NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof.

Carlo Alvaro

LOGIC
Logic can be challenging for anyone—even for very smart people. Much like learning a new
language or learning to play an instrument, it takes hard work and patience to master the skills
necessary to excel at logic.

“But why should I learn logic?” you might ask. Students often question the value of studying logic;
it is not very likely to be useful in my life. (“I don’t want to become a logician,” students often say).

But is it?

Think about this: do you go to the gym? What do you do at the gym? Walk or run on the treadmill,
lift weights, and more. Why? After all, with a few exceptions, what for do you need to perform
those activities? In “real life,” you are not likely to encounter treadmills, barbells, elliptical
machines, and so on.

The reason you work out is to build and maintain the muscles necessary to perform many other
activities that you enjoy, such as skiing, hiking, swimming, etc. Most importantly, you work out to
stay in good health.

Studying logic is in many ways the same. When you study logic you work out your brain muscles to
build and maintain the capacity of reasoning well.

Many people lack that capacity!

Example 1

Imagine that Erica and her friend Elizabeth have a conversation:

Erica: “Abortion should be legal in the first trimester because the fetus doesn’t yet have a brain,
creatures that lack brains are not of particular importance.”

Elizabeth then responds: “Erica, you’re obviously wrong because you smoke marijuana and
drink.”

1
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Example 2

Most people think homosexuality is immoral, therefore it probably is.

Is this a good argument?

Example 3

We have faith that our spouse won’t cheat on us, that gravity will still exist tomorrow. It’s perfectly
reasonable to have faith in many contexts. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable to have faith in the
existence of God.

Example 4

It’s wrong to kill innocent people who aren’t in any pain including five-year-old children laughing
and playing with their friends, and good people sleeping soundly in their beds. Fetuses are innocent
and helpless. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Example 5

Statistics show that countries that have low crime rates generally have more atheists than countries
with higher crime rates. Therefore, atheists are probably less immoral than people who believe in
gods.

Example 6

“Everybody tells me to quit smoking because it is bad for my health. Ha! My uncle lived to 115 and
smoked 2 packs a day.”

Example 7

Either we should have a free market or communism. If we have communism, then people will lose
the motivation to provide quality products and services for a fair price, and that’s a good reason to
reject communism. If we have a good reason to reject communism, then we have a good reason to
have a free market. Therefore, we have a good reason to have a free market.

2
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Example 8

Margaret and Eddie have a discussion.

Margaret: “Abortion should be legal when the pregnancy is a result of rape because she didn’t
choose to do anything that would lead to a pregnancy, and we should only be responsible to
another person when we choose to put ourselves in a situation where we might have control over
the well being of the person.”

Eddie: “You want to argue that a woman who gets pregnant from rape never wanted to get
pregnant, so they aren’t responsible for the child, but what we want often has nothing to do with
right and wrong. In this case I see no reason to think that the fact a woman doesn’t want a child
could make it right to kill the child.”

Example 9

It’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant who is black just because you don’t like
black people because it’s wrong to discriminate against people using arbitrary criteria rather than
relevant qualifications; however, it’s not wrong to refuse the most qualified applicant who is an
atheist because atheists hate God.

Example 10

All pterodactyls are reptiles. Therefore, some pterodactyls are reptiles.

Example 11

We just cannot explain how the Egyptians built the pyramids with such primitive tools. Therefore,
this is evidence that aliens visited earth and built the pyramids with highly advanced tools.

Example 12

Last week I went to LA and saw many film stars. All film stars are celebrities. Halle Berry is a
celebrity. Therefore, she is a film star.

3
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

LOGIC – DEFINITION, AND MORE

Logic is the Study of the principles and concepts of good reasoning.

This implies that there is a distinction between good and bad reasoning.

Also, logicians, people who study logic, are not interested in HOW people reason, those are
psychologists. Logicians are interested in the principles of reasoning.

THE THREE “LAWS OF THOUGHT”

Early Logicians defined logic as the “science of the laws of thought” and that there are three basic
laws we must obey to think correctly:

1. The principle of identity: Whatever is, is! (A=A)

2. The principle of non-contradiction: Nothing can both be and not be. (– [A and –A])
3. The principle of excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. (A or –A)

History of Logic

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) invented logic. He used letters for terms, he created syllogistic logic,
which studies arguments like these

All humans are mortal. = All H are M.

All Greeks are humans. = All G are H.
Therefore All Greeks are mortal. = All G re M.
This argument is valid because of its structure. So any argument with the same structure is valid.
Aristotle studied the logic of possibility and necessity.

4
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Stoics continued Aristotle’s work and in the Medieval Period many thinkers developed ways to
teach Aristotle’s system of logic. During the Enlightenment many philosophers would just agree
that nothing significant was invented in logic after Aristotle. Leibniz (1646-1716), however,
anticipated modern logic, proposing a concept of symbolic language, but his work was published
after George Boole (1815-1864).
In 1879, Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) invented modern logic. He created more ways to express logic
through symbols and operators. His project was to show that arithmetic is reducible to logic. Some
sets, such as the set of all teacups, or of all cats are not members of themselves. The set of all
teacups is not a teacup and the set of all cats is not a cat. Other sets, such as the set of all non-
teacups, or the set of all abstract objects are members of themselves because the set of all non-
teacups is a non-teacup and the set of all abstract objects is an abstract object. Now, consider the set
of all sets that are not members of themselves “R.” If R is a member of itself, then by definition it
must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member of itself, then by definition it must
be a member of itself. Frege’s life work was destroyed! This is known as the Russell’s Paradox.
Russell and Whitehead developed a system that fixed this problem.
These new developments propelled logic forward to new territories that Aristotle would be
impressed. Systems like truth tables were invented. Modern Logic was important in the
development of computers. Also the most important aspect of logic is modal logic dealing with
necessary and possible.

5
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

The distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, and

by that between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
Analytic and Synthetic Judgments

Any sentence has a Subject and a Predicate.

A simple subject/predicate sentence can be either universal, “all bachelors are unmarried,” or
particular, “this chalk is white.”

A sentence is Analytic if, and only if, the predicate concept is “contained in” the subject concept.

To analyze something is to determine how it is constructed out of its constituent parts. An analysis
of a concept is like a definition of the concept. For example, we might discover that something fits
the concept bachelor if and only if it is an unmarried male person. In this case we can say that the
concept bachelor contains such concept as being unmarried. So a judgment is analytic if analysis of
the subject-concept reveals that it contains the predicate-concept.

A judgment is synthetic if and only if it is not analytic. Or, a judgment is synthetic just when the
predicate concept is not contained in the subject concept. For example, “all bachelors are tall,” “the
Sun will rise tomorrow,” or “the children are playing in the playground,” are synthetic judgments.

A Priori and A Posteriori Knowledge:

Consider these two statements:

1. All bachelors are unmarried.

2. Some bachelors are happy.

While we know both to be true, how we know differs.

A judgment is a priori if it can be known independently of experience: If I tell you that I have a
triangle in my pocket, you know it has three sides without the need to see it. A judgment is a
posteriori if it cannot be known without recourse to experience. If I tell you that the triangle in my
pocket is red, there is no possible way for you to know that that is the case unless you see it.

6
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Analytic Synthetic

A Priori
X ?
A Posteriori
X

Analytic or synthetic?
1. For every two events, if one of them is later than the other, the other is not later than the first
one.

2. Frozen water is ice.

3. Children play with toys.

4. Planet earth rotates on its axis.

5. Another day will exist after today.

6. Planet earth revolves around the sun.

7. Stones thrown at windows break glasses.

8. Everything red is colored.

9. My sister is not the only child.

10. No surface, if it is red all over, is at the same time green all over.

11. Everything that is square has a shape.

12. New York City in winter is lovely.

13. The Sun will rise tomorrow.

14. That rat is a rodent.

7
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

15. All objects occupy space.

16. All objects have weight.

17. New Orleans is the largest city in Louisiana.

18. Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

19. Donald Trump is silly.

20. For every mountain there is a valley.

21. The number of atoms in the observable universe is greater than the number of anybody’s socks.

22. There are prime numbers larger than Graham’s number.

23. There are numbers that no one will ever be able to describe.

LOGIC THE SCIENCE OF

ARGUMENTS
Different sciences, like biology, mathematics, etc. study their respective subject matters. Logic
studies arguments. Arguments are the subject matter of logic.

In logic, an argument is a piece of reasoning used to show or express or prove a point; that point,
whatever it may be, is supported by sub-points, which are statements.

For example:

1. US presidents always have been men.

2. Men by nature are competitive and belligerent, women compassionate and caring.

8
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

3. But competition and war have led us to many issues—to mention a few examples, to
social and economic inequality, the neglect of public schools, and a disastrous health
system.
4. If we want to make “America great again”, we should allow a woman to become
president.
5. Therefore, in the next elections you should vote for a woman.

In the above example, a point is expressed—namely, “5. In the next elections, you should vote for a
woman.” This is called conclusion. Statements 1-4 support the conclusion.

ARGUMENT DEFINITION:
An argument is a group of premises (at least one premise) in support of a conclusion.

PREMISE DEFINITION: A premise is a statement capable of being true or false.

“Fetch me a bagel!” is not a premise.

“Joe is my dog.” is a premise.

“Chocolate truffles are high in calories.”…premise or not?

“Let’s go to a movie tonight.”…premise or not?

“Politicians always tell the truth.”…premise or not?

“Where is Paducah?”…premise or not?

CONCLUSION DEFINITION: A conclusion is also a statement capable of being true or false; in

addition, it is the main point of the argument, that is, the statement that is claimed to follow from
other premises (statements).

9
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

HOW TO UNDERSTAND/RECOGNIZE AN ARGUMENT

To understand an argument you must first pick out the conclusion. To pick out the conclusion ask
yourself, “What’s the main point? What does the speaker want to persuade me to believe?”

Also you can spot the conclusion as it is often preceded by certain clue words: Therefore, thus, it
must be deduced that, so, consequently…

On the other hand, premises often begin with these words: Since, because, for, given that…

ARGUMENT FORM

Arguments are given by people in the form of a speech. We will study textbook examples of
arguments to facilitate our discussion.

Also, the arguments I will present will have numbered premises. Conclusions will be differentiated
by other premises with a straight line that separates them from premises, like this:

1. All flowers are plants. (Premise 1)

2. All Roses are flowers. (Premise 2)
3. Therefore, all roses are plants. (Conclusion)

SUPPLYING MISSING PARTS – ENTHYMEMES

What’s missing?
An argument missing a premise, or a conclusion, is an enthymeme:

1. All chemists are scientists. 1. All bridges in the NY State were built by aliens.
2. So Joe is a scientist. OR 2. Brooklyn is in the State of NY.

10
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

3. And the Brooklyn Bridge is in, well, Brooklyn!

What about these:

- The use of condoms is completely unnatural. They have been manufactured for the explicit
purpose of interfering in the natural process of procreation. Therefore, the use of condoms
should be banned.

- God created the world. The world is good.

- You’re not 21, and you must be 21 to drink in this state.

- You should vote for Congressman Smith. He’s the kind of representative who cares about
people.

- You can’t vote; you haven’t registered.

- Most major religions include a belief in a god. So, Confucianism must include a belief in a
god.
- People enjoy imitations. Thus, they enjoy looking at photographs.

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY:

When you evaluate an argument, you should try to state any implied premise when (1) there seems
to be a logical gap between the premise and the conclusion, and (2) the missing statement is not a
commonsense assumption (not obvious).

When you supply a missing statement you should be fair and honest and try to supply the premise in
a way that the argument is a solid as possible. You should not add a statement that makes the
argument ridiculous or weak—that’s not fair.

Be aware that some arguments are really bad and no matter what statement you supply, the
argument cannot be made solid.

DIAGRAMMING ARGUMENTS
Another technique to identify arguments is diagramming them. To diagram, read it through and then
number each statement.

11
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

e.g.: Joe was promoted to VP; therefore, he will move to DC.

Number Like such:

(1) Joe was promoted to VP.

(2) He will move to DC.

The above example is called “Single support” because the conclusion is directly supported by the premise.

Now draw an arrow from the statement to the conclusion:

e.g.: If Joe is promoted to VP, he will move to DC. He was promoted; therefore, he will
move to DC.

Number Like Such:

(1) If Joe is promoted to VP he will move to DC.

(2) He was promoted.
(3) Therefore he will move to DC.

In this case you have a “Joint Support” (if…then)

1 + 2

3
Let’s do it again…

e.g.: Cats make good pets because they are affectionate, they’re clean, they’re entertaining,
and they do well in apartments.

(1) Cats make good pets...

(2) They’re affectionate,

12
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

(3) They’re clean,

(4) They’re entertaining,
(5) They do well in apartments.

This is an example of “Independent Support”

2 3 4 5

1
One More Time…

e.g.: Cats make good pets because they are affectionate, they’re clean, they’re entertaining,
and they do well in apartments. So if you want a good pet, you should get a cat.

(1) Cats make good pets...

(2) They’re affectionate,
(3) They’re clean,
(4) They’re entertaining,
(5) They do well in apartments.
(6) If you want a good pet, you should get a cat.

This is an example of “Extended Argument”

2 3 4 5

6
Last one and then you do it…

e.g.: Cats make good pets and cats make good anatomical subjects. Therefore, some good
pets make good anatomical subjects. Since good anatomical subjects are in high demand in medical
schools, it follows that some good pets are in high demand in medical schools.
13
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

(1) Cats make good pets,

(2) Cats make good anatomical subjects,
(3) Therefore some good pets make good anatomical subjects.
(4) Since good anatomical subjects are in high demand in medical schools, it follows that
(5) Some good pets are in high demand in medical schools.

1 + 2

3 + 4

The above argument is also an extended argument: there is an argument within an argument. You
see that (1) and (2) support conclusion (3). Then (3) is combined with (4) to support (5)

Exercises Textbook: Diagramming arguments

IN SEARCH FOR A GOOD ARGUMENT

What’s a good argument? Good arguments have 2 components:

(A) The premises are true.

(B) A conclusion that follows from the premises

What does it mean to follow? 2 ways to follow: deductive validity or inductive strength.

14
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

DEDUCTION VS. INDUCTION

We defined an argument as a group of statements (premises) given in support of a conclusion.

The premises of an argument can support its conclusion either necessarily or probably, or fail to
support the conclusion.

Example:

1. If you are in Brooklyn, you are in the USA.

2. You are in Brooklyn.
3. Therefore, you are in the USA.

In the above argument, the conclusion is logically necessary. If the premises are true (and in this
case they are) It is not merely probable that you are in the USA, but it is necessarily so.

So, the premises of the above argument support the conclusion by logical necessity. We call this
type of argument DEDUCTIVE.

An argument is deductive when the premises are intended to support the conclusion necessarily.

In other words, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An argument in which the premises succeed in supporting the conclusion is called a deductively
valid argument.

A deductive argument that has true premises is known as a sound argument. Sound arguments are
good arguments.

Now, consider this argument:

1. If you are in Brooklyn, you are in the USA.

2. You are in the USA.
3. Therefore, you are in Brooklyn.

In the above example, the premises claim to support the conclusion, but they fail! Even if the
premises are true, the conclusion can still be false. So the conclusion does not follow at al!

When the conclusion does not follow at all, we call such argument a deductively INVALID
argument.

15
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

But arguments are not always intended to support the conclusion by logical necessity. Consider this
argument:

1. For the past 10 years it has snowed in January.

2. This January it has snowed.
3. Therefore, it will snow next January.

In the above example, the premises are not meant to support the conclusion by logical necessity.
The arguer, by offering the premises, intends to offer strong reasons as to why snowing will occur
next January.

So in this case, even if the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow necessarily.

Can we say that the conclusion does not follow at all? No! The conclusion in this case follows
probably. This kind of argument is called inductive.

An argument that establishes the conclusion with a high probability is a strong argument. This is
not a good argument.

An argument that establishes the conclusion with a low probability is a weak argument. This is not
a good argument.

A strong argument that has true premises is a cogent argument. This is a good argument.

DEDUCTIVELY VALID

DEDUCTION: An argument is deductive when it is presented in a form that claims the conclusion
to be deduced from the premises. Like in math if I say that 2+2=4, I mean that 4 must be the only
possibility when I add 2 + 2.

Also, if I say 2+2=5 obviously 5 is not deduced from 2+2. However, in making the claim ‘2+2=5’ I
do not mean that 5 is probable. I make a categorical statement that 5 is deduced from 2+2.

Thus, in logic, an argument is deductive when the conclusion is claimed to be the natural outcome
of the premises.

VALIDITY: Validity is a property of only deductive arguments. An argument is valid when it is

presented in a form that claims the conclusion to be deduced from the premise—and in fact, the
conclusion does follow from the premises.

16
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

NOTE: An argument can be valid regardless of whether the premises are true. This means that an
argument is valid when having true premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Arguments are valid because of their form.

RECOGNIZE VALID ARGUMENTS

It is important to recognize valid arguments because if an argument is valid, it has the potential to
be a good argument, that is, a sound argument.

There is a technique that helps you recognize valid arguments. Certain forms are always valid. So
regardless of the content, if an argument has a certain form, it is automatically valid.

For example:

1. If it rains, my car is wet.

2. It rains.
3. Therefore, my car is wet.

To make our lives easier, we can indicate an argument form by using letters to represent statement,
like such:

1. If R, then W.
2. R.
3. Therefore, W.

This is a conditional argument. The statement “If R” is the antecedent. The statement “Then W” is
the consequent. This form is known as Modus Ponens, which means “Affirming the antecedent.”

Any argument that has such a form is valid regardless of its subject matter.

There is an old saying, “A man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.”

In other words, Modus tollens is the logical mirror image or Modus ponens.

1. If it rains, my car is wet.

2. My car is not wet.
3. Therefore, it does not rain.

In letter form,

1. If R, then W.
2. Not W.
3. Therefore, Not R.

Again, this form is always valid, regardless of the premises you plug into the form.

17
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Another valid form is called Barbara:

1. All cows are ruminating animals.

2. All ruminating animals are docile.
3. All cows are docile.

In letter form,

1. All C are R.
2. All R are D.
3. All C are D.

This is obvious: if all cows are ruminating animals, and all ruminating animals are docile, it is not a
possibility that all cows are docile, but rather a necessity.

Another form is called Disjunctive Syllogism:

1. You wear glasses or contact lenses.

2. You do not wear glasses.
3. You wear contact lenses.

In letter form,

1. G or L.
2. Not G.
3. L.

Here are three more forms, but they are always invalid.

The first one is called Undistributed Middle:

1. All cows are ruminating animals.

2. All sheep are ruminating animals.
3. All sheep are cows.

In letter form,

1. All C are R.
2. All S are R.
3. Therefore, all S are C.

The problem is that the middle term is not distributed. The middle term is ruminating animals.
notice that it is not distributed, that means, all cows are ruminating animals, but not all ruminating
18
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

animals are cows. And, all sheep are ruminating animals, but not all ruminating animals are sheep.
Thus, it is impossible to make the necessary connection to support the conclusion.

Another invalid form is called Denying The Antecedent:

1. If you study then you pass.

2. You do not study.
3. You do not pass.

In letter form,

1. If S, then P.
2. Not S.
3. Therefore, not P.

While it is true that if you study then you pass. The argument does not specify what happens when
you do not study. In other words, it is possible that you do not study, and yet you pass.
Consequently, the conclusion can be false, and so the argument is invalid.

The last invalid argument is called Affirming The Consequent:

1. If it rains, then my car is wet.

2. My car is wet.
3. Therefore, it rains.

In letter form,

1. If R then W.
2. W.
3. R.

again, this is invalid because even if it is true that when it rains my car is wet, just because my car is
wet, it does not follow that it rains. In other words, the premises can be true but the conclusion can
be false. Thus the argument is invalid.

More examples: Valid or not?

1. If I am eating I have food.

2. I am eating.
3. Therefore I have food.

19
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. If you are in France, then you must be in Europe.

2. You are in France.
3. Therefore, you are in Europe.

1. All bachelors are unmarried men.

2. Joe is a bachelor.
3. Therefore, Joe is an unmarried man.

Once again: Note that an argument can be deductively VALID, even

though it contains one or more false premises.

An argument is valid if, assuming that the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
When an argument is deductively valid (its conclusion follows necessarily
from the premises) but one or more premises is false, we call it
UNSOUND.

1. All animals can fly. 1. The moon is made of marshmallow.

1. Dogs are animals. 2. Marshmallow is edible.
2. Therefore, dogs can fly. 3. Therefore, you can eat the moon.

20
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. If you live in Brooklyn you are in South America.

2. You live in Brooklyn.
3. Therefore, you are in South America.
1. All unicorns have wings.
2. Juju is a unicorn.
3. Therefore, Juju has wings.

1. If the Brooklyn Bridge is 1.1 miles long then Santa Clause built it.
2. The Brooklyn Bridge is 1.1 miles long.
3. Therefore, Santa Clause built it.

Notice that the conclusion to these arguments is necessary: GIVEN THE PREMISES, the
conclusion follows from the premises necessarily—not probably. So, these are deductively valid
arguments. But they are unsound because soundness requires true premises.

SOUND = DEDUCTIVE + VALID + TRUE PREMISES

When an argument is deductively valid (the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises) and
the premises are true, we call it a Sound argument:

1. All humans are mortal.

2. Nancy is human.
3. Therefore, Nancy is mortal.
1. All US presidents are politicians
2. Trump is our current US president.
3. Therefore Trump is a politician.

1. All physical objects occupy space.

2. My book is a physical object.
3. Therefore, my book occupies space.
21
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. Citytech is either in China or In Brooklyn.

2. Citytech is not in China.
3. Therefore, Citytech is in Brooklyn.

Now, what is an INVALID argument? A deductive argument is INVALID when its

conclusion does not follow at all.

DEDUCTIVE + INVALID

1. If it rains my car is wet.

2. My car is wet.
3. It follows that it rains.
1. My uncle is 85 years old.
2. My uncle likes spaghetti.
3. Therefore, NYC College of
Technology is in Brooklyn.
1. If you are eating you have food.
2. You have food.
3. Therefore you are eating!
1. All bachelors are males

22
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

2. Joe is a male.
3. It follows that Joe is a bachelor.
1. All politicians are liars.
2. All used car salesmen are liars.
3. Therefore all politicians are used car salesmen.

1. All ants are insects.

2. All mosquitoes are insects.
3. Therefore, all ants are mosquitoes.

The above arguments are INVALID because their conclusions are not granted by the premises; or,
they neither follow necessarily nor probably—they just don’t follow! Any argument with the same
form is consequently invalid.

What if you bump into a deductive argument that is difficult

to evaluate? How do you determine its validity?
The best strategy is to invent a twin argument. Suppose you want to test the following argument:

Argument A:

1. If capital punishment deters crime, then the number of death row inmates will decrease over
time.
2. But capital punishment does not deter crime.
3. Therefore, the number of death row inmates will not decrease over time.

Here is a twin argument:

23
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Argument B:

1. If lizards are mammals, then they have legs.

2. But lizards are not mammals.
3. Therefore, they do not have legs.

Arguments A and B have identical form (denying the antecedent). Argument B is obviously invalid.
Consequently, argument A must also be invalid.

MORAL STATEMENTS AND

ARGUMENTS
When we make moral judgments, about right/wrong, good/bad, just/unjust, we must do so by
careful moral argumentation.

Recall that arguments are made up of statements that we call premises and conclusions.

What makes an argument a moral argument is the fact that its conclusion is a moral statement.

Nonmoral statements do not affirm or deny that an action is right or that a person is good; moral
statements do!

Nonmoral statements:

- Many people think that capital punishment is wrong.

- Mary did not cheat.
24
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

- You gave him a taste of his own medicine.

- Trevor tries to be a good person.
- Animals are treated cruelly.

Moral statements:

- Capital punishment is wrong.

- Mary should not have cheated.
- You ought to treat others as you would like to be treated.
- Trevor is a good person.
- Treating animals cruelly is immoral.

Assessing Moral Arguments:

1. Not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is
allowing the infant to die.
2. Therefore, not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant
alive is wrong.

Although this argument sounds convincing, it is seriously flawed. The conclusion does not follow at
all from the premise. Even though we know as a fact that not using every medical means available
is allowing the infant to die, we are not entitled to the conclusion that not doing so is wrong.

To make the argument valid we must supply a moral premise that works as a link: “Allowing
terminally ill newborn infants to die is wrong.”

1. Not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is
allowing the infant to die.
2. Allowing terminally ill newborn infants to die is wrong.
3. Therefore, not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant
alive is wrong.

Another example:

25
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. The use of capital punishment does not deter crime.

2. Therefore, the use of capital punishment is immoral.

This argument may resonate with you, but it is invalid. Even if the premise is true, the conclusion
does not follow from it. There is a jump from the premise to the conclusion.

In such a case, in evaluating this argument you must ask yourself, “What premise can I supply that
will make the argument valid?” (Remember the principle of charity—be fair and honest).

This premise will do: “Administering a punishment to criminals that doesn’t deter crime is
immoral.” And the argument now becomes,

1. Administering a punishment to criminals that doesn’t deter crime is immoral.

2. The use of capital punishment does not deter crime.
3. Therefore, the use of capital punishment is immoral.

One more example:

1. Causing the death of a person is wrong.

2. Individuals in a deep, irreversible coma are persons.
3. “Pulling the plug” on someone in a deep, irreversible coma is causing a person to die.
4. Therefore, “pulling the plug” on someone in a deep, irreversible coma is wrong.

Is this a good argument? To be good the premises must be true. Is premise 1 true? It is not self-
evidently true. Is it wrong to kill one person to save a hundred? Is it wrong to kill a person in self-
defense? In wartime?

To salvage the argument we can revise premise 1 and 3 as follows:

1. Causing the death of a person who is incapacitated is wrong.

2. Individuals in a deep, irreversible coma are persons.
3. “Pulling the plug” on someone in a deep, irreversible coma is causing an incapacitated
person to die.
4. Therefore, “pulling the plug” on someone in a deep, irreversible coma is wrong.

26
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

By specifying that causing the death of an incapacitated person is wrong, premise 1 seems more
plausible. In the present form, it rules out the counterexamples of self-defense and war. But it does
not avoid the killing-to-save-lives example. In certain circumstances it may be morally permissible
to kill even an incapacitated person to save the lives of many others.

To address this problem, we can amend premise 1 and the conclusion:

1. Causing the death of a person who is incapacitated is wrong, except to save lives.
2. Individuals in a deep, irreversible coma are persons.
3. “Pulling the plug” on someone in a deep, irreversible coma is causing an incapacitated
person to die.
4. Therefore, “pulling the plug” on someone in a deep, irreversible coma is wrong, except to
save lives.

In this form now the argument is much better. One may still question, for example, premise 2; but it
looks like a good argument.

For example, is it true that individuals in a deep, irreversible coma are persons? Some may dispute
this. How can we show that this premise is true?

Assessing Premises:

Some premises are self-evidently true; however, some premises aren’t. Thus, to show your
argument is good, that the premises are true or more likely to be true than not, typically you need
good reasons. You need arguments to justify the premises in your main argument.

Ensuring that premises are supported by good reasoning is difficult but of utmost importance.

27
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

INDUCTION

On the other hand, INDUCTIVE arguments have a different nature. The conclusion to an inductive
argument is never deduced from the premises, but rather inferred from the premises. Here is what I
mean: if I tell you that in my pocket I have a triangle, knowing that all triangles have three sides,
you deduce that the triangle in my pocket has three sides. Imagine each one of us has a triangle in
his or her pocket; I ask you to take it out and look at its color and it turns out that most of them, or
all of them, are red. Now based on this information, you could never know with absolute certainty
that the triangle in my pocket is red too. But considering that most or all triangles are red, you may
infer that my triangle is red. That is to say, there is a good chance that it is red.

Inductive arguments have the following characteristics:

28
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. The premises and the conclusion are all empirical propositions (observations/experiences).

2. The conclusion is not claimed to follow by logical necessity, but probably.

3. The premises do not imply the conclusion. (The conclusion does not follow by logical
necessity).

4. The conclusion is inferred from the premises based on the assumption that the regularities
described in the premises will persist.

5. Terms such as probably, in all likelihood, and most likely are often used in inductive
arguments.

There are 3 kinds of inductive arguments:

1. Inductive Generalizations.
2. Arguments from Analogy.
3. Causal Arguments.

1. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION
 To move from a sample to a general conclusion about a population.

An argument of this type involves a certain number of observations of an object or event.

I may observe that a desk is brown.

The desk is my sample.

The population is what I decide: All the desks at SFC, All the desks in North America, All the desks
in NYC, etc.

For example:

1. This desk is brown.

2. That desk is brown.
3. Therefore, all desks are brown.

Assuming that the premises are true, it is possible that the conclusion is true.

29
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Notice that the structure of the above argument is not deductive: It moves from particular to general.
A deductive argument, for example, would move from general to particular:

1. All desks are brown.

2. I have a desk.
3. Therefore, my desk is brown.

Can inductive arguments be good?

Remember what a good argument is?
An argument is good if it satisfies 2 requirements:
1. All true premises.
2. The conclusion follows from the premises either:
a. By logical necessity, or
b. Very likely.

A deductively sound argument, obviously, is a good argument: All true premises, conclusion
follows by logical necessity.
An inductive argument cannot be valid or sound. It can be weak or strong.
A strong inductive argument is called “cogent.”
Namely, a cogent argument is an inductive argument with true premises and a conclusion that
follows very likely.

Strong + True Premises = Cogent

Strong + At Least One False Premise = Uncogent
Weak = Uncogent

Is the “brown desk” argument good? Is it strong? Is it Cogent? Is it uncogent?

To determine this we need to consider a few things:

30
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. The sample: how representative is the sample? Is the number of observations enough to
establish the conclusion? Is the characteristic(s) observed about the samples shared by the
population?
a. I may need 10 defective iPhones X devices to declare all iPhone X devices are bad.
But you may need fewer.
2. Context/Interpretation: The likelihood that a conclusion is the case varies depending on the
situation: The Love Bridge. At Yale University, an attractive female on a sturdy bridge and
on a rickety bridge interviewed male students. The students interviewed in the rickety bridge
were more likely to call the interviewer and ask her out.
3. Size of Population: How big is the population with respect to the samples matters?

So is the above argument good?

Well, it is a very weak argument! Thus it is uncogent.
Assuming the premises are true, it seems unreasonable to conclude that all desks are brown on the
basis of only two observed brown desks.
But we need to have further info: Obviously, if the population (all desks) is three desks, and I
observed two desks, then the conclusion is quite possible to be the case.

Consider the following:

1. All the teachers we interviewed at St. Francis College are underpaid.

2. Therefore, all teachers at St. Francis College are underpaid.
Is this a good argument?

What if I add this?

1. All the teachers we interviewed at St. Francis College are underpaid.

2. Three-hundred teachers were interviewed.
3. Therefore, all teachers at St. Francis College are underpaid.

What if I say this?

1. 40% of all CUNY teachers we interviewed are underpaid.

31
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

2. Therefore, it is likely that all CUNY teachers are underpaid.

Or…

1. Every swan I’ve seen was white.

2. Therefore, all swans are white.

Or…

1. 90 % of Citytech students are females.

2. Therefore, the first person I’ll run into in the hallway is a female.

Or…

1. There are 1000 marbles in a jar.

2. I take one and it’s red.
3. Therefore they’re all red.

INDUCTIVE STRENGTH: Inductive generalizations can become strong, thus even cogent, if the
number of samples observed increases or the number of the population decreases.

1. There are 1000 marbles in a jar.

2. I take 980 and they’re red.
32
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

3. Therefore they’re all red.

Or…

1. There are 50 marbles in a jar.

2. I take 20 and they’re red.
3. Therefore, they’re all red.

Or…

In certain cases, the sample observations are so numerous that we are tempted to think that the
conclusion follows necessarily!

1. I’ve seen things fall to the ground when dropped.

2. Therefore, upon release, all objects will fall to the ground.

2. ARGUMENTS FROM ANALOGY

 Using an analogy between two or more things (also people, events, etc.) in order to
support a conclusion about one of them.

An analogy is a comparison between two objects, people, events, etc.

Analogies are used to explain or claim that two distinct things are similar in some respect.

For example:

 Capitalists are like vampires.

 Like the Earth, Europa has an atmosphere containing oxygen.
 Marriage is like jail!
 You are like a saint!

33
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Analogies are often used in arguments to argue that because two (or more) things are similar, what
is true of one (or a number of them) is also true of the other.

Be careful!
Not all analogical arguments inductive arguments!
Consider this:

1. ABC is an isosceles triangle.

2. Every isosceles triangle has two equal internal angles.
3. ABC has two equal internal angles.

The above example is a deductively valid argument that employs an analogy.

But we are now interested in inductive arguments that use analogies.

Let’s look at some:

1. Earth has an atmosphere that contains oxygen.
2. Planets that have an atmosphere that contains oxygen might have life.
3. Therefore, there might be life on Europa.

Wait! Isn’t there something missing? What’s missing?

What is the name for such an argument?

Consider this one:

34
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. The novel Pass The Salt is very boring.

2. The novel Smell My Feet is supposed to have a similar plot to Pass The Salt.
3. So, probably Smell My Feet is also very boring.

Evaluating analogical arguments

Analogical arguments rely on analogies between two things. But any two objects are bound to be
similar in some respect:
A Bird is very different from a car, but they are similar in that they can both move.
A society is very different from a family, but they both have individuals with specific roles.
So when we give arguments by analogy or we evaluate them, we must understand in what respect
two things are similar.
We have to determine whether the two things in question are indeed similar in such a way that their
similarity supports the conclusion.

How to evaluate the strength of an inductive argument by analogy:

 Truth: Are the two things being compared similar in the way assumed?
o For example, in the argument about the two novels, if they actually have completely
different plots, one a romance and the other a horror story, then the argument is
obviously unacceptable.

 Relevance: Even if two things are similar, are those aspects in which they are similar
relevant to the conclusion?
o For example, suppose two books both have green covers. Just because one of them is
boring does not mean that the other one is also boring, since the color of a book's
cover is completely irrelevant to its contents.

 Number: If we discover many shared properties between two things, and they are all
relevant to the conclusion, then the analogical argument is strong. Suppose we find out that
novel A is not only similar to another boring novel B with a similar plot. We also know that
the same author wrote the two novels. Then it makes it more plausible to conclude that B is
likely to be a boring novel.
35
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

 Diversity: Are the shared properties of the same kind or of different kind? Consider two
Italian restaurants A and B, and A is very good. We then find out that restaurant B uses the
same olive oil in cooking as A, and buys ingredients of the same quality from the same
supplier. Such information increases the probability that B is also good. But the information
we have so far is of the same kind, the ingredients.
o If we are further told that A and B use the same brand of pasta, this will increase our
confidence in B further still. And if we are told that both restaurants have lots of
customers, and that both restaurants have obtained Michelin star awards, then these
different aspects of similarities are going to increase our confidence in the
conclusion a lot more.

 Disanalogy: Even if two objects X and Y are similar in lots of relevant respects, we should
also consider whether there are dissimilarities between X and Y. For example, if we find out
that restaurant B now has a new owner who has just hired a team of very bad cooks, we
would think that the food is probably not going to be good anymore despite being the same
as A in many other ways.

Let’s practice now:

Evaluate the following arguments. Identify the following:
(a) The analogy, what’s compared to what?
(b) In what respect the two things being compared are or are not relevantly similar.
(c) State whether they are weak or strong arguments.

1. Most philosophers are single, liberal, and untidy.

2. Robert is a philosopher who is single and is liberal.
3. Therefore Robert is probably untidy.

36
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

1. Any mechanism like a watch is the product of intelligence.

2. The universe is a complex mechanism.
3. Therefore, the universe is also the product of intelligence.

1. The state is like family.

2. You must respect your family.
3. Therefore, you must respect the state.

1. No one is obligated to donate his or her kidney to a person who needs one to live.
2. Therefore, no woman should be under the obligation to donate the use of her womb to the
fetus that needs to live.

1. A and B are both spherical, yellow, waxy, small and light.

2. A is sweet.
3. So, probably B is sweet as well.

Remember: When people give arguments, they rarely list premises

and conclusions; also, they don’t necessarily state the conclusion as the
last sentence!
37
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Evaluate the following:

(1) We should not blame the media for deteriorating moral standards. Newspapers and TV are
like weather reporters who report the facts. We do not blame weather reports for telling us
that the weather is bad.

(2) Democracy does not work in a family. Parents should have the ultimate say because they are
wiser and their children do not know what is best for themselves. Similarly the best form of
government for a society is not a democratic one but one where the leaders are more like
parents.

(3) A unicorn is like a horse. Horses have no magical powers, so unicorns have no magical
powers.

(4) Werewolves are like Vampires: they are scary creatures. Vampires feed on human blood.
So, werewolves also feed on human blood.

38
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

(5) Drug use is a matter of behavior control. It’s like overeating or gambling. It would be
ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculous to declare war on drugs.

3. CAUSAL ARGUMENT
 Arguments that rely on the concept of causality.

Causal Arguments contain causal statements as either a premise or the conclusion.

Causal statements (typically) state that an event A is the cause of another event B

Or that B is caused by A.

But we mean different things by “cause”: Sometimes we mean that one thing brings about another;
sometimes that one thing is required for the other to occur; sometimes that one thing contributes to
the occurrence of the other.

A precise way to characterize these different senses of cause is by considering Sufficient VS

Necessary Condition.

39
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Example 1
Power failure cause loss of data in a computer’s memory.
In the above example, how does the effect come about? If power failure occurs while you’re typing
your essay, we know that loss of data will occur. We can say that power failure is a sufficient
condition for the loss of data.
If there is power failure there is loss of data; but if there is loss of data, it is not necessary that there
is power failure. Other causes might explain the loss of data. So power failure is not a necessary
condition for the loss of data; it is sufficient.

Example 2
The presence of oxygen caused the combustion in an engine.
In the above example, the presence of oxygen causes combustion. Is it the only cause? No. you need
other factors, gasoline, a battery, etc. So, we say that oxygen is a necessary condition—necessary
but not sufficient.

Example 3
Smoking causes cancer.
How does smoking cause cancer? We know that smoking is not sufficient to get cancer, since many
people smoke but never get cancer. Is smoking necessary to get cancer? No. you may get cancer for
other reasons. Thus, we call smoking a contributing factor or partial cause of cancer.

Necessary Conditions

“X is a necessary condition for Y” means that if X is not there, then Y will not be there.

However, to say that X is a necessary condition for Y does not mean that X guarantees Y.

Some examples:

40
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

(a) Having gasoline in my car is a necessary condition for my car to start. Without gasoline my
car will not start. But, having gasoline in the car does not guarantee that my car will start.
There are many other conditions needed for my car to start. Gasoline is necessary, but not
sufficient.

(b) Having oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere is a necessary condition for human life. But it
will not guarantee human life. There are many other conditions needed for human life other
than oxygen. Oxygen is necessary, but not sufficient.

(c) Being 35 years of age is a necessary condition for becoming the president of the US. Being
35 does not guarantee that a person will become the president of the US. There are many
other conditions that lead to a person becoming the president of the US than being 35 years
of age.

Sufficient Conditions

“X is a sufficient condition for Y” means that if we have X, we know that Y must follow. In other
words, X guarantees Y.

Consider the following examples:

(a) Earning a total average of 98 in this class is a sufficient condition for earning a final grade
of A. If your average is 98, it guarantees that you will have A.

But it is not necessary to earn an average of 98 to earn an A. You can earn an average of 94,
94.5, 95, 95.5…100 to earn an A.

(b) Earning a final grade of C is a sufficient condition for passing the course. But it’s not
necessary. You can pass with a B or C+.

(c) Rain pouring from the sky is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet. But it is not
necessary for rain to be pouring from the sky for the ground to be wet. The sprinkler could
take care of that as well.

41
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Partial Cause
A is a partial cause of B just if other factors make the occurrence of A increase the likelihood of B.
But A is neither sufficient not necessary to cause B.
Example:
(a) Rapidly falling atmospheric pressure is a partial cause to precipitation. But falling pressure
is neither sufficient nor necessary.

(b) Fog is the product of many factors occurring simultaneously: high pressure, warm air
ascends, temperature fall, cooler air trapped near the ground, absence of wind, humidity
increase = fog.

The structure of Causal Relationship

Events take place against a background of circumstances. For example, a woman falls in a store and
breaks a hip. There are in play a number of factors: The wet floor, the custodian forgot to put WET
FLOOR sign, the texture of the floor, the woman’s high heel shoes that she might not have if her
other shoes were repaired, in which case she would not have fallen, her age, the fact that she
lingered around to talk to the clerk…
All these factors converging at different places have a bearing on the complex event.

We distinguish causal factor in terms of proximity to the effect.

A proximate cause is a causal factor that occurs immediately prior to the cause. In the example
above, the impact with the hard floor is the proximate cause of the fracture. Proximate cause is a
causal factor that occurs prior to the effect.
The lack of WET FLOOR sign is the immediate cause. Immediate cause is a causal factor whose
presence contribute to the effect but not directly.
The woman’s flats not being repaired is the remote cause. Remote cause is a contributing cause but
it is removed from the event.

What Causes What?

42
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

In November 2003, a man resisting arrest died shortly after being beaten into submission by police
officers in Ohio. What caused his death? The struggle, Lack of oxygen, damage of brain.

A study reported that people who leave school before the age of 16 are 5 times more likely than
university graduates to die from heart attack. What is really the cause? Poor education? The fact that
they leave school?

Increased stress causes increased risk of heart attack.

Drinking alcohol during pregnancy cause birth defects.

Smoking causes cancer.

Eating heavy food causes stomachache.

Jogging cause my side pain.

The conflict over slavery caused the Civil War.

TYPES OF CAUSAL ARGUMENTS

Causal Prediction: An argument consisting of a causal generalization, an example of an effect, and
concluding that a specific effect occurs.
Given a causal statement, we can predict what will happen:
1. Reduction in swelling causes relief of pain. (Causal generalization statement)
2. The swelling in my arm is diminishing. (Example)
3. Therefore, relief of pain will occur. (Prediction)

Causal Explanation: An argument consisting of a causal generalization, an example of an effect,

and concluding that an example of a specific cause explains the occurrence of the effect.

43
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Given a causal statement, we can explain how two events are related.
1. Reduction in swelling causes relief of pain. (Causal generalization statement)
2. There is relief of pain. (Example)
3. Therefore, the swelling in my arm has gone down. (Explanation)

Causal Prescription: An argument consisting of a causal generalization and concluding with a

prescription for producing or preventing a certain effect.
This is an argument asserting how something is to be achieved. Given a causal statement, we know
that if we want to achieve a certain result we need to bring about the cause.

1. Reduction in swelling causes relief of pain. (Causal generalization statement)

2. Therefore, if relief of pain is desired, reduce the swelling. (Prescription)

Causal Conclusion: An argument consisting of a premise in support of a causal statement.

This type of argument provides evidence for concluding that one event causes another.
1. Whenever swelling is reduced, pain is relieved. (Premise)
2. Therefore, reduction in swelling causes relief of pain. (Causal statement)

Exercises pp. 199, 209.

Mill’s Methods
44
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

John Stewart Mill (1806 – 1873) describes 5 methods for identifying causes and effects:
METHODS OF AGREEMENT, DIFFERENCE, CONCOMITANT VARIATION, RESIDUE, and
the joint method of AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE.
1. THE METHOD OF AGREEMENT
This method tells us to look at antecedent circumstances. The cause of an event is that antecedent
circumstance common to all cases in which that event occurs.
Explanation: Suppose 5 friends eat at the same restaurant and an hour later 3 of them get sick. The
method of agreement suggests that we identify the cause by looking at which food in common was
eaten among the three.
If something like this happens, naturally the first question that comes to mind is, what did Amy,
Beth, and Clara eat? Or which food was in common?

Denise ate salad, potatoes, apple pie, and tea. DID NOT GET SICK
Amy ate bananas, salad, apple pie, and coffee. GOT SICK
Beth ate bananas, apple pie, cola. GOT SICK
Ellen ate spinach, fries, and cola. DID NOT GET SICK
Clara ate bananas, beans, and coffee. GOT SICK

Following the method of agreement, we focus on those who got sick and see for a common
element.

Notice that Amy, Beth, and Clara all got sick and ate bananas. So, it is reasonable to conclude that
bananas are at least a causal factor in producing the illness.

You can see that this method is not very reliable. What if nothing is in common?

2. THE METHOD OF DIFFERENCE

45
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

According to this method we can find out the cause of an event by looking at the antecedent event
that is present when something occurs and we compare to those events that lack that antecedent
event.

Explanation: Suppose you touch the TV antenna and the image gets clear. If you don’t touch the
antenna the image is blurry. So by comparison, we infer that touching the antenna is the cause of
clear images. Naturally you ask, “What’s the difference?” The answer: The difference is that this
time I did not touch the antenna.

If you make soup with the same ingredients many times and one day you add a new or omit an
ingredient, you infer that the cause of, say, a bitter taste is the new ingredient or the lack of taste is
caused by the removal of, say, oregano. You ask, “What’s the difference?”

Again the restaurant:

Denise ate salad, apple pie, and tea. DID NOT GET SICK
Amy ate bananas, salad, apple pie, and tea. DID NOT GET SICK
Beth ate bananas, apple pie, cola. DID NOT GET SICK
Ellen ate spinach, fries, and coffee. DID NOT GET SICK
Clara ate bananas, beans, and coffee. GOT SICK

Clara is the only one who gets sick. In order to determine what caused Clara to get sick, naturally
we want to ask, “What’s the difference?” We need to see which food might be different that Clara
ate but not the others.

The difference is that Clara ate beans and is the only one who got sick. So probably, eating beans
caused her to be sick.

3. THE METHOD OF CONCOMITANT VARIATION

46
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Things and people exhibit variation, they change. Often we observe that such variations are in
concomitance with variations in other circumstances:
Explanation: If a variation in a certain event E coincide with another variation in phenomenon P,
then it is probable that E and P are causally related.
~ The more you exercise the stronger you get.
~ The better you eat the healthier you become.
~ The higher the humidity, the longer it takes for my clothes to dry.
~ The thinner the air the harder it is to run.

4. THE METHOD OF RESIDUE

This method suggest that to know the cause of a certain phenomenon we need to subtract causes
that are known from previous induction, and the residue of a certain phenomenon is the effect of the
remaining antecedent.
Explanation: Suppose we investigate the increased incidence of AIDS in a community. Suppose we
already know that the AIDS virus is transmitted through exchange of body fluids. All the cases
observed in the antecedent circumstances were contaminated needles, unsafe sex, and blood
transfusions. We have established that contamination is causal in 65% of cases, unsafe sex 25%. So,
we infer that the remaining cases, the residue, are caused by blood transfusions.

5. THE JOINT METHOD (AGREEMENT + DIFFERENCE)

Every time I visit your house, your cat is there and I start sneezing. But when you visit me, and your
cat is not here, I do not sneeze. So, by combining the methods of agreement and difference, I
conclude that I am allergic to your cat.
By agreement I know that whenever your cat is present allergic reaction occurs; this is what’s in
common.
By difference, I know that whenever your cat is not present, allergic reaction does not occur; this is
the difference.

Exercises: Identify Types of Arguments p. 219

47
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Logical Fallacies
One type of invalid argument is called a Logical Fallacy. These arguments are instances of bad or
poor reasoning. The conclusion of a logical fallacy either does not depend on the truth of the
premises at all or the conclusion only follows very weakly from the premises. Fallacies can be
formal or informal. A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form
without requiring an understanding of the argument’s content. For example, see if you can spot the
logical error in this argument:

E.g. 1:

1. If Taylor is president of the US, then Taylor must be 35 years of age or older.
2. Taylor is 35 years of age.
________________________________________________________________________
3. Therefore, Taylor is president of the United States.

The obvious error here is to assume that Taylor is the president of the US. Many people are 35 years
of age or older, but it does not follow that they are presidents of the US. Imagine how many
presidents we would have!

The above is an invalid argument.

E.g. 2:

1. People who are allergic to peanuts won’t eat peanuts.

2. Mike won’t eat peanuts.
_______________________________________________
3. Therefore, Mike is allergic to peanuts.

The obvious error here is to assume that Mike is allergic to peanuts, which we cannot possibly
know, since the premises do not make that explicit. The fact is that there are many people who are
not allergic to peanuts but don’t like peanuts, so they won’t eat them.

On the other hand, informal fallacies occur for reasons other than structural, and thus require
examination of the argument’s content.
48
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Here are some examples:

Appeal to Authority

Fallacious appeal to authority is when you back up your reasoning by the assertion(s) of someone
who is not relevantly qualified or is biased.

Examples:

~ According to my classmate, philosophy is stupid. So I don’t waste my time on it!

~ Professor Alvaro is one of the most important philosophers of this century. I have that on the
authority of his mother!

~ Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally permissible. Women should have a right to their bodies.
Jane: “I disagree completely. Dr. John Spin says that abortion is always immoral, regardless of the
situation. He has to be right because he is a respected expert in his field.”
Bill: “Never heard of him. Who is he?”
Jane: “He’s the guy who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion.”
Bill: “I see. Does he have any expertise in morality?
Jane: “I don’t know. But he is a famous physicist, so I believe him.”

Appeal to the People

If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what
most or everyone believes, you commit this fallacy.

Example:

~ Eating meat is morally permissible. Look how many people eat meat.

~ People have believed in God for millennia. I don’t see how so many people could be wrong.
Therefore, God exists.

Appeal to Force

This is an argument based upon a threat to persuade you into accepting a conclusion.

Example:

49
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

~ Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you do not convict this person, you may be this killer’s next
victim.

Appeal to Pity.

This is an appeal to your emotion. One who commits this fallacy wants you to accept a conclusion
out of pity.

Example:

~ It is true that this man committed a crime; however, consider this: he never knew his father, his
mother died, he has been poor for his whole life…therefore, you should acquit him.

Appeal to Ignorance

This is an argument in which it is claimed that the conclusion is true (or false) because there is no
evidence of the contrary.

Example:

~ I have examined all the arguments for the existence of God and found them all invalid. Therefore,
there is no God.

~ Scientists have not proven that ghosts do not exist. Therefore they exist.

Ad Hominem

You must give objective reasons for your views. Sometimes people get frustrated and attack another
person. Often, people attack their opponents rather than their arguments. There are 3 common
variations of ad hominem: abusive, circumstantial, and “you too!”

Examples of abusive:

~ My doctor told me I should lose some weight. But why should I listen to him? He’s fat!

~ Professor Alvaro told us about the theory of evolution. But he neglected to tell us that he’s a
Godless atheist! Therefore, professor Alvaro cannot speak the truth.

50
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

~ (Suppose you argue for the moral superiority of suicide for terminally ill patients.) I say to you
that I disagree because life is sacred. You respond “You disagree because you are a religious bigot,
and religious people are nuts.”

Examples of circumstantial:

~ The auto industry lobbyists have been arguing that tax reform is unnecessary. Just remember that
it is in their interest to argue that way because it benefits the auto industry if there is no tax reform!

~ I am not surprised that your mechanic suggests a complete engine overhaul. Do you know how
much money he makes from that?

~ I am not surprised you suggested that I join a gym. You are a personal trainer, right? More money
for you, huh?

Examples of “you too!”

~ You argue that eating meat is immoral. But you too used to eat meat. So why should I listen to
you?

~ A: Smoking causes all sorts of problems, not to mention it causes cancer. So, do not ever start,
kid.

B: You should talk! You smoke!

False Cause

This is committed when the arguer concludes that one event causes another without giving good
evidence for their causal connection.

Example:

~ Last night I had an argument with Frank and I wished him dead. This morning they found him
dead in his apartment. God, if only I hadn’t thought that! I killed him!

Slippery Slope

51
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Suppose someone claims that a first step (in a chain of causes and effects, or a chain of reasoning)
will probably lead to a second step that in turn will probably lead to another step and so on until a
final step ends in trouble. If the likelihood of the trouble occurring is exaggerated, the slippery slope
fallacy is present.

Example:

~ We should oppose same sex marriage because if we allow it then eventually people would
demand to marry animals.

Either/Or/Black-or-White/False Dichotomy

Example:

~ Well, it’s time for a decision. Either you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or you are on
the side of environmental destruction?

~ Either you drove here or you walk. So if you didn’t walk, you must have driven.

~ Either we enforce death penalty or we find convicted murderers back out on the streets. We
cannot have murderers out on the streets. Therefore, we must enforce the death penalty.

A VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO REMEMBER: Informal logical fallacies are not exclusive of
inductive arguments. The above examples are deductively valid arguments. Being valid, the fallacy
is not structural; it is not formal. Rather, it stems from a false premise—the premise that there are
only two options. But if there are more than two options, then the fallacy is a false dichotomy.

If I say to you, “Either you’re alive or you are dead. You are not dead. Therefore, you are alive.”
This is not a false dichotomy because there is no other option.

Equivocation

This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon the equivocal use of a word or
phrase, typically used in two different senses.

Example:

~ If God is love and love is blind, and Stevie Wonder is blind. Then Stevie Wonder is God!

~ The doctor told me I need amino acids. But acids corrode your stomach. So I am not eating amino
acids.

~ All feathers are light. Whatever is light cannot be dark. Therefore, feathers cannot be dark.
52
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

~ Logic is the study of arguments. My parents argue a lot. Therefore, I can learn logic by listening
to my parents argue.

Hasty Generalization

This occurs when a generalization is made on the basis of an unrepresentative sample.

Example:

~ Last night I went to a town called Butte Creek and everywhere I went I saw children. So the
inhabitants of that town are all children.

Composition

This is due to fallacious reasoning about the relationship between a whole and its parts.

Example:

~ Each member of the orchestra is excellent; therefore the orchestra is excellent.

~ Drinking this glass of whiskey cannot harm me, so how can drinking harm me?

~ Every brick of that house is relatively light. Therefore, the house must be light.

Division

The fallacy of division is the opposite of that of composition.

Example:

~ The union voted to strike. Therefore, each member voted to strike.

~ Humans are the only animals capable of philosophical thinking. Therefore, every human being is
capable of philosophical thinking.

False Analogy

53
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

An argument from analogy draws a conclusion about something on the basis of an analogy with
some other thing. But sometimes the analogy is not relevant enough or false.

Example:

~ Teaching teenagers to stay away from drinking by getting them drunk is like teaching gun safety
by playing Russian roulette.

~ To say humans are immortal is like saying a car can run forever.

~ If complicated mechanisms require a maker, then the universe must have a maker as well.

Begging the Question

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the
conclusion.

Example:

~ Africa is the largest continent because it has the largest area of any continent.

~ Left-handed people are better painters because right-handed people can't paint as well.

~ Objects that are less dense than water will float because such objects won’t sink in.

~ Erica: “How do you know that the Book of God is divinely inspired?” Pedro: “Because it says it
right in the third chapter that ‘all scripture is given by divine inspiration of God’.”

~ Celibacy is an unnatural and unhealthy practice, since it is neither natural nor healthy to exclude
sexual activity from one’s life.

~ Thoughts are not part of the physical world because thoughts are in their nature non-physical.

~ Happiness is the highest good for a human being, since all other values are inferior to it.

~ Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen.

Straw Man

54
NYC COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY Intro to Philosophy PHIL 2101 Prof. Carlo Alvaro

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you misinterpret the position of your
opponent and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have
undermined the opponent’s actual position.

Example:

~ The theory of evolution says that man comes from monkeys. But how come monkeys don’t give
birth to human babies? The theory of evolution is absurd!

The Red Herring

This is a fallacy in which attention is deliberately moved away from the issue under discussion.

Example:

~ A: “What we do to animals is morally appalling.”

B: “But what about children starving in the world. That’s a real problem. And where would you get
your proteins if all went vegan. And what would happen to the economy…”

Inconsistency

This occurs when one argues from inconsistent premises.

Example:

~ Parents are the sole authority on the education of their children. But the state is to ensure a quality
and equal education for all children. That’s why we give teachers the authority to determine
educational goals.

~ I’m completely against violence for any reason, and I would punch anybody in the face who is in
favor of violence.

~ I love animals, you know. You can call me an animal lover! But let’s order now: “I will take the
T-bone steak for main course and veal tartar as an appetizer, please.”

55