46:45,910
We've got to get the whole argument before anything follows. You don't have to be able to do that.
418
00:46:45,910 --> 00:46:51,280
No, I was just using that to illustrate that the all can stand between two.
419
00:46:51,280 --> 00:47:00,620
Two Independents sentence's. Doesn't matter what the sentences are, their content is irrelevant.
420
00:47:00,620 --> 00:47:06,470
OK, if you still don't understand that CMA offers a is anyone else still bothered by that?
421
00:47:06,470 --> 00:47:10,250
Put your hands up if you want me to go over that again. No.
422
00:47:10,250 --> 00:47:13,940
OK. See me afterwards. If you're still hung, goes it OK?
423
00:47:13,940 --> 00:47:22,460
Does anyone have anything else for Premiss one than this other than having divided the two up?
424
00:47:22,460 --> 00:47:29,370
No. Okay. Good. Premise two. If she didn't realise, then you obviously went about it in the wrong way.
425
00:47:29,370 --> 00:47:36,650
Does anyone have something different for that? Premise three.
426
00:47:36,650 --> 00:47:42,180
In that case, you deserve to get scratched, unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she'd understand Wolf.
427
00:47:42,180 --> 00:47:49,070
Wolf, I meant roll over. I'm sorry, say that again.
428
00:47:49,070 --> 00:47:53,710
Why do you need that space, you what you do?
429
00:47:53,710 --> 00:47:58,160
You're beautiful. You were such a. Well,
430
00:47:58,160 --> 00:48:07,340
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 premiss.
431
00:48:07,340 --> 00:48:14,920
If you left out in that case, you deserved to get scratched unless.
432
00:48:14,920 --> 00:48:23,770
So you just have an unless you just have unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cuttable that she and that she's not even a sentence,
433
00:48:23,770 --> 00:48:30,020
is it? In order to be a premise, it has to be a sentence.
434
00:48:30,020 --> 00:48:34,580
It might be a complex sentence, but it has to be a sentence. Yep.
435
00:48:34,580 --> 00:48:38,880
And you want to have anything different there? No good.
436
00:48:38,880 --> 00:48:43,740
You're doing very well. Premise four, if you thought that you're an idiot but you're not an idiot.
437
00:48:43,740 --> 00:48:50,920
You're just twisted. Anyone have anything different for that?
438
00:48:50,920 --> 00:49:02,080
Yeah, I think. If you thought that you were sorry, what did you have?
439
00:49:02,080 --> 00:49:06,370
OK. OK.
440
00:49:06,370 --> 00:49:12,550
At this point, I actually sympathise with your having left that out and you'll see why in a minute.
441
00:49:12,550 --> 00:49:16,570
But you shouldn't have left it out at this point because it is actually in there.
442
00:49:16,570 --> 00:49:26,780
So. So you should put it in. What are you going to say? Well, I was like because I was.
443
00:49:26,780 --> 00:49:33,290
Okay, at the moment, we're not removing irrelevancies, but perhaps when we do, we'll take this out.
444
00:49:33,290 --> 00:49:40,550
But at the moment, we'll leave it in. Okay, but but your intuition that it's irrelevant is is a good one.
445
00:49:40,550 --> 00:49:49,940
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.
446
00:49:49,940 --> 00:49:55,040
But of course, we haven't finished at the moment because we need to remove all sorts of bits and pieces.
447
00:49:55,040 --> 00:50:02,060
So on your list of the steps to set out an object argument logic bookstall, what's the third step?
448
00:50:02,060 --> 00:50:10,190
We've identified the premises and the conclusions. What do we do next? Right.
449
00:50:10,190 --> 00:50:15,530
Actually, I'll tell you now, there aren't any suppressed premises, so so we don't have to worry with that here.
450
00:50:15,530 --> 00:50:20,460
What's the next step? Remove irrelevancies.
451
00:50:20,460 --> 00:50:24,920
Okay. Let me see how we've done that.
452
00:50:24,920 --> 00:50:28,010
Okay. What we need to do is take each premiss separately.
453
00:50:28,010 --> 00:50:34,360
Now, the nice thing about how identified the premises and the conclusions separate is we can treat each one separately.
454
00:50:34,360 --> 00:50:38,140
Now, we do not have to do them all, all at the same time.
455
00:50:38,140 --> 00:50:48,160
And that that's helps us. So let's look at Premiss one and let's remove the irrelevancies from Premiss one.
456
00:50:48,160 --> 00:50:54,460
Just get rid of any words that are not contributing to what that sentence means.
457
00:50:54,460 --> 00:51:01,140
That are just bits of fluff, if you like. Well, yes, that can go, can't it?
458
00:51:01,140 --> 00:51:08,720
I mean, that doesn't do anything. What else? Anything else? Perhaps I think perhaps I can go as well.
459
00:51:08,720 --> 00:51:19,370
Yes. OK. There's one more word I'd get rid of, actually.
460
00:51:19,370 --> 00:51:24,970
Not all, no. Tommy, who said Tommy?
461
00:51:24,970 --> 00:51:27,470
Yeah, you can get rid of Tommy. Can't you?
462
00:51:27,470 --> 00:51:33,140
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.
463
00:51:33,140 --> 00:51:38,660
So here we are. The green is green, easier than red. Okay.
464
00:51:38,660 --> 00:51:48,530
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.
465
00:51:48,530 --> 00:51:56,090
Okay. Let's try premise two. What have you got then?
466
00:51:56,090 --> 00:52:01,480
And obviously, if she didn't realise, then I'll leave then.
467
00:52:01,480 --> 00:52:08,370
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.
468
00:52:08,370 --> 00:52:11,560
It might not have been obvious. It wouldn't really matter, would it?
469
00:52:11,560 --> 00:52:22,410
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.
470
00:52:22,410 --> 00:52:35,970
Really? Yep. Not in that case, why not in that case?
471
00:52:35,970 --> 00:52:40,380
Can anyone exactly the reverse?
472
00:52:40,380 --> 00:52:45,730
It says if this if that is true, then.
473
00:52:45,730 --> 00:52:49,810
Something. So in that case is really very important. OK.
474
00:52:49,810 --> 00:52:55,480
I'll show you what I'd take out. I'd take out the lot. Yeah.
475
00:52:55,480 --> 00:53:04,860
In that case, you deserved to get scratched, because actually, if you look at the fourth premise, which I'd also take out completely.
476
00:53:04,860 --> 00:53:08,040
If you thought that you're an idiot, but you're not an idiot. You're just twisted.
477
00:53:08,040 --> 00:53:16,830
This is this is just a little insult that somebody is putting into the arguments in order to ram it home, isn't it?
478
00:53:16,830 --> 00:53:24,440
Oh, come on, you idiot. You can't not believe this. Which means what?
479
00:53:24,440 --> 00:53:29,900
Well, it means just this, doesn't it? If I say P, you're an idiot, if you don't believe it.
480
00:53:29,900 --> 00:53:33,680
What? What am I saying? Just on the whole.
481
00:53:33,680 --> 00:53:41,440
Well, yes. I'm also saying you're an idiot if I put it that way. But it so premises.
482
00:53:41,440 --> 00:53:45,280
For previous four can go completely and premise three to see that.
483
00:53:45,280 --> 00:53:50,270
Let's go back to the whole argument.
484
00:53:50,270 --> 00:53:56,590
OK, and let me read it out to you, because it's sometimes much easier if you ever find you are having trouble with an argument.
485
00:53:56,590 --> 00:54:00,400
Try reading it out loud, because that'll the tone you put on.
486
00:54:00,400 --> 00:54:05,470
It will give you a much better idea of where you're going with the logic.
487
00:54:05,470 --> 00:54:12,090
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.
488
00:54:12,090 --> 00:54:18,010
If she didn't realise, then you obviously went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserve to get scratched.
489
00:54:18,010 --> 00:54:21,620
Unless you'd really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she'd understand more fulfilment.
490
00:54:21,620 --> 00:54:25,000
Roll over. But if you thought that you're an idiot, you're not an idiot.
491
00:54:25,000 --> 00:54:32,020
You're just twisted. So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
492
00:54:32,020 --> 00:54:45,380
You see this? This actually cancels itself out from here because you're saying let's let's look at the structure of it.
493
00:54:45,380 --> 00:54:51,110
P. Unless. Q Okay.
494
00:54:51,110 --> 00:54:55,910
Q Is you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that you should understand.
495
00:54:55,910 --> 00:55:03,370
Wohlforth meant roll over. Okay. If if you thought.
496
00:55:03,370 --> 00:55:11,070
So if CU. Then you're an idiot.
497
00:55:11,070 --> 00:55:16,760
If cu, then, ah. But not off.
498
00:55:16,760 --> 00:55:20,810
And you're just twisted is just an insult added on P unless.
499
00:55:20,810 --> 00:55:28,220
Q If. Q Then all but not all. Can you see how that all cancels each other out?
500
00:55:28,220 --> 00:55:33,840
P Unless. Q. If Q.
501
00:55:33,840 --> 00:55:40,910
Then all but not all. So it all just becomes.
502
00:55:40,910 --> 00:55:45,130
But again, don't worry about the figures. The letters I've put in here.
503
00:55:45,130 --> 00:55:51,990
Just do it in your own. Try reading it out and see what really counts.
504
00:55:51,990 --> 00:55:58,200
Okay, let's. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies.
505
00:55:58,200 --> 00:56:04,770
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.
506
00:56:04,770 --> 00:56:09,570
So it's in the confusion. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies removed.
507
00:56:09,570 --> 00:56:15,330
And I hope you agree it starts to look much more simple, much easier to evaluate.
508
00:56:15,330 --> 00:56:20,790
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.
509
00:56:20,790 --> 00:56:25,110
Then you went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserved to get scratched.
510
00:56:25,110 --> 00:56:30,180
So if the poor thing did want you to take her, you deserved to get scratched.
511
00:56:30,180 --> 00:56:42,730
But let's continue. What's the next step? So question first. It could be a conclusion.
512
00:56:42,730 --> 00:56:49,960
But don't forget, anything could be a conclusion, a conclusion is just the role that something plays in an argument.
513
00:56:49,960 --> 00:56:55,000
And in this argument, this is not playing the role of a conclusion.
514
00:56:55,000 --> 00:57:02,120
It is perhaps playing the role of a sub conclusion. But but this is the conclusion.
515
00:57:02,120 --> 00:57:08,220
Do you see him again? Remember that the conclusion is that for which you are arguing.
516
00:57:08,220 --> 00:57:11,520
And that's the only thing that makes this a conclusion. But you're absolutely right.
517
00:57:11,520 --> 00:57:20,700
That could play the role of a conclusion. OK, what's the next step?
518
00:57:20,700 --> 00:57:25,850
No. Removing consistent terms.
519
00:57:25,850 --> 00:57:30,080
OK. And cross references. OK. Inconsistent terms.
520
00:57:30,080 --> 00:57:45,800
What do we mean by inconsistent terms? Well, if we go back to that argument that we were looking at earlier.
521
00:57:45,800 --> 00:57:51,050
OK, this one. Do you see how people wanted to have another premiss in there?
522
00:57:51,050 --> 00:57:59,870
Something about industrial nations need to give emerging nations capital the capital resources or whatever it was.
523
00:57:59,870 --> 00:58:03,110
If we look runs to this one.
524
00:58:03,110 --> 00:58:12,020
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations.
525
00:58:12,020 --> 00:58:15,860
What does this. It need help mean? It will need. What's.
526
00:58:15,860 --> 00:58:22,100
What's the help that is implied here? Capital Resources.
527
00:58:22,100 --> 00:58:27,980
So we're using two different terms for capital resources, aren't we?
528
00:58:27,980 --> 00:58:33,470
Here we're using capital resources and here we're using just help.
529
00:58:33,470 --> 00:58:39,030
But actually, they mean the same thing, don't they? So actually, the way this argument.
530
00:58:39,030 --> 00:58:47,190
We can reveal the argument much more carefully by saying many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources,
531
00:58:47,190 --> 00:58:50,880
capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
532
00:58:50,880 --> 00:59:00,960
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.
533
00:59:00,960 --> 00:59:09,530
Many newly emerging nations will need help, need capital resources from emerging nations.
534
00:59:09,530 --> 00:59:19,460
Could you use them? Can you use what, sorry, pregnant. What they said is the.
535
00:59:19,460 --> 00:59:23,630
Well, you couldn't use then there will be many newly emerging nations will need.
536
00:59:23,630 --> 00:59:28,100
Oh, then you mean capital resources. I see. I'm sorry. No.
537
00:59:28,100 --> 00:59:33,290
What? Well, what you're aiming to do is to reveal the structure of the argument.
538
00:59:33,290 --> 00:59:39,960
And you do that by getting rid of as many things that are distracting you from the structure of the argument as you can.
539
00:59:39,960 --> 00:59:47,750
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.
540
00:59:47,750 --> 00:59:53,690
So what you do is you change them so that you're using the same word throughout the arguments.
541
00:59:53,690 --> 00:59:59,020
Now, you could just use many newly emerging nations do not have help.
542
00:59:59,020 --> 01:00:05,050
Help is necessary for sustained growth. I mean, this suggests we shouldn't use help, doesn't it?
543
01:00:05,050 --> 01:00:12,930
Okay, so let's use capital resources instead. Then it's actually a pronoun that you on the whole, you're trying to get rid of rather than put in.
544
01:00:12,930 --> 01:00:17,050
So I wouldn't use that. But I see why you wanted to.
545
01:00:17,050 --> 01:00:27,150
Yeah. OK. Do you see what I mean about removing inconsistent terms, and have I convinced you you were right?
546
01:00:27,150 --> 01:00:41,480
About what? So you need to book.
547
01:00:41,480 --> 01:00:45,290
So that should be capital resources. Yes. Yes.
548
01:00:45,290 --> 01:00:50,390
You were right about that. But I hope I was right that that wasn't a suppressed premiss.
549
01:00:50,390 --> 01:00:57,170
It's a matter of an inconsistent term needing to be removed or needing to be made consistent.
550
01:00:57,170 --> 01:01:09,910
So let's try it with this. The argument we're looking at now, I've now forgotten which side we were on.
551
01:01:09,910 --> 01:01:13,480
You know, I was just explaining what inconsistent terms are. OK?
552
01:01:13,480 --> 01:01:17,710
That's what an inconsistent term is. What about a cross reference?
553
01:01:17,710 --> 01:01:26,960
If we've got Marianne always wears jeans on Friday, she is wearing jeans.
554
01:01:26,960 --> 01:01:36,700
Forgot what the owner. What do we got there? That we could. It's like an inconsistent term.
555
01:01:36,700 --> 01:01:43,090
This is not the jeans, but she because she is referring to Marianne.
556
01:01:43,090 --> 01:01:51,310
So either make both she that would be fine, but but it might fall down elsewhere in the argument or make both Marianne.
557
01:01:51,310 --> 01:01:55,510
So remove the she and make it explicit that you mean Marianne.
558
01:01:55,510 --> 01:02:02,050
So let's try that in this premise. Now I'm just got a hint here.
559
01:02:02,050 --> 01:02:10,150
We're going to leave the she in here because throughout the argument, it's she isn't it were never introduced to the cat's name.
560
01:02:10,150 --> 01:02:16,150
We don't know what her name is and nor is she referred to as the cat at any point or anything like that.
561
01:02:16,150 --> 01:02:18,580
So in fact, this isn't an inconsistent term.
562
01:02:18,580 --> 01:02:25,100
It's consistent throughout, even though it's exactly the sort of thing that you would usually be removing.
563
01:02:25,100 --> 01:02:31,710
OK, so she didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
564
01:02:31,710 --> 01:02:37,740
And you can see anything that wants you want to put up your hand if you see something that you'd like to remove.
565
01:02:37,740 --> 01:02:42,810
She didn't want you to take her or she didn't realise you were going to tickle her.
566
01:02:42,810 --> 01:02:46,320
That was what you were going to do. Stands in for.
567
01:02:46,320 --> 01:02:54,570
You were going to tickle her, doesn't it? We're not changing the meaning by it, by making those two terms consistent.
568
01:02:54,570 --> 01:03:00,690
We're just making explicit something that in the original premise is left implicit.
569
01:03:00,690 --> 01:03:06,960
And here it is. She didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that you were going to tickle her.
570
01:03:06,960 --> 01:03:12,810
I'd left that out. But that doesn't matter. See? Okay. Do you have any problems with that?
571
01:03:12,810 --> 01:03:21,710
No. Okay. Let's move on. What about premiss to. If she didn't realise, then you went about it in the wrong way.
572
01:03:21,710 --> 01:03:26,570
Very nearly right. The first bit was certainly right. If she didn't realise you were going to tickle her.
573
01:03:26,570 --> 01:03:29,420
Did you see you need to add this in because otherwise,
574
01:03:29,420 --> 01:03:36,650
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.
575
01:03:36,650 --> 01:03:40,850
So you complete that sentence by adding that. What about the second half?
576
01:03:40,850 --> 01:03:47,000
Anyone have any ideas here? Then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way?
577
01:03:47,000 --> 01:03:54,260
Yes, something like that. Keep it as similar as possible, because all you're doing is trying to get rid of the complications.
578
01:03:54,260 --> 01:03:59,960
You're trying to make it as simple as possible so as to reveal the structure of the arguments.
579
01:03:59,960 --> 01:04:06,590
And you do that by getting rid of all the things that that are just confusing you.
580
01:04:06,590 --> 01:04:13,680
So if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way.
581
01:04:13,680 --> 01:04:19,580
Okay. Anyone any questions about that? No good premise.
582
01:04:19,580 --> 01:04:28,180
Three. Good. Well done. In that case, refers back to the previous premise, doesn't it?
583
01:04:28,180 --> 01:04:32,710
And it says if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserved to get scratched.
584
01:04:32,710 --> 01:04:37,990
There's two quite separate sentences, aren't there? You are going to tickle her in the wrong way.
585
01:04:37,990 --> 01:04:43,000
And she didn't realise you were going to tickle her. Now, those are different sentences.
586
01:04:43,000 --> 01:04:50,060
You mustn't complete them because actually they matter to the arguments as very much so.
587
01:04:50,060 --> 01:04:55,600
OK. Any other questions about premies? Three. Now, let's move on.
588
01:04:55,600 --> 01:04:58,800
What about the conclusion? It's an easy one, isn't it?
589
01:04:58,800 --> 01:05:03,180
Okay. If she did want you to tell her you deserved to get scratched.
590
01:05:03,180 --> 01:05:09,420
Okay, so we take out the poor thing and put in she. Okay.
591
01:05:09,420 --> 01:05:16,650
Question. Sorry. Does the conclusion not have to stand as a sentence that makes sense in its own right?
592
01:05:16,650 --> 01:05:22,290
This is quoted me from the very beginning. Well, you didn't want you to take or how you deserve to get scratched.
593
01:05:22,290 --> 01:05:29,120
Doesn't make any sense. Yes, it does. Michael. What means what does that tell you?
594
01:05:29,120 --> 01:05:35,480
She wanted you to take you deserve it. Well, if the poor cat wanted you to tickle her.
595
01:05:35,480 --> 01:05:42,780
Oh, I see. You think, OK. If she wanted you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched.
596
01:05:42,780 --> 01:05:47,540
Isn't isn't it? Is it OK? I see where you're going.
597
01:05:47,540 --> 01:05:52,190
It is a sentence. But your wanting. OK. Shall I tell you what you're doing.
598
01:05:52,190 --> 01:05:57,950
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.
599
01:05:57,950 --> 01:06:03,530
You're probably the only person who's got the courage to question me on it.
600
01:06:03,530 --> 01:06:08,490
What you're doing is you're trying to put the logic in here, okay?
601
01:06:08,490 --> 01:06:16,910
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.
602
01:06:16,910 --> 01:06:22,550
And what you should be doing is just trying to identify what is said here.
603
01:06:22,550 --> 01:06:29,270
What do you want to put in is this. I think so. If she did want you to tickle her.
604
01:06:29,270 --> 01:06:34,880
But she went about it in the wrong way or something like that, then you deserve to get scratches.
605
01:06:34,880 --> 01:06:43,460
Is that right? The conclusion is that there's a missing link to the premises for me.
606
01:06:43,460 --> 01:06:48,380
But. But the conclusion. Yeah, you're wrong.
607
01:06:48,380 --> 01:06:52,190
Okay. That's all I'm saying right now. You're wrong.
608
01:06:52,190 --> 01:06:59,030
And what you should do is have a look at the argument so that we can if if you're still thinking that if you still don't see what I'm saying,
609
01:06:59,030 --> 01:07:05,090
come and see me next week and I'll I'll explain again. This will convince you.
610
01:07:05,090 --> 01:07:10,160
I'm going to reveal the structure of this argument by formalising it.
611
01:07:10,160 --> 01:07:16,790
And if that doesn't convince you, nothing will. Okay.
612
01:07:16,790 --> 01:07:28,080
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.
613
01:07:28,080 --> 01:07:37,490
OK. What we've got to do is identify each of the constituent sentences of the argument and assign it a sentence letter.
614
01:07:37,490 --> 01:07:44,300
Now, have I got no account on this? OK. Let's look at Premiss one.
615
01:07:44,300 --> 01:07:51,470
We've got to identify the constituent sentences of that premiss and assign it a letter.
616
01:07:51,470 --> 01:07:55,340
So just looking at Premiss one. What are the constituent sentences?
617
01:07:55,340 --> 01:08:02,780
What's the first one? She didn't.
618
01:08:02,780 --> 01:08:08,560
Want you to tickle her. OK.
619
01:08:08,560 --> 01:08:21,740
And the other one, she didn't realise you were only going.
620
01:08:21,740 --> 01:08:26,870
To tickle her. Okay, well, here are two sentences.
621
01:08:26,870 --> 01:08:38,660
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.
622
01:08:38,660 --> 01:08:42,680
And I'd rather not P for this one.
623
01:08:42,680 --> 01:08:48,080
Good. Okay. What? What about the next one? Q Well done.
624
01:08:48,080 --> 01:08:58,130
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.
625
01:08:58,130 --> 01:09:02,810
Okay. And whenever you use the sentence that a Q that just stands in for that sentence.
626
01:09:02,810 --> 01:09:07,490
Okay. It's dead simple. Nothing magical about these things at all.
627
01:09:07,490 --> 01:09:15,520
And the reason we use capital letters from this side. This part of the alphabet that's just conventional.
628
01:09:15,520 --> 01:09:21,650
What if we use capital letters like F, G, etc.? We tend to use them for other parts of the language.
629
01:09:21,650 --> 01:09:26,390
And if we use lowercase letters like A, B, C, that's for another part of language.
630
01:09:26,390 --> 01:09:31,610
So there is a conventions about which part of language you use for which sentence letters.
631
01:09:31,610 --> 01:09:40,040
So that's why I want you to use letters from here. Okay, so Premiss one has two constituent sentences.
632
01:09:40,040 --> 01:09:43,820
She didn't want you to take her and she didn't realise you were only going to take her.
633
01:09:43,820 --> 01:09:49,370
And we've labelled them P and Q Okay. Previous to what the constituent sentences in this letter.
634
01:09:49,370 --> 01:09:55,770
This one was the first one you. She didn't realise you were only going to Tickler.
635
01:09:55,770 --> 01:10:03,350
Well, we've got that already, haven't we? So we don't need to put that down. What about the other one?
636
01:10:03,350 --> 01:10:15,200
You were going to take her in the wrong way, OK? You were going to tickle her in the wrong way.
637
01:10:15,200 --> 01:10:19,330
Okay. It needs a sentence. What should we have? Oh, good.
638
01:10:19,330 --> 01:10:26,000
Yes. Well done. You've got the idea here so you can formalise things steady easily.
639
01:10:26,000 --> 01:10:30,550
Okay. That's premise, too, isn't it? Good premise.
640
01:10:30,550 --> 01:10:34,460
Three. OK.
641
01:10:34,460 --> 01:10:39,930
You are going to take her in the wrong way. That's right.
642
01:10:39,930 --> 01:10:46,050
That's all. You deserve to get stretched. Okay. You deserve.
643
01:10:46,050 --> 01:10:50,490
To get scratched. What should we call that?
644
01:10:50,490 --> 01:10:55,140
S. Good. Okay. And conclusion.
645
01:10:55,140 --> 01:11:07,390
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.
646
01:11:07,390 --> 01:11:13,690
I'm going to put her outside the room. No, don't.
647
01:11:13,690 --> 01:11:18,340
It is. It's very good that you question things, because that's important.
648
01:11:18,340 --> 01:11:23,590
We won't need another sentence letter because what can we use instead? Not P.
649
01:11:23,590 --> 01:11:33,970
Can't we. You don't you certainly don't need P and not P because you've got that's just in having P and the word and illogical word not.
650
01:11:33,970 --> 01:11:38,380
Okay. So if she did want you to take her you deserved to get scratched.
651
01:11:38,380 --> 01:11:42,450
Do we need anything else. That's ice already.
652
01:11:42,450 --> 01:11:52,020
Exactly. So we're here, we've got all the sentences that make up the argument tumbly, all the sentences that that constitute the argument.
653
01:11:52,020 --> 01:11:59,570
Now, I need somebody to hold this, please. Somebody come up and hold this for me.
654
01:11:59,570 --> 01:12:05,130
OK. There we are. There we have an interpretation. That's what that's called an interpretation.
655
01:12:05,130 --> 01:12:09,770
Now, previous one. What's the form of that?
656
01:12:09,770 --> 01:12:14,520
There's a logical word in that that's holding together two sentences.
657
01:12:14,520 --> 01:12:21,930
What are the sentences and what are the logical words, P or Q Good.
658
01:12:21,930 --> 01:12:34,220
That's premise one, isn't it? What's premiss to. So if.
659
01:12:34,220 --> 01:12:44,060
Is it. She didn't realise, okay, if. Q Then not therefore your confusing implication and entailment, whoever that was.
660
01:12:44,060 --> 01:12:56,210
Q Then s was it. Ah okay then the third premiss, if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched.
661
01:12:56,210 --> 01:13:07,750
If all then s. And the conclusion is.
662
01:13:07,750 --> 01:13:13,030
If not, she she didn't want you.
663
01:13:13,030 --> 01:13:18,250
If not P, then net.
664
01:13:18,250 --> 01:13:23,890
Where's the not, where's the not. That's not wrong.
665
01:13:23,890 --> 01:13:32,380
You'll be outside too, in a minute. I said there was no not no.
666
01:13:32,380 --> 01:13:38,500
I'm putting it. I got it. I'm putting the not in front of the P because we've got P was.
667
01:13:38,500 --> 01:13:44,380
She didn't want you to tickler her. And the knot here is if she did want you to take her.
668
01:13:44,380 --> 01:13:49,630
Okay. But this says you deserve to get scratched doesn't it.
669
01:13:49,630 --> 01:13:57,180
And this says you deserve to get scratched. There's no knot snuck in here.
670
01:13:57,180 --> 01:14:05,280
I'm saying not pee, but I'm not saying not s some I mean, if you make something work, you have to put it mildly.
671
01:14:05,280 --> 01:14:10,380
No, you don't. No, because.
672
01:14:10,380 --> 01:14:14,430
Well, what do you put. Actually, if you use if you.
673
01:14:14,430 --> 01:14:21,050
You know, this is. If not P, then s woops.
674
01:14:21,050 --> 01:14:24,630
No, that's. OK.
675
01:14:24,630 --> 01:14:31,670
It's only the pea that's been negated. Not the S, not the S.
676
01:14:31,670 --> 01:14:42,660
OK. You get me confused now.
677
01:14:42,660 --> 01:14:47,010
Hold on. We've got four minutes. Go let let's finish. OK, that's fine.
678
01:14:47,010 --> 01:14:57,870
Because actually know we might need that. Stay there. OK, so this p q r s and his premise one.
679
01:14:57,870 --> 01:15:02,940
Oh I was going to make you do it like this but it's all right. You've done it.
680
01:15:02,940 --> 01:15:10,820
So. Here, so there's the whole argument, which is exactly what you've had there.
681
01:15:10,820 --> 01:15:22,280
What you've got there. Whoops. I should have put a knot there, shouldn't I?
682
01:15:22,280 --> 01:15:27,630
And I haven't. But that's my mistake. Okay. There's only a not there.
683
01:15:27,630 --> 01:15:31,400
She didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise you were going to Tickler.
684
01:15:31,400 --> 01:15:34,920
Okay. That's a straightforward either or isn't it either.
685
01:15:34,920 --> 01:15:37,220
This is the case or that's the case.
686
01:15:37,220 --> 01:15:42,710
Then this says, if she didn't realise that you were going to Tickler, then you were going to Tickler in the wrong way.
687
01:15:42,710 --> 01:15:47,150
Now, obviously, if you like, something's happened. She's scratched you.
688
01:15:47,150 --> 01:15:54,330
Hasn't she? And somebody said if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then obviously you went about it the wrong way.
689
01:15:54,330 --> 01:16:01,040
So going about it gently, puss, puss, puss, you you shoved your hand into a tummy and scratched.
690
01:16:01,040 --> 01:16:09,320
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.
691
01:16:09,320 --> 01:16:13,010
Is that right? That's the implication there.
692
01:16:13,010 --> 01:16:18,980
If she had realised, you wouldn't have got scratched. OK.
693
01:16:18,980 --> 01:16:25,760
No, no, we're not talking about one thing here at all. No, but the premises are separate.
694
01:16:25,760 --> 01:16:31,490
The premises are completely separate. We're looking at the meaning of each one separately.
695
01:16:31,490 --> 01:16:38,450
OK, so this one the implication is if she had realised that, then you wouldn't have got scratched.
696
01:16:38,450 --> 01:16:45,710
If you're going to titular in the wrong way, you you deserve to get scratched, showcases the question of desert coming in here.
697
01:16:45,710 --> 01:16:55,970
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.
698
01:16:55,970 --> 01:17:02,990
So the poor thing was longing for you to take her. And what she did when you did Tickler was scratch you.
699
01:17:02,990 --> 01:17:08,830
Well, why did that happen? Because you went about it in the wrong way.
700
01:17:08,830 --> 01:17:14,250
Have we got to have a horse still standing?
701
01:17:14,250 --> 01:17:18,290
Right. It makes sense without the premises. Is that right?
702
01:17:18,290 --> 01:17:22,220
I'm going to shut you up now. OK, let's. I did.
703
01:17:22,220 --> 01:17:25,430
I don't want to leave on a note of confusion.
704
01:17:25,430 --> 01:17:34,440
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 her, didn't you?
705
01:17:34,440 --> 01:17:40,220
OK, well, I said we're going to test it out. Logic bookstall of all we're going to do is identify the argument.
706
01:17:40,220 --> 01:17:44,030
We're going to analyse the argument, reveal its structure.
707
01:17:44,030 --> 01:17:48,530
So what we've done is we've taken the argument, we identified the conclusion of the argument.
708
01:17:48,530 --> 01:17:53,870
We all did that fairly easily. We identified each premise. We all did that fairly easily.
709
01:17:53,870 --> 01:17:57,770
Yes. Okay. We looked for suppressed premises.
710
01:17:57,770 --> 01:18:05,180
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,
711
01:18:05,180 --> 01:18:13,500
cross references and irrelevancies and revealed the arguments, which might be a very bad argument for all we know.
712
01:18:13,500 --> 01:18:23,030
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
713
01:18:23,030 --> 01:18:28,310
would have been a better one on the argument that we were trying to analyse.
714
01:18:28,310 --> 01:18:32,660
Are you with me? So all we've done is revealed the arguments here.
715
01:18:32,660 --> 01:18:37,940
We've revealed the structure. We've even got it down to a piece, cues, R's and S's.
716
01:18:37,940 --> 01:18:44,900
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.
717
01:18:44,900 --> 01:18:52,880
And an awful lot of that's going to be removing irrelevancies, cross references and things like that and adding suppressed premises.
718
01:18:52,880 --> 01:18:57,770
But it'll give you practise in doing it. And don't forget, this is the important thing.
719
01:18:57,770 --> 01:19:03,050
You can apply this methodology either to somebody else's arguments, which is what we've been doing here.
720
01:19:03,050 --> 01:19:13,550
And what you will do if you look at arguments from the newspaper, all you can apply it to your own arguments and you'll think of something for which
721
01:19:13,550 --> 01:19:23,510
you often argue climate change or something like that or I don't know what's up.
722
01:19:23,510 --> 01:19:28,790
Okay, that's a good one. That'll do. Anyway, find something for which you like to argue in the pub,
723
01:19:28,790 --> 01:19:38,090
write down your conclusion and write down your premises and try and make the argument, the argument you actually give.
724
01:19:38,090 --> 01:19:44,600
So then when we start evaluating arguments, we can look at it. But you will have identified your own arguments and set it out.
725
01:19:44,600 --> 01:19:46,340
Logic book style,
726
01:19:46,340 --> 01:19:55,100
because people often do do that with their own arguments and therefore don't see that they're missing out a huge premiss or that this is happening,
727
01:19:55,100 --> 01:19:59,030
all that's happening or whatever. Okay, so your homework for this week,
728
01:19:59,030 --> 01:20:02,960
either take the arguments you found last week and set them out logic bookstall or
729
01:20:02,960 --> 01:20:08,930
choose a client claim you'd like to make and see if you can set it out as an argument,
730
01:20:08,930 --> 01:20:21,136
logic book style. Okay, cool. I'm exhausted.
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:08,580
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.
2
00:00:08,580 --> 00:00:13,700
Logic, books, style. And the point of doing this is it enables you to get rid of all sorts of things.
3
00:00:13,700 --> 00:00:20,250
The true relevance of the argument and you set out the arguments of the structure of the arguments is very clear.
4
00:00:20,250 --> 00:00:25,980
That way it's much easier to evaluate. Okay, let's get started.
5
00:00:25,980 --> 00:00:29,640
Okay, just a brief recap, as usual, on last week.
6
00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:36,970
If you remember, we looked at the fact that there are two basic types of argument, deductive and inductive.
7
00:00:36,970 --> 00:00:42,750
And we saw that deductive arguments are such that.
8
00:00:42,750 --> 00:00:47,310
Come on, tell me. Don't look at your handouts. Tell me what a deductive argument is.
9
00:00:47,310 --> 00:00:53,390
How do you recognise it? Oh, woo hoo!
10
00:00:53,390 --> 00:00:58,470
I'm too good. Haven't you done well? You're absolutely right. That's right.
11
00:00:58,470 --> 00:01:02,700
The truth of the premise makes the truth of conclusion certain.
12
00:01:02,700 --> 00:01:08,400
Or those of you who use the word guarantee. The truth of the premise guarantees the truth as a conclusion.
13
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:18,070
Well done. That's absolutely right. Okay, then. Inductive arguments are such that.
14
00:01:18,070 --> 00:01:21,200
Good. Okay, I can hear that you've got it as well. Okay.
15
00:01:21,200 --> 00:01:25,500
I'll put it slightly differently this week because if you remember last week we got into trouble with the
16
00:01:25,500 --> 00:01:32,130
way I phrase this is more or less because we don't want promises making less probable the conclusion do it.
17
00:01:32,130 --> 00:01:37,380
So I've said the truth of the premise makes the truth of the conclusion more likely.
18
00:01:37,380 --> 00:01:46,890
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.
19
00:01:46,890 --> 00:01:52,170
Therefore, it's likely it'll rise tomorrow. And it's really pretty likely, isn't it?
20
00:01:52,170 --> 00:01:57,150
It's almost certain or slightly more likely.
21
00:01:57,150 --> 00:02:04,320
So the fact that every time you see me I'd be wearing earrings makes it slightly more likely that the next time you see me, I'll be wearing earrings.
22
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:10,740
So the the whereas deduction is an either or thing.
23
00:02:10,740 --> 00:02:17,710
Induction is a matter of degree. An argument is more or less strong.
24
00:02:17,710 --> 00:02:23,790
Good. We then looked at some examples of arguments that a deductively valid in virtue of their form.
25
00:02:23,790 --> 00:02:30,430
And you remember I was using the PS and Qs and so on to talk about things like Motus Poland's Modus Tolan's and so on.
26
00:02:30,430 --> 00:02:34,170
So we've got if P, then Q P, therefore.
27
00:02:34,170 --> 00:02:40,380
Q That's valid in Virtu its form because it doesn't matter what you're talking about,
28
00:02:40,380 --> 00:02:50,100
it doesn't matter what sentences you put in for P or Q and if these, if the structure of the argument is if P then Q P therefore.
29
00:02:50,100 --> 00:02:55,830
Q it will be valid. Okay, so then we looked at some arguments.
30
00:02:55,830 --> 00:03:04,070
Does the deductively valid in virtue of their contents. Can you remember any of those.
31
00:03:04,070 --> 00:03:16,110
This is a bit harder because they were only examples that we gave. Not quite.
32
00:03:16,110 --> 00:03:20,370
Lying is wrong, therefore we shouldn't lie. Exactly.
33
00:03:20,370 --> 00:03:30,060
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?
34
00:03:30,060 --> 00:03:38,190
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.
35
00:03:38,190 --> 00:03:42,960
If you believe lying is wrong, then you will also believe that you shouldn't lie.
36
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:48,870
Doesn't mean you won't lie. But it does mean that if you do, you'll feel guilty or whatever.
37
00:03:48,870 --> 00:03:51,690
But that's in virtue of the meaning of the word wrong.
38
00:03:51,690 --> 00:04:02,890
Can you remember any other arguments that were valid in virtue of the content, the meaning of particular words?
39
00:04:02,890 --> 00:04:10,180
Jessica. Right.
40
00:04:10,180 --> 00:04:18,550
I can't remember the particular example I used the. I didn't think that would have been one, actually.
41
00:04:18,550 --> 00:04:25,150
I might be wrong about that, but have a feeling that was an example that I used of one of the ones that's valid in virtual form.
42
00:04:25,150 --> 00:04:29,290
OK. No, that came later.
43
00:04:29,290 --> 00:04:34,880
Temporal. Yes. OK. That was one. Can you remember how that went?
44
00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:38,440
OK. That's right.
45
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:43,030
It's raining today. Therefore, tomorrow it will have rained today.
46
00:04:43,030 --> 00:04:52,300
Okay. And that that's because of the word tomorrow and our understanding of before and after and yesterday and today and so on.
47
00:04:52,300 --> 00:04:59,320
OK, good. Then we moved on to inductive arguments and we looked at several different examples of an inductive argument.
48
00:04:59,320 --> 00:05:05,230
Can you remember any of those? You mentioned wonderments ago. Yes.
49
00:05:05,230 --> 00:05:09,040
What was it about Einstein? It was an argument from authority.
50
00:05:09,040 --> 00:05:13,570
Good. Okay. So this man's an authority on this.
51
00:05:13,570 --> 00:05:18,690
Therefore, he said this. Therefore he's an authority on this. That's a bad way of looking at it.
52
00:05:18,690 --> 00:05:29,590
But you can see it. That assumes the principle of what what's behind every inductive argument?
53
00:05:29,590 --> 00:05:34,390
Logic. Yes. Continuity.
54
00:05:34,390 --> 00:05:40,060
Yes. Can anyone put it in the way I put it last week? There's a principle that Hume is most famous for.
55
00:05:40,060 --> 00:05:46,300
David Hume. He said the principle of the uniformity of of nature.
56
00:05:46,300 --> 00:05:50,740
That's right. So what's happened in the past will happen in the future.
57
00:05:50,740 --> 00:05:54,370
If it was like that in the past, it's going to be like that in the future.
58
00:05:54,370 --> 00:06:03,820
And so that's the principle of the uniformity of nature, which underlies every inductive argument and which can't itself be argued for.
59
00:06:03,820 --> 00:06:08,080
Because arguing for it takes us in a circle. Why is the future like the past?
60
00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:13,950
Because it always has been. Well, again, we're relying on induction, aren't we?
61
00:06:13,950 --> 00:06:17,290
Okay. So we looked at some examples this week.
62
00:06:17,290 --> 00:06:23,860
We're going to be learning how to identify and analyse arguments and how to set them out to logic books style.
63
00:06:23,860 --> 00:06:30,400
So if you've got some arguments from this week that you had trouble analysing or you had trouble recognising,
64
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:37,940
you'll be able to use the arguments that you found this week to practise what we're going to learn today.
65
00:06:37,940 --> 00:06:42,400
Okay, so let's start by seeing an argument set out logic bookstall.
66
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:49,620
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.
67
00:06:49,620 --> 00:06:54,630
Okay. You don't have to write out premiss one in full. You can just put P one or you don't even have to put that.
68
00:06:54,630 --> 00:06:58,930
You can just assume that the premises come first and then the conclusion.
69
00:06:58,930 --> 00:07:06,220
But that's an argument set out logic bookstall. And you might say, well, what's the point of setting out arguments.
70
00:07:06,220 --> 00:07:11,530
Logic bookstall. Has anyone got any idea why. Why do we bother setting out arguments.
71
00:07:11,530 --> 00:07:16,960
Logic bookstall. Yes, absolutely.
72
00:07:16,960 --> 00:07:23,290
Yes. What makes it so much stronger?
73
00:07:23,290 --> 00:07:30,230
It should make it stronger because what you're doing is setting out an argument logic bookstall is just identifying the arguments.
74
00:07:30,230 --> 00:07:34,900
You therefore you shouldn't you shouldn't be able to make it either stronger or weaker.
75
00:07:34,900 --> 00:07:40,540
All you're doing is identifying what the argument is. So we're not evaluating it at the moment.
76
00:07:40,540 --> 00:07:48,580
We're just analysing it. Just setting it out. Logic bookstall.
77
00:07:48,580 --> 00:07:55,790
Include assumptions, goodtimes and logic you would have to include.
78
00:07:55,790 --> 00:08:02,600
Absolutely, that's. That's right. What we do in setting out an argument logic bookstall is we actually identify all the premises.
79
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:07,100
So if there's this is a suppressed premise or an assumption, as Paul says,
80
00:08:07,100 --> 00:08:20,060
we try and make it explicit if we can do it in a sense, to rearrange the sentences, to work out what the premises.
81
00:08:20,060 --> 00:08:24,320
Absolutely. It's a set format. So if you remember what was on there, you what premise.
82
00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:28,910
Premise, conclusion. So we know exactly what is being argued for.
83
00:08:28,910 --> 00:08:35,720
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.
84
00:08:35,720 --> 00:08:39,350
Which are the premises? Any other ideas on this one. One, two.
85
00:08:39,350 --> 00:08:58,330
And then we'll move on. It's. That's right, because if you remember, I was asking you to identify the premises and the conclusion.
86
00:08:58,330 --> 00:09:02,890
Of course, you have to be able to do that to set out an argument, logic bookstall.
87
00:09:02,890 --> 00:09:06,840
But once you've done it, once you've set it out logic stall, then it's obvious.
88
00:09:06,840 --> 00:09:11,640
Yeah. One, two. Gentlemen behind you is this.
89
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:18,770
Yes. And by just building on that point, it enables you to identify what form of arguments.
90
00:09:18,770 --> 00:09:23,210
And it can do. Yes, yes, yes.
91
00:09:23,210 --> 00:09:32,830
That might also come later again, we'll have a look at that later on. One more.
92
00:09:32,830 --> 00:09:37,990
Up to a point, as we'll see, Lord Copper. OK.
93
00:09:37,990 --> 00:09:43,780
I put down. That's the one we mentioned. It enables us to add suppressed premises.
94
00:09:43,780 --> 00:09:50,320
It enables us to eliminate cross references, irrelevancies and inconsistent terms.
95
00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:54,310
Okay. And that makes it much easier to identify the argument.
96
00:09:54,310 --> 00:09:58,410
We'll go through all this. So if you don't quite understand what I mean here, don't worry about it, Will.
97
00:09:58,410 --> 00:10:07,390
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.
98
00:10:07,390 --> 00:10:15,280
Okay. Right. On the surface of it, it's easy to set out arguments, logic bookstall.
99
00:10:15,280 --> 00:10:19,450
Let's try this one. If you're familiar with this, you've seen this argument before.
100
00:10:19,450 --> 00:10:26,260
First of all, tell me, what's the conclusion of this argument? Tell me what. Which is the conclusion.
101
00:10:26,260 --> 00:10:33,030
Good. Edinburgh's north of Oxford. So Premiss one. Good.
102
00:10:33,030 --> 00:10:36,930
And I'm glad you left out the words since. Because that's a logical word, isn't it?
103
00:10:36,930 --> 00:10:41,160
That doesn't. That's not actually part of the sentence. That is the premise.
104
00:10:41,160 --> 00:10:45,150
So you were absolutely right to leave that out. OK. Premiss one, then.
105
00:10:45,150 --> 00:10:53,550
So you're writing down Premiss one. Manchester is north of Oxford. Premiss to Edinburgh is north of Manchester.
106
00:10:53,550 --> 00:10:58,460
Good. And the conclusion? Edinburgh is north of Oxford. And you left out since and.
107
00:10:58,460 --> 00:11:05,070
Well done. Those two are the logical words. They're the words on which the validity of the argument hangs.
108
00:11:05,070 --> 00:11:11,470
As we'll see later. But we leave them out of the identification of the premise and the conclusion.
109
00:11:11,470 --> 00:11:18,890
Okay, let's try this one. What's the conclusion?
110
00:11:18,890 --> 00:11:25,880
Which is float? Yep. OK. The conclusion is which float premise one.
111
00:11:25,880 --> 00:11:29,840
Which is a made of wood. Wood floats. Good.
112
00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:34,400
Again, you left out the logical choice and that's right. Can I just give you a warning of this?
113
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:44,300
And is a logical word. But and here is connecting which two parts of language and two of the same parts of language.
114
00:11:44,300 --> 00:11:50,370
What's it connecting here? To use two premises.
115
00:11:50,370 --> 00:11:57,540
OK. But what a premises, their sentences. So and here is a sentence connecter.
116
00:11:57,540 --> 00:12:03,510
Okay, we can connect any sentences we want here. Here it is used again, connecting these two sentences.
117
00:12:03,510 --> 00:12:08,500
But what about this one? Oedipus is a black and white cat.
118
00:12:08,500 --> 00:12:15,420
OK. And working as a sentence connective there, Oedipus is a black and white cat.
119
00:12:15,420 --> 00:12:21,330
What's it connecting their two adjectives or two predicates, as we would say in logic.
120
00:12:21,330 --> 00:12:29,490
So you've got to be a bit careful when you see and in a sentence sometimes and will be part of the content if it's not.
121
00:12:29,490 --> 00:12:34,260
Combining two sentences but two predicates. Are you with me?
122
00:12:34,260 --> 00:12:38,920
So just watch out for that. Keep keep an eye open for that.
123
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:42,450
Right. Good. Well, we've set those two out logic bookstores. Okay.
124
00:12:42,450 --> 00:12:46,230
Now try this one. Okay.
125
00:12:46,230 --> 00:12:52,020
Now I'm not serious about your trying that one right and minute, but we are going to do that one before the end of today.
126
00:12:52,020 --> 00:12:54,720
Okay. But this is another reason we set it out.
127
00:12:54,720 --> 00:13:01,170
Logic book style, because you can look straight at those arguments and you can pretty well see what the form is, can't you?
128
00:13:01,170 --> 00:13:05,340
You can see the other ones. You can see whether they're good arguments. You can tell straight off.
129
00:13:05,340 --> 00:13:14,880
But this is now those of you who found arguments from magazines or newspapers that this week were your arguments more like that one or more?
130
00:13:14,880 --> 00:13:18,180
Yes. Again, this is why they're so difficult, because actually,
131
00:13:18,180 --> 00:13:25,080
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.
132
00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:31,740
We had all sorts of things to our arguments. We say things like, well, if that's true, I'm a Dutchman.
133
00:13:31,740 --> 00:13:37,050
What does that mean? If that's true, I'm a Dutchman.
134
00:13:37,050 --> 00:13:41,310
What does that mean in English? It's not true.
135
00:13:41,310 --> 00:13:46,920
So when I say if that's true, I'm a Dutchman. All I'm actually saying is that's not true.
136
00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:53,040
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.
137
00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:58,080
But in English, when we're talking, we use all sorts of colloquialisms. We add all sorts of things.
138
00:13:58,080 --> 00:14:07,650
We add. We have all sorts of ums and ahs and ers. And it makes it very difficult to identify the argument itself.
139
00:14:07,650 --> 00:14:16,530
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.
140
00:14:16,530 --> 00:14:20,600
OK, here's a set of steps for analysing arguments.
141
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:24,750
I'm not using this microphone. By the way, can people at the back hear me?
142
00:14:24,750 --> 00:14:29,360
Yeah. Okay, here's a set of steps for for analysing arguments.
143
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:36,890
We're going to follow these steps today. And I meant to actually write them out on the board and I forgot.
144
00:14:36,890 --> 00:14:40,580
So you'll have to keep referring back as I ask you, what do we do next?
145
00:14:40,580 --> 00:14:45,650
You'll have to keep referring back to slide eleven. Okay.
146
00:14:45,650 --> 00:14:52,970
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.
147
00:14:52,970 --> 00:15:00,110
We look for the argument indicators, and I've given quite a few here and.
148
00:15:00,110 --> 00:15:04,670
Then we identify. Well, OK. I didn't find the conclusion. What are we looking for?
149
00:15:04,670 --> 00:15:16,420
What? Tell me again what a conclusion is. Another bit of revision.
150
00:15:16,420 --> 00:15:23,560
Now, careful. What is the conclusion? It's not the reason for the truth of the other premises.
151
00:15:23,560 --> 00:15:32,240
The other premises is what she said, that she isn't it. What? That's right.
152
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,430
It's what it is you're arguing for, isn't it?
153
00:15:35,430 --> 00:15:39,920
It's it's the final. You were just getting mixed up then. It's very easy to get mixed up.
154
00:15:39,920 --> 00:15:45,050
And when you get mixed up, course, you invert it, which gets everything wrong. But that's easy to do.
155
00:15:45,050 --> 00:15:47,090
But the conclusion you can only tell,
156
00:15:47,090 --> 00:15:56,090
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.
157
00:15:56,090 --> 00:16:03,830
It's in effect, the statement you're making. And then the premises are.
158
00:16:03,830 --> 00:16:08,360
The supporting evidence or the supporting reasons got to be a bit careful with
159
00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:14,520
evidence because they're not always their arguments rather than evidence.
160
00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:21,920
Yeah, exactly. So, yeah. Okay, good. Let's here's an easy one.
161
00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:25,490
Identify the argument indicators in these arguments.
162
00:16:25,490 --> 00:16:32,090
What about the first one, which is the argument indicator in this one though are actually since.
163
00:16:32,090 --> 00:16:35,950
Good. Is there another one four. Well done.
164
00:16:35,950 --> 00:16:42,280
You're getting good at this. Okay. What about this one? Put up your hands. This time I'm going to.
165
00:16:42,280 --> 00:16:48,160
Okay. What's the argument indicator in this one. Stick your hand up if you're.
166
00:16:48,160 --> 00:16:56,010
Once you found it. Because some people and I have to admit, I'm one of them.
167
00:16:56,010 --> 00:17:01,070
I think quite slowly. And if people yell out it's.
168
00:17:01,070 --> 00:17:09,050
They don't get a chance to think. OK, now you can all yell out together, because that's right.
169
00:17:09,050 --> 00:17:22,000
Yep, good. Okay, what about this one? Put your hands up again. Quite easy, this one, isn't it?
170
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:26,920
Okay, again. Yep, there we are. And there it is.
171
00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:30,550
You got them all right. Oh, it's actually the red isn't very good, is it? Can you see that?
172
00:17:30,550 --> 00:17:36,400
I've marched to the mall in red. If you can't see, you'll see it on your handout.
173
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:45,530
That's a shame. I didn't realise that the red doesn't show. OK, now we're going to practise looking at conclusions.
174
00:17:45,530 --> 00:17:49,390
We can. We've done this before. So this is difficult tool.
175
00:17:49,390 --> 00:17:57,170
What's the conclusion here? What is it?
176
00:17:57,170 --> 00:18:01,550
Have another. Don't yell out, okay? Have another look at the argument.
177
00:18:01,550 --> 00:18:08,210
Remind yourself what a conclusion is. And tell me Socrates is mortal.
178
00:18:08,210 --> 00:18:12,920
Yes. Why did you get that confused? I mean, there's a very good reason for getting it confused.
179
00:18:12,920 --> 00:18:18,920
What is it? What or what? It's not at the end.
180
00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:23,590
You are your you've been expecting to see the conclusion at the end, haven't you?
181
00:18:23,590 --> 00:18:27,710
But but as you see from this one, it doesn't need to be at the end in this one.
182
00:18:27,710 --> 00:18:31,610
It's in the middle, isn't it? So it's.
183
00:18:31,610 --> 00:18:40,190
Remember what I say that you can only tell which is the conclusion by looking at the function of played by a particular sentence.
184
00:18:40,190 --> 00:18:46,970
The conclusion is the sentence you are arguing for. Okay, so here's the.
185
00:18:46,970 --> 00:18:52,160
And it's this in red. Just as you said, Socrates is mortal.
186
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:59,370
Is the conclusion. Okay. Find the conclusion of this argument.
187
00:18:59,370 --> 00:19:15,600
Now put up your hand again rather than yelling out. And don't worry, if it takes you a bit of time.
188
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:24,640
Some people just do think more slowly and that's fine. OK.
189
00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:29,650
What is it that you're brilliant?
190
00:19:29,650 --> 00:19:33,800
You are exactly right. Socialism was doomed to failure. OK.
191
00:19:33,800 --> 00:19:48,360
As picked out in red. And what about this one?
192
00:19:48,360 --> 00:20:05,860
Hands up. OK, would you like to have a go?
193
00:20:05,860 --> 00:20:09,830
Yes. OK. They will continue to need help from industrial nations.
194
00:20:09,830 --> 00:20:12,260
Now here's a little hint for something that's come into you.
195
00:20:12,260 --> 00:20:21,120
Remember I said that setting something out logic bookstall enables you to remove cross references, irrelevancies and whatever the other one was.
196
00:20:21,120 --> 00:20:25,940
Okay, look at this one. Can you have an idea of what I meant there?
197
00:20:25,940 --> 00:20:30,860
Because this put up your hand if you can. If you think you see what I can mean.
198
00:20:30,860 --> 00:20:41,420
Okay. This. No, that's that's actually not what I mean there.
199
00:20:41,420 --> 00:20:43,160
I was thinking.
200
00:20:43,160 --> 00:20:50,810
I think you thought I mentioned the whole argument, but actually I just mentioned they will continue to need help from industrial nations.
201
00:20:50,810 --> 00:20:53,270
Just look at the conclusion there.
202
00:20:53,270 --> 00:21:04,520
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?
203
00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:10,430
Well done. Will continue because this lay is an honour for reference, isn't it?
204
00:21:10,430 --> 00:21:18,410
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,
205
00:21:18,410 --> 00:21:24,620
we're left with the statement that actually that has no meaning, does it, in the they will continue to need to.
206
00:21:24,620 --> 00:21:31,140
Well, who's they? So we need to remove that cross reference and we'll be seeing how to do that later.
207
00:21:31,140 --> 00:21:36,530
First. Indeed there is, and we'll be looking at that later.
208
00:21:36,530 --> 00:21:42,820
Thank. Well done. OK. There's the conclusion, though, picked out in red.
209
00:21:42,820 --> 00:21:49,270
I'll pick it out in green next week. Yes.
210
00:21:49,270 --> 00:21:53,820
Okay, that's good idea. I'll do that. Yes, because it's already in bold.
211
00:21:53,820 --> 00:21:58,080
But I could easily do it. Or I could do it in capital letters. Good.
212
00:21:58,080 --> 00:22:03,240
OK. Identify all the premises of this argument.
213
00:22:03,240 --> 00:22:08,250
And don't forget that they might be a suppressed private now. This is going to take you a little longer.
214
00:22:08,250 --> 00:22:14,950
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.
215
00:22:14,950 --> 00:22:56,040
And a hint. There are two of them. Put up your hand when you've finished.
216
00:22:56,040 --> 00:23:01,140
You'll have to paraphrase a little bit. And if you're finding that, don't don't worry about it.
217
00:23:01,140 --> 00:23:05,550
If you're thinking I can't be right because I'm not using exactly the same words.
218
00:23:05,550 --> 00:23:12,060
Don't worry about that. Paraphrase is fine. What you mustn't do is change the meaning of anything.
219
00:23:12,060 --> 00:23:19,540
But paraphrasing it to get the grammar right or whatever is fine. OK.
220
00:23:19,540 --> 00:23:28,390
Right. Would you like to tell us, sir? Yes. Yep.
221
00:23:28,390 --> 00:23:38,380
OK. That's premise one. I take it, as you were writing, socialism did not provide the incentives.
222
00:23:38,380 --> 00:23:43,740
Incentives are needed. Yes, that that would do OK.
223
00:23:43,740 --> 00:23:48,420
Any variation on those themes? So here it is, premise one.
224
00:23:48,420 --> 00:23:55,260
Incentives are needed for a prosperous economy. Premise to socialism did not provides incentives.
225
00:23:55,260 --> 00:23:59,260
Conclusion. Socialism was doomed to failure. Okay.
226
00:23:59,260 --> 00:24:02,730
Do you see where both those premises come from? OK.
227
00:24:02,730 --> 00:24:10,700
They're needed. Which one is this? Suppressed premiss. Yes, that's right.
228
00:24:10,700 --> 00:24:18,290
The first one was suppressed in the original arguments, but but it's made explicit as we set out the argument logic bookstall.
229
00:24:18,290 --> 00:24:24,650
And if you had any variation on this theme, that's fine, so long as it has to say meaning.
230
00:24:24,650 --> 00:24:44,790
Does anyone want to cheque some? A prosperous, a prosperous economy.
231
00:24:44,790 --> 00:24:50,760
Well, I think what you'll think, well, is this what you're thinking of doomed to failure?
232
00:24:50,760 --> 00:24:56,700
I mean, you want something like you will only succeed if you have a prosperous economy, don't you?
233
00:24:56,700 --> 00:25:06,510
OK. That's really and you've got that in premise one, haven't you?
234
00:25:06,510 --> 00:25:12,480
Or you can have something like you have succeeded only a few if you have a prosperous economy.
235
00:25:12,480 --> 00:25:22,030
You could add, that's OK. You don't need to me. I mean, quite honestly, if you make explicit everything, you might find yourself.
236
00:25:22,030 --> 00:25:28,150
Is that my mobile? No, it's yours. Good but bad.
237
00:25:28,150 --> 00:25:40,850
But better than this being my son's. Not everybody would.
238
00:25:40,850 --> 00:25:50,630
I completely accept your point. I think you could easily add another premise and then you could say prosperous companies are needed for success.
239
00:25:50,630 --> 00:25:55,760
Incentives are needed for prosperous economies. Socialism did not provide incentives.
240
00:25:55,760 --> 00:25:58,910
Therefore, socialism was not a success or something.
241
00:25:58,910 --> 00:26:06,150
Do you see, I we could easily have added that one in as well and made explicit to suppress the premises.
242
00:26:06,150 --> 00:26:11,550
Yep. Fair enough. Okay. Anyone else have anything. Not quite.
243
00:26:11,550 --> 00:26:18,430
This. No. Okay, good. Let's do it again with this one.
244
00:26:18,430 --> 00:26:25,810
So since many newly emerging nations do not have the capital resources needed for necessary for sustained growth,
245
00:26:25,810 --> 00:26:37,060
they will continue to need help from industrial nations. You'll find actually, as you practise at this, it gets much, much easier.
246
00:26:37,060 --> 00:26:44,470
And another trick is, if you have not quite seen it, is to identify, identify the sentences that make up the premise.
247
00:26:44,470 --> 00:26:50,680
If if you can I mean, here you've only got one sentence and then see what else you need to make.
248
00:26:50,680 --> 00:27:03,920
Make an argument. OK, let's let's try some value.
249
00:27:03,920 --> 00:27:07,950
OK. So many newly emerging nations will continue to need help.
250
00:27:07,950 --> 00:27:20,110
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.
251
00:27:20,110 --> 00:27:36,500
Yep. OK. Well, no.
252
00:27:36,500 --> 00:27:44,900
Now, now, now you've got to be careful, because when you're identifying the premise, don't put it in anything that you happen to believe.
253
00:27:44,900 --> 00:27:50,540
What you're doing is you're identifying the argument that whoever it is that wrote this is making.
254
00:27:50,540 --> 00:27:57,890
Now, we haven't we're not yet evaluating the argument. We may decide that they're wrong in all sorts of ways.
255
00:27:57,890 --> 00:28:01,850
But what we don't do is add things on.
256
00:28:01,850 --> 00:28:05,630
All we're doing here is sticking to the meaning of the original.
257
00:28:05,630 --> 00:28:10,070
We can paraphrase, but we mustn't change the meaning to change the meaning.
258
00:28:10,070 --> 00:28:14,730
It is really bad. Really, really bad.
259
00:28:14,730 --> 00:28:18,410
OK. Is there anything else that anyone wants to try this.
260
00:28:18,410 --> 00:28:30,900
Oh yes. One more. Yup.
261
00:28:30,900 --> 00:28:32,040
Okay.
262
00:28:32,040 --> 00:28:42,390
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 there.
263
00:28:42,390 --> 00:28:46,260
Let's see what I put down. And then let's see whether we still need that.
264
00:28:46,260 --> 00:28:51,540
So I've put down many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources.
265
00:28:51,540 --> 00:28:55,140
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
266
00:28:55,140 --> 00:29:03,300
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations.
267
00:29:03,300 --> 00:29:12,120
Conclusion many newly emerging nations will need help from industrial nations.
268
00:29:12,120 --> 00:29:20,920
Well, is it? Now, remember, in the very first week, we looked at the difference between implication and entailment.
269
00:29:20,920 --> 00:29:25,160
Does anyone remember what the difference between implication and entailment is?
270
00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:29,050
And don't worry if you do, because it's it's a very sophisticated distinction.
271
00:29:29,050 --> 00:29:44,060
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.
272
00:29:44,060 --> 00:29:50,280
The then Claus. Or are we just saying if P, then Q.
273
00:29:50,280 --> 00:29:59,110
We're not actually claiming that P or Q Alwi. If we say if P, then Q.
274
00:29:59,110 --> 00:30:06,260
Are you with me? So. So is there a conclusion in if P, then Q.
275
00:30:06,260 --> 00:30:14,990
Is does this something of that structure have the premiss and conclusion's structure that would make it an argument?
276
00:30:14,990 --> 00:30:22,550
No, it doesn't, does it? What it has is two sentences combined with the logical phrase if then.
277
00:30:22,550 --> 00:30:27,980
But actually you're you're not claiming anything and you're not backing up anything by offering reasons.
278
00:30:27,980 --> 00:30:43,620
So it's not an argument. It's an implication. Do you understand that person?
279
00:30:43,620 --> 00:30:50,810
And that would be a case of putting in a suppressed premise too far from my perspective.
280
00:30:50,810 --> 00:30:57,740
And I think that's because we we haven't specified what help they need here.
281
00:30:57,740 --> 00:31:01,940
We're just saying. OK.
282
00:31:01,940 --> 00:31:07,730
You've got. If not, then that.
283
00:31:07,730 --> 00:31:13,440
And that's saying the F is. True.
284
00:31:13,440 --> 00:31:20,010
If you like, so then that we don't actually need to spell out what that is.
285
00:31:20,010 --> 00:31:25,220
I can see why you want that, but I would say it's not necessary for the argument.
286
00:31:25,220 --> 00:31:30,510
Well. You can just say what? Well.
287
00:31:30,510 --> 00:31:38,410
Would need help from the World Bank. You say you could destroy the argument by saying, well, by.
288
00:31:38,410 --> 00:31:52,340
Well, results. Well, yes, I did.
289
00:31:52,340 --> 00:31:57,470
The fact is what we're doing is we're identifying the argument. We're not evaluating it yet.
290
00:31:57,470 --> 00:32:01,910
Do you see? Do you see the difference? We're just identifying it. Then we evaluate it.
291
00:32:01,910 --> 00:32:03,710
So we do have to let the content go.
292
00:32:03,710 --> 00:32:11,060
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.
293
00:32:11,060 --> 00:32:15,430
But I don't think that was one of them. At the third grade,
294
00:32:15,430 --> 00:32:19,810
I would have thought that the industrial nations have its fair capital resources
295
00:32:19,810 --> 00:32:23,950
because that would be the only way that they could provide help for the Middle East,
296
00:32:23,950 --> 00:32:40,100
for the. Well, it's this argument saying what sort of help they need from.
297
00:32:40,100 --> 00:32:52,120
I mean, I agree it's an implication there, but I don't think it's the only way.
298
00:32:52,120 --> 00:33:02,950
Ramming through the capital resources are necessary. OK.
299
00:33:02,950 --> 00:33:11,390
So it could be that instead of it will need help, we should change that help to capital resources.
300
00:33:11,390 --> 00:33:19,220
Do you see what I mean? So so it would then read many new names, emerging nations do not have capital resources.
301
00:33:19,220 --> 00:33:22,490
Capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
302
00:33:22,490 --> 00:33:31,870
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.
303
00:33:31,870 --> 00:33:37,850
Do you see what I mean? And then they in the same way would say many newly emerging nations will need capital
304
00:33:37,850 --> 00:33:42,800
resources from sustain so that we would be getting the premise that you want in.
305
00:33:42,800 --> 00:33:57,230
By removing inconsistent terms rather than by adding another premiss.
306
00:33:57,230 --> 00:34:03,530
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.
307
00:34:03,530 --> 00:34:07,460
Because I hope then I'll be able to convince you that it is actually in there.
308
00:34:07,460 --> 00:34:13,880
It's just in there in an inconsistent way. OK. But but do remind me to come back.
309
00:34:13,880 --> 00:34:24,680
This is from industrial.
310
00:34:24,680 --> 00:34:32,660
Well, no, because the conclusion is that they will need help. I mean, don't forget, the premises may be false.
311
00:34:32,660 --> 00:34:40,310
I mean, nobody's saying that the premises are true at the moment. We're just wanting to identify the premise that, well,
312
00:34:40,310 --> 00:34:47,210
that's we worry about later when we're not evaluating the arguments at the moment, we're just analysing it.
313
00:34:47,210 --> 00:34:55,270
We're putting down exactly what was said in the argument or what was said and what was implied in the argument.
314
00:34:55,270 --> 00:35:09,710
Say why? Well, I think if we change that to capital resources, it does say that.
315
00:35:09,710 --> 00:35:10,130
I mean,
316
00:35:10,130 --> 00:35:20,990
aren't we implying in this argument that the help that the industrialised nations are giving to the newly emerging nations is capital resources?
317
00:35:20,990 --> 00:35:29,300
Yes, absolutely, yes. But that's why when when we get round to removing inconsistent terms, which we haven't got round to yet.
318
00:35:29,300 --> 00:35:33,410
That's one of the things we would want to make explicit.
319
00:35:33,410 --> 00:35:38,930
So there are different ways of making things explicit. One is by adding suppressed premises.
320
00:35:38,930 --> 00:35:44,030
And another is by by removing inconsistent terms.
321
00:35:44,030 --> 00:35:54,950
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.
322
00:35:54,950 --> 00:36:02,270
I wouldn't not at the moment, I wouldn't.
323
00:36:02,270 --> 00:36:07,250
OK, now you've done so well. We're going to try the really complicated arguments.
324
00:36:07,250 --> 00:36:12,160
Okay, we'll do that for the rest of the session. Here's the argument.
325
00:36:12,160 --> 00:36:18,580
Okay. This is the one by the end of this session, you will have analysed this argument and seen how it works.
326
00:36:18,580 --> 00:36:24,270
Okay. Firstly, identify the conclusion of this argument.
327
00:36:24,270 --> 00:36:28,420
Okay. Right. Who wants to who hasn't had to go. Would you like to have a go.
328
00:36:28,420 --> 00:36:34,680
What's the answer. Oh sorry. I was asking the lady the.
329
00:36:34,680 --> 00:36:43,480
You deserve to get stretched. There's a bit more to it than that.
330
00:36:43,480 --> 00:37:00,170
That is part of the conclusion. Well, it's not if you titular Tom, it it's if you if.
331
00:37:00,170 --> 00:37:07,620
OK. Somebody is somebody else. She didn't want.
332
00:37:07,620 --> 00:37:20,810
Just she didn't want you to articulate me, OK? Nope, wrong. Absolutely as the whole sentence.
333
00:37:20,810 --> 00:37:29,480
It's actually a conditional conclusion, if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserve to get scratched.
334
00:37:29,480 --> 00:37:34,910
So it's not that you deserve to get scratched on its own because you only deserve to get scratch.
335
00:37:34,910 --> 00:37:38,810
If she did want you to tickle her tummy. Do you see what I mean?
336
00:37:38,810 --> 00:37:42,110
That's the whole thing is a conditional conclusion.
337
00:37:42,110 --> 00:37:51,410
And you said something like, if you tickled to tummy and I wasn't sure whether you were leaving out there if she wanted you to tickle her tummy,
338
00:37:51,410 --> 00:37:59,150
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,
339
00:37:59,150 --> 00:38:06,740
isn't there? And for the purposes of this argument, that's actually quite an important difference.
340
00:38:06,740 --> 00:38:14,720
So the conclusion and I said there was a nice large argument indicator right in front of it and here it is.
341
00:38:14,720 --> 00:38:19,190
So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
342
00:38:19,190 --> 00:38:22,840
That's the conclusion. OK.
343
00:38:22,840 --> 00:38:25,960
Ever unhappy with that?
344
00:38:25,960 --> 00:38:36,570
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?
345
00:38:36,570 --> 00:38:43,000
Again, it's it's the declaim for which you're arguing.
346
00:38:43,000 --> 00:38:47,520
That's right. It's a statement that you're making and that you're backing up with reasons.
347
00:38:47,520 --> 00:38:54,100
Okay. What's the next thing we do? Having identified the conclusion, we identify the premises.
348
00:38:54,100 --> 00:39:12,070
Okay. Identify the premises of that argument. Yes.
349
00:39:12,070 --> 00:39:20,860
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.
350
00:39:20,860 --> 00:39:25,270
Okay. I think we're getting there. I'm going to reveal what I've got.
351
00:39:25,270 --> 00:39:30,910
And then you can tell me if you've got something else. OK. This is premiss one.
352
00:39:30,910 --> 00:39:36,850
Well, perhaps she didn't want you to tickle her tummy or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
353
00:39:36,850 --> 00:39:42,430
Now, I've just realised that I've I've misled you in something because I can.
354
00:39:42,430 --> 00:39:45,850
I praised you for leaving out the argument indicators,
355
00:39:45,850 --> 00:39:51,850
whereas actually the only argument in two cases I want you to leave out of that since this is in full force and so on,
356
00:39:51,850 --> 00:39:59,020
this or here is making this these two sentences into a complex sentence.
357
00:39:59,020 --> 00:40:02,350
So it's you should leave that in. OK.
358
00:40:02,350 --> 00:40:10,040
So the premise that you can see the structure that can't you P or Q So the or is part of it.
359
00:40:10,040 --> 00:40:16,750
Yeah. No you mustn't.
360
00:40:16,750 --> 00:40:25,780
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.
361
00:40:25,780 --> 00:40:33,940
But if you have P or Q do you see that that's the or is rather the difference isn't it logically.
362
00:40:33,940 --> 00:40:39,480
You can't just have one sensor if I say, look, here's a way of doing it.
363
00:40:39,480 --> 00:40:46,290
And we're taking. If I've got a pen. Yes. Right.
364
00:40:46,290 --> 00:40:55,380
We're moving ahead a little bit here in what I'm going to tell you. So if you start getting confused, just stop your ears up.
365
00:40:55,380 --> 00:41:04,560
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
366
00:41:04,560 --> 00:41:08,770
so we can then set out the conditions under which they're all true together.
367
00:41:08,770 --> 00:41:13,230
OK. Don't worry about how we do that at the moment. It's just that's what we try and do.
368
00:41:13,230 --> 00:41:22,080
Now, if I look at P and Q, I can say, well, this is true.
369
00:41:22,080 --> 00:41:31,860
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?
370
00:41:31,860 --> 00:41:37,770
Do you see intuitively that. So what is it for P and Q to be true.
371
00:41:37,770 --> 00:41:46,650
Well it's four P to be true. And Q to be true in the same world or in the same situation, if you prefer.
372
00:41:46,650 --> 00:41:52,830
So I can represent it just with one line and putting P and Q on the same line.
373
00:41:52,830 --> 00:42:03,000
Whereas if I say P all Q. I can't do that, can I, p or Q is true just in case.
374
00:42:03,000 --> 00:42:12,120
What's. Yeah, either peer's true or Q is true or sometimes both.
375
00:42:12,120 --> 00:42:19,180
So I'll have to draw two lines and put P on one line and Q on the other wouldn't I.
376
00:42:19,180 --> 00:42:26,110
In order to say P or Q so they have the different words, different logical words,
377
00:42:26,110 --> 00:42:34,690
and you see how if I separate the P and Q in one premiss, it doesn't really matter.
378
00:42:34,690 --> 00:42:43,930
Whereas if I separate the P or Q, it does matter because then I've only got one on each line.
379
00:42:43,930 --> 00:42:46,720
So I was Keaton together.
380
00:42:46,720 --> 00:42:55,330
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.
381
00:42:55,330 --> 00:43:02,000
So any any complex sentence, just keep them together.
382
00:43:02,000 --> 00:43:08,090
OK. Did anyone have something different from that other than just separating the two sentences?
383
00:43:08,090 --> 00:43:14,690
And actually, you're separating the two sentences was because I misled you in the beginning, so don't knock yourself for that.
384
00:43:14,690 --> 00:43:17,210
Just saying my complete confusion.
385
00:43:17,210 --> 00:43:28,010
I can't understand why not separate study if there was some sort of dependence on the other, but there doesn't seem to be any.
386
00:43:28,010 --> 00:43:33,350
Well, what do you think about what we're doing here? Do you remember I said we've got to keep the meaning.
387
00:43:33,350 --> 00:43:42,470
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.
388
00:43:42,470 --> 00:43:50,210
Is that right? OK, so if we separate them, so we've lost the all.
389
00:43:50,210 --> 00:43:57,440
We've just got this is true and this is true just because she did not want you
390
00:43:57,440 --> 00:44:01,940
to take and it doesn't matter whether she realises what you're doing or not,
391
00:44:01,940 --> 00:44:09,260
she still doesn't want you to take her. So they still stand independently. Regardless, they there are two independent senators.
392
00:44:09,260 --> 00:44:13,670
I completely agree you. I mean, it might be true that she did what you didn't want you to tickler,
393
00:44:13,670 --> 00:44:23,080
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.
394
00:44:23,080 --> 00:44:30,220
And that's what we have to get. I mean, OK, so so the premise of the argument is we start off with either this or this.
395
00:44:30,220 --> 00:44:38,270
Do you remember the first when we were doing the arguments on either side?
396
00:44:38,270 --> 00:44:43,430
We'll look at P or Q P.
397
00:44:43,430 --> 00:44:46,820
Sorry, not P, therefore. Q Okay.
398
00:44:46,820 --> 00:44:51,200
Do you remember that argument, P or Q not P, therefore.
399
00:44:51,200 --> 00:44:55,100
Q Okay, it's not the same here.
400
00:44:55,100 --> 00:45:03,960
What. OK. One. Okay. Now I'm not understanding why not. There's a statement which she doesn't want you to take a hit on me.
401
00:45:03,960 --> 00:45:10,590
Now, if that is the case, it doesn't matter whether she realised you wanted to see me or not.
402
00:45:10,590 --> 00:45:15,750
Her reaction was independent of her knowing. But why is that a problem?
403
00:45:15,750 --> 00:45:21,180
Because remember here, the two sentences are completely independent of each other.
404
00:45:21,180 --> 00:45:25,170
We talked about it. It's if it's it's either sunny or rainy.
405
00:45:25,170 --> 00:45:33,080
Now, that shouldn't give you. Because we could say it's either sunny or windy.
406
00:45:33,080 --> 00:45:37,170
But you can't say if it's sunny, then it's not windy.
407
00:45:37,170 --> 00:45:44,910
But we haven't said that. If then is completely different from or if then is a different logical claim.
408
00:45:44,910 --> 00:45:53,460
So what was this, again, the right time? No, no, I'm sure you're not the only person who's confused by this.
409
00:45:53,460 --> 00:45:58,430
All this says here is either this is true or this is true.
410
00:45:58,430 --> 00:46:03,150
The next phase of this. And this is this isn't true.
411
00:46:03,150 --> 00:46:09,320
Therefore, this must be. So listen to the logic again. Either this or this.
412
00:46:09,320 --> 00:46:16,660
Sorry, I ultra either this or that. Not this, therefore that.
413
00:46:16,660 --> 00:46:22,430
And it doesn't matter what this or that is. Do you see what I mean?
414
00:46:22,430 --> 00:46:29,160
So so here we sit. She didn't want you to take. Or she didn't realise what you were going to do.
415
00:46:29,160 --> 00:46:34,600
She didn't want you to tickle her. There he is.
416
00:46:34,600 --> 00:46:40,960
Well, yeah, but yeah, but hang on. This is. But nothing follows from this is is only one premiss.
417
00:46:40,960 --> 00:46:45,910
We've got to get the whole argument before anything follows. You don't have to be able to do that.
418
00:46:45,910 --> 00:46:51,280
No, I was just using that to illustrate that the all can stand between two.
419
00:46:51,280 --> 00:47:00,620
Two Independents sentence's. Doesn't matter what the sentences are, their content is irrelevant.
420
00:47:00,620 --> 00:47:06,470
OK, if you still don't understand that CMA offers a is anyone else still bothered by that?
421
00:47:06,470 --> 00:47:10,250
Put your hands up if you want me to go over that again. No.
422
00:47:10,250 --> 00:47:13,940
OK. See me afterwards. If you're still hung, goes it OK?
423
00:47:13,940 --> 00:47:22,460
Does anyone have anything else for Premiss one than this other than having divided the two up?
424
00:47:22,460 --> 00:47:29,370
No. Okay. Good. Premise two. If she didn't realise, then you obviously went about it in the wrong way.
425
00:47:29,370 --> 00:47:36,650
Does anyone have something different for that? Premise three.
426
00:47:36,650 --> 00:47:42,180
In that case, you deserve to get scratched, unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she'd understand Wolf.
427
00:47:42,180 --> 00:47:49,070
Wolf, I meant roll over. I'm sorry, say that again.
428
00:47:49,070 --> 00:47:53,710
Why do you need that space, you what you do?
429
00:47:53,710 --> 00:47:58,160
You're beautiful. You were such a. Well,
430
00:47:58,160 --> 00:48:07,340
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 premiss.
431
00:48:07,340 --> 00:48:14,920
If you left out in that case, you deserved to get scratched unless.
432
00:48:14,920 --> 00:48:23,770
So you just have an unless you just have unless you really thought she was such a perceptive cuttable that she and that she's not even a sentence,
433
00:48:23,770 --> 00:48:30,020
is it? In order to be a premise, it has to be a sentence.
434
00:48:30,020 --> 00:48:34,580
It might be a complex sentence, but it has to be a sentence. Yep.
435
00:48:34,580 --> 00:48:38,880
And you want to have anything different there? No good.
436
00:48:38,880 --> 00:48:43,740
You're doing very well. Premise four, if you thought that you're an idiot but you're not an idiot.
437
00:48:43,740 --> 00:48:50,920
You're just twisted. Anyone have anything different for that?
438
00:48:50,920 --> 00:49:02,080
Yeah, I think. If you thought that you were sorry, what did you have?
439
00:49:02,080 --> 00:49:06,370
OK. OK.
440
00:49:06,370 --> 00:49:12,550
At this point, I actually sympathise with your having left that out and you'll see why in a minute.
441
00:49:12,550 --> 00:49:16,570
But you shouldn't have left it out at this point because it is actually in there.
442
00:49:16,570 --> 00:49:26,780
So. So you should put it in. What are you going to say? Well, I was like because I was.
443
00:49:26,780 --> 00:49:33,290
Okay, at the moment, we're not removing irrelevancies, but perhaps when we do, we'll take this out.
444
00:49:33,290 --> 00:49:40,550
But at the moment, we'll leave it in. Okay, but but your intuition that it's irrelevant is is a good one.
445
00:49:40,550 --> 00:49:49,940
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.
446
00:49:49,940 --> 00:49:55,040
But of course, we haven't finished at the moment because we need to remove all sorts of bits and pieces.
447
00:49:55,040 --> 00:50:02,060
So on your list of the steps to set out an object argument logic bookstall, what's the third step?
448
00:50:02,060 --> 00:50:10,190
We've identified the premises and the conclusions. What do we do next? Right.
449
00:50:10,190 --> 00:50:15,530
Actually, I'll tell you now, there aren't any suppressed premises, so so we don't have to worry with that here.
450
00:50:15,530 --> 00:50:20,460
What's the next step? Remove irrelevancies.
451
00:50:20,460 --> 00:50:24,920
Okay. Let me see how we've done that.
452
00:50:24,920 --> 00:50:28,010
Okay. What we need to do is take each premiss separately.
453
00:50:28,010 --> 00:50:34,360
Now, the nice thing about how identified the premises and the conclusions separate is we can treat each one separately.
454
00:50:34,360 --> 00:50:38,140
Now, we do not have to do them all, all at the same time.
455
00:50:38,140 --> 00:50:48,160
And that that's helps us. So let's look at Premiss one and let's remove the irrelevancies from Premiss one.
456
00:50:48,160 --> 00:50:54,460
Just get rid of any words that are not contributing to what that sentence means.
457
00:50:54,460 --> 00:51:01,140
That are just bits of fluff, if you like. Well, yes, that can go, can't it?
458
00:51:01,140 --> 00:51:08,720
I mean, that doesn't do anything. What else? Anything else? Perhaps I think perhaps I can go as well.
459
00:51:08,720 --> 00:51:19,370
Yes. OK. There's one more word I'd get rid of, actually.
460
00:51:19,370 --> 00:51:24,970
Not all, no. Tommy, who said Tommy?
461
00:51:24,970 --> 00:51:27,470
Yeah, you can get rid of Tommy. Can't you?
462
00:51:27,470 --> 00:51:33,140
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.
463
00:51:33,140 --> 00:51:38,660
So here we are. The green is green, easier than red. Okay.
464
00:51:38,660 --> 00:51:48,530
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.
465
00:51:48,530 --> 00:51:56,090
Okay. Let's try premise two. What have you got then?
466
00:51:56,090 --> 00:52:01,480
And obviously, if she didn't realise, then I'll leave then.
467
00:52:01,480 --> 00:52:08,370
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.
468
00:52:08,370 --> 00:52:11,560
It might not have been obvious. It wouldn't really matter, would it?
469
00:52:11,560 --> 00:52:22,410
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.
470
00:52:22,410 --> 00:52:35,970
Really? Yep. Not in that case, why not in that case?
471
00:52:35,970 --> 00:52:40,380
Can anyone exactly the reverse?
472
00:52:40,380 --> 00:52:45,730
It says if this if that is true, then.
473
00:52:45,730 --> 00:52:49,810
Something. So in that case is really very important. OK.
474
00:52:49,810 --> 00:52:55,480
I'll show you what I'd take out. I'd take out the lot. Yeah.
475
00:52:55,480 --> 00:53:04,860
In that case, you deserved to get scratched, because actually, if you look at the fourth premise, which I'd also take out completely.
476
00:53:04,860 --> 00:53:08,040
If you thought that you're an idiot, but you're not an idiot. You're just twisted.
477
00:53:08,040 --> 00:53:16,830
This is this is just a little insult that somebody is putting into the arguments in order to ram it home, isn't it?
478
00:53:16,830 --> 00:53:24,440
Oh, come on, you idiot. You can't not believe this. Which means what?
479
00:53:24,440 --> 00:53:29,900
Well, it means just this, doesn't it? If I say P, you're an idiot, if you don't believe it.
480
00:53:29,900 --> 00:53:33,680
What? What am I saying? Just on the whole.
481
00:53:33,680 --> 00:53:41,440
Well, yes. I'm also saying you're an idiot if I put it that way. But it so premises.
482
00:53:41,440 --> 00:53:45,280
For previous four can go completely and premise three to see that.
483
00:53:45,280 --> 00:53:50,270
Let's go back to the whole argument.
484
00:53:50,270 --> 00:53:56,590
OK, and let me read it out to you, because it's sometimes much easier if you ever find you are having trouble with an argument.
485
00:53:56,590 --> 00:54:00,400
Try reading it out loud, because that'll the tone you put on.
486
00:54:00,400 --> 00:54:05,470
It will give you a much better idea of where you're going with the logic.
487
00:54:05,470 --> 00:54:12,090
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.
488
00:54:12,090 --> 00:54:18,010
If she didn't realise, then you obviously went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserve to get scratched.
489
00:54:18,010 --> 00:54:21,620
Unless you'd really thought she was such a perceptive cat that she'd understand more fulfilment.
490
00:54:21,620 --> 00:54:25,000
Roll over. But if you thought that you're an idiot, you're not an idiot.
491
00:54:25,000 --> 00:54:32,020
You're just twisted. So if the poor thing did want you to tickle her tummy, you deserved to get scratched.
492
00:54:32,020 --> 00:54:45,380
You see this? This actually cancels itself out from here because you're saying let's let's look at the structure of it.
493
00:54:45,380 --> 00:54:51,110
P. Unless. Q Okay.
494
00:54:51,110 --> 00:54:55,910
Q Is you really thought she was such a perceptive cat that you should understand.
495
00:54:55,910 --> 00:55:03,370
Wohlforth meant roll over. Okay. If if you thought.
496
00:55:03,370 --> 00:55:11,070
So if CU. Then you're an idiot.
497
00:55:11,070 --> 00:55:16,760
If cu, then, ah. But not off.
498
00:55:16,760 --> 00:55:20,810
And you're just twisted is just an insult added on P unless.
499
00:55:20,810 --> 00:55:28,220
Q If. Q Then all but not all. Can you see how that all cancels each other out?
500
00:55:28,220 --> 00:55:33,840
P Unless. Q. If Q.
501
00:55:33,840 --> 00:55:40,910
Then all but not all. So it all just becomes.
502
00:55:40,910 --> 00:55:45,130
But again, don't worry about the figures. The letters I've put in here.
503
00:55:45,130 --> 00:55:51,990
Just do it in your own. Try reading it out and see what really counts.
504
00:55:51,990 --> 00:55:58,200
Okay, let's. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies.
505
00:55:58,200 --> 00:56:04,770
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.
506
00:56:04,770 --> 00:56:09,570
So it's in the confusion. So here's the argument with the irrelevancies removed.
507
00:56:09,570 --> 00:56:15,330
And I hope you agree it starts to look much more simple, much easier to evaluate.
508
00:56:15,330 --> 00:56:20,790
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.
509
00:56:20,790 --> 00:56:25,110
Then you went about it in the wrong way. In that case, you deserved to get scratched.
510
00:56:25,110 --> 00:56:30,180
So if the poor thing did want you to take her, you deserved to get scratched.
511
00:56:30,180 --> 00:56:42,730
But let's continue. What's the next step? So question first. It could be a conclusion.
512
00:56:42,730 --> 00:56:49,960
But don't forget, anything could be a conclusion, a conclusion is just the role that something plays in an argument.
513
00:56:49,960 --> 00:56:55,000
And in this argument, this is not playing the role of a conclusion.
514
00:56:55,000 --> 00:57:02,120
It is perhaps playing the role of a sub conclusion. But but this is the conclusion.
515
00:57:02,120 --> 00:57:08,220
Do you see him again? Remember that the conclusion is that for which you are arguing.
516
00:57:08,220 --> 00:57:11,520
And that's the only thing that makes this a conclusion. But you're absolutely right.
517
00:57:11,520 --> 00:57:20,700
That could play the role of a conclusion. OK, what's the next step?
518
00:57:20,700 --> 00:57:25,850
No. Removing consistent terms.
519
00:57:25,850 --> 00:57:30,080
OK. And cross references. OK. Inconsistent terms.
520
00:57:30,080 --> 00:57:45,800
What do we mean by inconsistent terms? Well, if we go back to that argument that we were looking at earlier.
521
00:57:45,800 --> 00:57:51,050
OK, this one. Do you see how people wanted to have another premiss in there?
522
00:57:51,050 --> 00:57:59,870
Something about industrial nations need to give emerging nations capital the capital resources or whatever it was.
523
00:57:59,870 --> 00:58:03,110
If we look runs to this one.
524
00:58:03,110 --> 00:58:12,020
If a newly emerging nation is to sustain its growth and it does not have capital resources, it will need help from industrial nations.
525
00:58:12,020 --> 00:58:15,860
What does this. It need help mean? It will need. What's.
526
00:58:15,860 --> 00:58:22,100
What's the help that is implied here? Capital Resources.
527
00:58:22,100 --> 00:58:27,980
So we're using two different terms for capital resources, aren't we?
528
00:58:27,980 --> 00:58:33,470
Here we're using capital resources and here we're using just help.
529
00:58:33,470 --> 00:58:39,030
But actually, they mean the same thing, don't they? So actually, the way this argument.
530
00:58:39,030 --> 00:58:47,190
We can reveal the argument much more carefully by saying many newly emerging nations do not have capital resources,
531
00:58:47,190 --> 00:58:50,880
capital resources are necessary for sustained growth.
532
00:58:50,880 --> 00:59:00,960
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.
533
00:59:00,960 --> 00:59:09,530
Many newly emerging nations will need help, need capital resources from emerging nations.
534
00:59:09,530 --> 00:59:19,460
Could you use them? Can you use what, sorry, pregnant. What they said is the.
535
00:59:19,460 --> 00:59:23,630
Well, you couldn't use then there will be many newly emerging nations will need.
536
00:59:23,630 --> 00:59:28,100
Oh, then you mean capital resources. I see. I'm sorry. No.
537
00:59:28,100 --> 00:59:33,290
What? Well, what you're aiming to do is to reveal the structure of the argument.
538
00:59:33,290 --> 00:59:39,960
And you do that by getting rid of as many things that are distracting you from the structure of the argument as you can.
539
00:59:39,960 --> 00:59:47,750
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.
540
00:59:47,750 --> 00:59:53,690
So what you do is you change them so that you're using the same word throughout the arguments.
541
00:59:53,690 --> 00:59:59,020
Now, you could just use many newly emerging nations do not have help.
542
00:59:59,020 --> 01:00:05,050
Help is necessary for sustained growth. I mean, this suggests we shouldn't use help, doesn't it?
543
01:00:05,050 --> 01:00:12,930
Okay, so let's use capital resources instead. Then it's actually a pronoun that you on the whole, you're trying to get rid of rather than put in.
544
01:00:12,930 --> 01:00:17,050
So I wouldn't use that. But I see why you wanted to.
545
01:00:17,050 --> 01:00:27,150
Yeah. OK. Do you see what I mean about removing inconsistent terms, and have I convinced you you were right?
546
01:00:27,150 --> 01:00:41,480
About what? So you need to book.
547
01:00:41,480 --> 01:00:45,290
So that should be capital resources. Yes. Yes.
548
01:00:45,290 --> 01:00:50,390
You were right about that. But I hope I was right that that wasn't a suppressed premiss.
549
01:00:50,390 --> 01:00:57,170
It's a matter of an inconsistent term needing to be removed or needing to be made consistent.
550
01:00:57,170 --> 01:01:09,910
So let's try it with this. The argument we're looking at now, I've now forgotten which side we were on.
551
01:01:09,910 --> 01:01:13,480
You know, I was just explaining what inconsistent terms are. OK?
552
01:01:13,480 --> 01:01:17,710
That's what an inconsistent term is. What about a cross reference?
553
01:01:17,710 --> 01:01:26,960
If we've got Marianne always wears jeans on Friday, she is wearing jeans.
554
01:01:26,960 --> 01:01:36,700
Forgot what the owner. What do we got there? That we could. It's like an inconsistent term.
555
01:01:36,700 --> 01:01:43,090
This is not the jeans, but she because she is referring to Marianne.
556
01:01:43,090 --> 01:01:51,310
So either make both she that would be fine, but but it might fall down elsewhere in the argument or make both Marianne.
557
01:01:51,310 --> 01:01:55,510
So remove the she and make it explicit that you mean Marianne.
558
01:01:55,510 --> 01:02:02,050
So let's try that in this premise. Now I'm just got a hint here.
559
01:02:02,050 --> 01:02:10,150
We're going to leave the she in here because throughout the argument, it's she isn't it were never introduced to the cat's name.
560
01:02:10,150 --> 01:02:16,150
We don't know what her name is and nor is she referred to as the cat at any point or anything like that.
561
01:02:16,150 --> 01:02:18,580
So in fact, this isn't an inconsistent term.
562
01:02:18,580 --> 01:02:25,100
It's consistent throughout, even though it's exactly the sort of thing that you would usually be removing.
563
01:02:25,100 --> 01:02:31,710
OK, so she didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that's what you were going to do.
564
01:02:31,710 --> 01:02:37,740
And you can see anything that wants you want to put up your hand if you see something that you'd like to remove.
565
01:02:37,740 --> 01:02:42,810
She didn't want you to take her or she didn't realise you were going to tickle her.
566
01:02:42,810 --> 01:02:46,320
That was what you were going to do. Stands in for.
567
01:02:46,320 --> 01:02:54,570
You were going to tickle her, doesn't it? We're not changing the meaning by it, by making those two terms consistent.
568
01:02:54,570 --> 01:03:00,690
We're just making explicit something that in the original premise is left implicit.
569
01:03:00,690 --> 01:03:06,960
And here it is. She didn't want you to tickler or she didn't realise that you were going to tickle her.
570
01:03:06,960 --> 01:03:12,810
I'd left that out. But that doesn't matter. See? Okay. Do you have any problems with that?
571
01:03:12,810 --> 01:03:21,710
No. Okay. Let's move on. What about premiss to. If she didn't realise, then you went about it in the wrong way.
572
01:03:21,710 --> 01:03:26,570
Very nearly right. The first bit was certainly right. If she didn't realise you were going to tickle her.
573
01:03:26,570 --> 01:03:29,420
Did you see you need to add this in because otherwise,
574
01:03:29,420 --> 01:03:36,650
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.
575
01:03:36,650 --> 01:03:40,850
So you complete that sentence by adding that. What about the second half?
576
01:03:40,850 --> 01:03:47,000
Anyone have any ideas here? Then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way?
577
01:03:47,000 --> 01:03:54,260
Yes, something like that. Keep it as similar as possible, because all you're doing is trying to get rid of the complications.
578
01:03:54,260 --> 01:03:59,960
You're trying to make it as simple as possible so as to reveal the structure of the arguments.
579
01:03:59,960 --> 01:04:06,590
And you do that by getting rid of all the things that that are just confusing you.
580
01:04:06,590 --> 01:04:13,680
So if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then you were going to tickle her in the wrong way.
581
01:04:13,680 --> 01:04:19,580
Okay. Anyone any questions about that? No good premise.
582
01:04:19,580 --> 01:04:28,180
Three. Good. Well done. In that case, refers back to the previous premise, doesn't it?
583
01:04:28,180 --> 01:04:32,710
And it says if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserved to get scratched.
584
01:04:32,710 --> 01:04:37,990
There's two quite separate sentences, aren't there? You are going to tickle her in the wrong way.
585
01:04:37,990 --> 01:04:43,000
And she didn't realise you were going to tickle her. Now, those are different sentences.
586
01:04:43,000 --> 01:04:50,060
You mustn't complete them because actually they matter to the arguments as very much so.
587
01:04:50,060 --> 01:04:55,600
OK. Any other questions about premies? Three. Now, let's move on.
588
01:04:55,600 --> 01:04:58,800
What about the conclusion? It's an easy one, isn't it?
589
01:04:58,800 --> 01:05:03,180
Okay. If she did want you to tell her you deserved to get scratched.
590
01:05:03,180 --> 01:05:09,420
Okay, so we take out the poor thing and put in she. Okay.
591
01:05:09,420 --> 01:05:16,650
Question. Sorry. Does the conclusion not have to stand as a sentence that makes sense in its own right?
592
01:05:16,650 --> 01:05:22,290
This is quoted me from the very beginning. Well, you didn't want you to take or how you deserve to get scratched.
593
01:05:22,290 --> 01:05:29,120
Doesn't make any sense. Yes, it does. Michael. What means what does that tell you?
594
01:05:29,120 --> 01:05:35,480
She wanted you to take you deserve it. Well, if the poor cat wanted you to tickle her.
595
01:05:35,480 --> 01:05:42,780
Oh, I see. You think, OK. If she wanted you to tickle her, you deserve to get scratched.
596
01:05:42,780 --> 01:05:47,540
Isn't isn't it? Is it OK? I see where you're going.
597
01:05:47,540 --> 01:05:52,190
It is a sentence. But your wanting. OK. Shall I tell you what you're doing.
598
01:05:52,190 --> 01:05:57,950
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.
599
01:05:57,950 --> 01:06:03,530
You're probably the only person who's got the courage to question me on it.
600
01:06:03,530 --> 01:06:08,490
What you're doing is you're trying to put the logic in here, okay?
601
01:06:08,490 --> 01:06:16,910
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.
602
01:06:16,910 --> 01:06:22,550
And what you should be doing is just trying to identify what is said here.
603
01:06:22,550 --> 01:06:29,270
What do you want to put in is this. I think so. If she did want you to tickle her.
604
01:06:29,270 --> 01:06:34,880
But she went about it in the wrong way or something like that, then you deserve to get scratches.
605
01:06:34,880 --> 01:06:43,460
Is that right? The conclusion is that there's a missing link to the premises for me.
606
01:06:43,460 --> 01:06:48,380
But. But the conclusion. Yeah, you're wrong.
607
01:06:48,380 --> 01:06:52,190
Okay. That's all I'm saying right now. You're wrong.
608
01:06:52,190 --> 01:06:59,030
And what you should do is have a look at the argument so that we can if if you're still thinking that if you still don't see what I'm saying,
609
01:06:59,030 --> 01:07:05,090
come and see me next week and I'll I'll explain again. This will convince you.
610
01:07:05,090 --> 01:07:10,160
I'm going to reveal the structure of this argument by formalising it.
611
01:07:10,160 --> 01:07:16,790
And if that doesn't convince you, nothing will. Okay.
612
01:07:16,790 --> 01:07:28,080
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.
613
01:07:28,080 --> 01:07:37,490
OK. What we've got to do is identify each of the constituent sentences of the argument and assign it a sentence letter.
614
01:07:37,490 --> 01:07:44,300
Now, have I got no account on this? OK. Let's look at Premiss one.
615
01:07:44,300 --> 01:07:51,470
We've got to identify the constituent sentences of that premiss and assign it a letter.
616
01:07:51,470 --> 01:07:55,340
So just looking at Premiss one. What are the constituent sentences?
617
01:07:55,340 --> 01:08:02,780
What's the first one? She didn't.
618
01:08:02,780 --> 01:08:08,560
Want you to tickle her. OK.
619
01:08:08,560 --> 01:08:21,740
And the other one, she didn't realise you were only going.
620
01:08:21,740 --> 01:08:26,870
To tickle her. Okay, well, here are two sentences.
621
01:08:26,870 --> 01:08:38,660
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.
622
01:08:38,660 --> 01:08:42,680
And I'd rather not P for this one.
623
01:08:42,680 --> 01:08:48,080
Good. Okay. What? What about the next one? Q Well done.
624
01:08:48,080 --> 01:08:58,130
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.
625
01:08:58,130 --> 01:09:02,810
Okay. And whenever you use the sentence that a Q that just stands in for that sentence.
626
01:09:02,810 --> 01:09:07,490
Okay. It's dead simple. Nothing magical about these things at all.
627
01:09:07,490 --> 01:09:15,520
And the reason we use capital letters from this side. This part of the alphabet that's just conventional.
628
01:09:15,520 --> 01:09:21,650
What if we use capital letters like F, G, etc.? We tend to use them for other parts of the language.
629
01:09:21,650 --> 01:09:26,390
And if we use lowercase letters like A, B, C, that's for another part of language.
630
01:09:26,390 --> 01:09:31,610
So there is a conventions about which part of language you use for which sentence letters.
631
01:09:31,610 --> 01:09:40,040
So that's why I want you to use letters from here. Okay, so Premiss one has two constituent sentences.
632
01:09:40,040 --> 01:09:43,820
She didn't want you to take her and she didn't realise you were only going to take her.
633
01:09:43,820 --> 01:09:49,370
And we've labelled them P and Q Okay. Previous to what the constituent sentences in this letter.
634
01:09:49,370 --> 01:09:55,770
This one was the first one you. She didn't realise you were only going to Tickler.
635
01:09:55,770 --> 01:10:03,350
Well, we've got that already, haven't we? So we don't need to put that down. What about the other one?
636
01:10:03,350 --> 01:10:15,200
You were going to take her in the wrong way, OK? You were going to tickle her in the wrong way.
637
01:10:15,200 --> 01:10:19,330
Okay. It needs a sentence. What should we have? Oh, good.
638
01:10:19,330 --> 01:10:26,000
Yes. Well done. You've got the idea here so you can formalise things steady easily.
639
01:10:26,000 --> 01:10:30,550
Okay. That's premise, too, isn't it? Good premise.
640
01:10:30,550 --> 01:10:34,460
Three. OK.
641
01:10:34,460 --> 01:10:39,930
You are going to take her in the wrong way. That's right.
642
01:10:39,930 --> 01:10:46,050
That's all. You deserve to get stretched. Okay. You deserve.
643
01:10:46,050 --> 01:10:50,490
To get scratched. What should we call that?
644
01:10:50,490 --> 01:10:55,140
S. Good. Okay. And conclusion.
645
01:10:55,140 --> 01:11:07,390
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.
646
01:11:07,390 --> 01:11:13,690
I'm going to put her outside the room. No, don't.
647
01:11:13,690 --> 01:11:18,340
It is. It's very good that you question things, because that's important.
648
01:11:18,340 --> 01:11:23,590
We won't need another sentence letter because what can we use instead? Not P.
649
01:11:23,590 --> 01:11:33,970
Can't we. You don't you certainly don't need P and not P because you've got that's just in having P and the word and illogical word not.
650
01:11:33,970 --> 01:11:38,380
Okay. So if she did want you to take her you deserved to get scratched.
651
01:11:38,380 --> 01:11:42,450
Do we need anything else. That's ice already.
652
01:11:42,450 --> 01:11:52,020
Exactly. So we're here, we've got all the sentences that make up the argument tumbly, all the sentences that that constitute the argument.
653
01:11:52,020 --> 01:11:59,570
Now, I need somebody to hold this, please. Somebody come up and hold this for me.
654
01:11:59,570 --> 01:12:05,130
OK. There we are. There we have an interpretation. That's what that's called an interpretation.
655
01:12:05,130 --> 01:12:09,770
Now, previous one. What's the form of that?
656
01:12:09,770 --> 01:12:14,520
There's a logical word in that that's holding together two sentences.
657
01:12:14,520 --> 01:12:21,930
What are the sentences and what are the logical words, P or Q Good.
658
01:12:21,930 --> 01:12:34,220
That's premise one, isn't it? What's premiss to. So if.
659
01:12:34,220 --> 01:12:44,060
Is it. She didn't realise, okay, if. Q Then not therefore your confusing implication and entailment, whoever that was.
660
01:12:44,060 --> 01:12:56,210
Q Then s was it. Ah okay then the third premiss, if you were going to tickler in the wrong way, you deserve to get scratched.
661
01:12:56,210 --> 01:13:07,750
If all then s. And the conclusion is.
662
01:13:07,750 --> 01:13:13,030
If not, she she didn't want you.
663
01:13:13,030 --> 01:13:18,250
If not P, then net.
664
01:13:18,250 --> 01:13:23,890
Where's the not, where's the not. That's not wrong.
665
01:13:23,890 --> 01:13:32,380
You'll be outside too, in a minute. I said there was no not no.
666
01:13:32,380 --> 01:13:38,500
I'm putting it. I got it. I'm putting the not in front of the P because we've got P was.
667
01:13:38,500 --> 01:13:44,380
She didn't want you to tickler her. And the knot here is if she did want you to take her.
668
01:13:44,380 --> 01:13:49,630
Okay. But this says you deserve to get scratched doesn't it.
669
01:13:49,630 --> 01:13:57,180
And this says you deserve to get scratched. There's no knot snuck in here.
670
01:13:57,180 --> 01:14:05,280
I'm saying not pee, but I'm not saying not s some I mean, if you make something work, you have to put it mildly.
671
01:14:05,280 --> 01:14:10,380
No, you don't. No, because.
672
01:14:10,380 --> 01:14:14,430
Well, what do you put. Actually, if you use if you.
673
01:14:14,430 --> 01:14:21,050
You know, this is. If not P, then s woops.
674
01:14:21,050 --> 01:14:24,630
No, that's. OK.
675
01:14:24,630 --> 01:14:31,670
It's only the pea that's been negated. Not the S, not the S.
676
01:14:31,670 --> 01:14:42,660
OK. You get me confused now.
677
01:14:42,660 --> 01:14:47,010
Hold on. We've got four minutes. Go let let's finish. OK, that's fine.
678
01:14:47,010 --> 01:14:57,870
Because actually know we might need that. Stay there. OK, so this p q r s and his premise one.
679
01:14:57,870 --> 01:15:02,940
Oh I was going to make you do it like this but it's all right. You've done it.
680
01:15:02,940 --> 01:15:10,820
So. Here, so there's the whole argument, which is exactly what you've had there.
681
01:15:10,820 --> 01:15:22,280
What you've got there. Whoops. I should have put a knot there, shouldn't I?
682
01:15:22,280 --> 01:15:27,630
And I haven't. But that's my mistake. Okay. There's only a not there.
683
01:15:27,630 --> 01:15:31,400
She didn't want you to tickle her or she didn't realise you were going to Tickler.
684
01:15:31,400 --> 01:15:34,920
Okay. That's a straightforward either or isn't it either.
685
01:15:34,920 --> 01:15:37,220
This is the case or that's the case.
686
01:15:37,220 --> 01:15:42,710
Then this says, if she didn't realise that you were going to Tickler, then you were going to Tickler in the wrong way.
687
01:15:42,710 --> 01:15:47,150
Now, obviously, if you like, something's happened. She's scratched you.
688
01:15:47,150 --> 01:15:54,330
Hasn't she? And somebody said if she didn't realise you were going to tickle her, then obviously you went about it the wrong way.
689
01:15:54,330 --> 01:16:01,040
So going about it gently, puss, puss, puss, you you shoved your hand into a tummy and scratched.
690
01:16:01,040 --> 01:16:09,320
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.
691
01:16:09,320 --> 01:16:13,010
Is that right? That's the implication there.
692
01:16:13,010 --> 01:16:18,980
If she had realised, you wouldn't have got scratched. OK.
693
01:16:18,980 --> 01:16:25,760
No, no, we're not talking about one thing here at all. No, but the premises are separate.
694
01:16:25,760 --> 01:16:31,490
The premises are completely separate. We're looking at the meaning of each one separately.
695
01:16:31,490 --> 01:16:38,450
OK, so this one the implication is if she had realised that, then you wouldn't have got scratched.
696
01:16:38,450 --> 01:16:45,710
If you're going to titular in the wrong way, you you deserve to get scratched, showcases the question of desert coming in here.
697
01:16:45,710 --> 01:16:55,970
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.
698
01:16:55,970 --> 01:17:02,990
So the poor thing was longing for you to take her. And what she did when you did Tickler was scratch you.
699
01:17:02,990 --> 01:17:08,830
Well, why did that happen? Because you went about it in the wrong way.
700
01:17:08,830 --> 01:17:14,250
Have we got to have a horse still standing?
701
01:17:14,250 --> 01:17:18,290
Right. It makes sense without the premises. Is that right?
702
01:17:18,290 --> 01:17:22,220
I'm going to shut you up now. OK, let's. I did.
703
01:17:22,220 --> 01:17:25,430
I don't want to leave on a note of confusion.
704
01:17:25,430 --> 01:17:34,440
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 her, didn't you?
705
01:17:34,440 --> 01:17:40,220
OK, well, I said we're going to test it out. Logic bookstall of all we're going to do is identify the argument.
706
01:17:40,220 --> 01:17:44,030
We're going to analyse the argument, reveal its structure.
707
01:17:44,030 --> 01:17:48,530
So what we've done is we've taken the argument, we identified the conclusion of the argument.
708
01:17:48,530 --> 01:17:53,870
We all did that fairly easily. We identified each premise. We all did that fairly easily.
709
01:17:53,870 --> 01:17:57,770
Yes. Okay. We looked for suppressed premises.
710
01:17:57,770 --> 01:18:05,180
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,
711
01:18:05,180 --> 01:18:13,500
cross references and irrelevancies and revealed the arguments, which might be a very bad argument for all we know.
712
01:18:13,500 --> 01:18:23,030
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
713
01:18:23,030 --> 01:18:28,310
would have been a better one on the argument that we were trying to analyse.
714
01:18:28,310 --> 01:18:32,660
Are you with me? So all we've done is revealed the arguments here.
715
01:18:32,660 --> 01:18:37,940
We've revealed the structure. We've even got it down to a piece, cues, R's and S's.
716
01:18:37,940 --> 01:18:44,900
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.
717
01:18:44,900 --> 01:18:52,880
And an awful lot of that's going to be removing irrelevancies, cross references and things like that and adding suppressed premises.
718
01:18:52,880 --> 01:18:57,770
But it'll give you practise in doing it. And don't forget, this is the important thing.
719
01:18:57,770 --> 01:19:03,050
You can apply this methodology either to somebody else's arguments, which is what we've been doing here.
720
01:19:03,050 --> 01:19:13,550
And what you will do if you look at arguments from the newspaper, all you can apply it to your own arguments and you'll think of something for which
721
01:19:13,550 --> 01:19:23,510
you often argue climate change or something like that or I don't know what's up.
722
01:19:23,510 --> 01:19:28,790
Okay, that's a good one. That'll do. Anyway, find something for which you like to argue in the pub,
723
01:19:28,790 --> 01:19:38,090
write down your conclusion and write down your premises and try and make the argument, the argument you actually give.
724
01:19:38,090 --> 01:19:44,600
So then when we start evaluating arguments, we can look at it. But you will have identified your own arguments and set it out.
725
01:19:44,600 --> 01:19:46,340
Logic book style,
726
01:19:46,340 --> 01:19:55,100
because people often do do that with their own arguments and therefore don't see that they're missing out a huge premiss or that this is happening,
727
01:19:55,100 --> 01:19:59,030
all that's happening or whatever. Okay, so your homework for this week,
728
01:19:59,030 --> 01:20:02,960
either take the arguments you found last week and set them out logic bookstall or
729
01:20:02,960 --> 01:20:08,930
choose a client claim you'd like to make and see if you can set it out as an argument,
730
01:20:08,930 --> 01:20:21,136
logic book style. Okay, cool. I'm exhausted.
