1. An argument with true statements can be invalid.  An argument is said to be valid if the premises provide necessary support for the conclusion.  An argument can do this with either true or false statements depending on how they are formulated.  However, just because the premises of an argument are true does not mean the argument is valid.  While the argument may sound persuasive, it could be the case that the premises do not provide support for the conclusion.  A good example of this is the following argument which contains all true statements but is, nevertheless, invalid:All banks are financial institutions.  Chase is a financial institution.  Therefore, Chase is a bank.

2.  Statements can sound very different, yet mean exactly the same thing.  One of the insights you can learn from categorical logic is that statements which sound entirely different are, in fact, equivalent in meaning.  One of the purposes of studying categorical logic is to learn precisely this insight.  Another purpose is to give you the power to simplify complex statements such as this one: Some employees who are not currently on the payroll are not ineligible for workers' benefits.  Categorical logic can show that this rather unclear statement is really the same as this much simpler statement: Some of those eligible for workers' benefits are not currently on the payroll.

3.  There is a mathematical-like rigor to ordinary language.  Certain words in ordinary language such as "and," "or," "if...then," and "if and only if" function somewhat like the mathematical operators for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  What this means is that you can determine whether statements are true or false without knowing everything about the statement's content.  For example, in the statement "Nixon resigned the presidency and Clinton wrote the Gettysburg Address" you can determine that this statement is false if all you know is that Clinton did not write the Gettysburg Address.  Partial information can lead you to detect when statements are false (or true).  

4.  It is possible to evaluate an argument's merits without entirely understanding its content.  This possibility exists in logic due to the previous point and the fact that we can build upon it a set of rules which allow anyone to deduce an argument's validity without reference to its content.  Just as in math where you can add numbers without worrying about what the numbers reference (2+3=5 and you don't need to know what you're adding 2 of and 3 of to deduce that) you can also infer an argument's validity without worrying about the argument's reference.  While this is one of the most difficult points to master in the study of logic it turns out to be a very powerful tool for the evaluation of everyday arguments.  

5.  Fallacies of thinking are extremely common in ordinary discourse.  With all the power of logical reasoning it is still quite common for people to be persuaded by faulty arguments.  What's worse is that many of these fallacies are easy to recognize with only a little training in the very basic principles of logic.  Certainly one of the reasons why fallacies of thinking are so common is because they are so effective.  These fallacies in reasoning are effective in part because our brains are wired up to be persuaded in ways that are not always rational and because without some basic knowledge of logic it is easy to overlook these fallacies.  

In subsequent blog posts I will elaborate on these points in more detail and provide some useful everyday insights that can be gleaned from the study of logic.  
Add Comment
 
 
I'm working on some ideas for a new book and am doing a little preliminary research about people's ideas and impressions of philosophy.  I welcome your answers to the following questions:

What do you think of when you hear the word "philosophy?"

What do you think someone does who is a philosopher?

Can anyone be a philosopher?

Are you afraid of philosophy?

Add Comment
 
 
This is a common question for students to ask especially after a brief exposure to some of the concepts in philosophy. However, philosophy has a direct bearing on much of everyday life. Let’s look at it in terms of the major questions we’ll address this semester.

Is knowledge innate or learned from sense experience? If you have children this question and the search for an answer has direct bearing on your life since the question has major implications for education. Nearly every educator has been a philosopher or influenced by a philosopher for whom this was an important question. The origin of knowledge and how it is acquired is important to know or have some idea about if you are at all concerned about effective education. For adults the question has bearing as well in terms of being able to learn new things. In an economy drive by information and information technology how we process this information is directly relevant to our everyday lives. So, philosophers like John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and John Dewey who investigate this question are also relevant.

Is the mind independent of the brain? Philosophers and scientists have been investigating the mind, the brain, and their interaction for centuries. We’ll see many competing theories on this question but how is any of this relevant to you? One very big word can answer that: psychopharmacology. Do you or anyone you know take some medication for ADHD, ADD, depression, bipolar disorder? If so, then questions about how the mind and brain work and interact are directly relevant to your everyday life not to mention your overall mood, happiness, and general mental state. These drugs could not have been discovered and developed without some idea about how the mind and brain worked. While these may seem like exclusively scientific questions, much of the work in the area of neurology has been done and continues to be done by philosophers. Some of the philosophers we’ll look at in this area include Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Searle, and J.J.C. Smart.

Is there an objective reality independent of appearance and perception? This question sounds very esoteric and perhaps far removed from and irrelevant to everyday life. But, like most philosophical concepts, relevance lurks just below the surface if you know where to look. Many of you may be familiar with the prayer of serenity: 

God grant me the serenity 
to accept the things I cannot change; 
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Embedded in this prayer is the notion that there is a difference between what you can change and what you cannot. This is simply the distinction between objective reality and perception. Though not all philosophers we’ll study agree that there is a difference between the two, the notion that there is a difference is the basis of at least one major school of philosophy called Stoicism. The notion that there is a difference between what you can change or control and what you cannot is a central idea in Stoicism and as such has formed the philosophical basis for much of self-help psychology. One consistent piece of advice contained in almost every volume of self-help literature is the importance of recognizing this distinction.

Is there a God? For many of you this will be one of the easiest questions to relate to everyday life especially if you practice some form of religion. But, it may also seem irrelevant since you may be thinking that it can only be answered by faith and therefore is not worth asking. But, these sentiments themselves are philosophical in nature and bear examining (which we will do!). One philosopher we’ll be studying named Thomas Aquinas pointed out that the question of God’s existence is fundamental to every other religious question one can ask. If God’s existence cannot be establish the remaining religious questions are moot. At the very least an examination of the historical ideas related to these questions might be enlightening and lead to a deepening of one’s religious sentiments.

Add Comment