# Argument and Logic

Submitted By lilmanger19
Words 355
Pages 2
Argument and Logic

Axia Campus of University of Phoenix

Parmenide’s most famous disciple, Zeno has devised a series of ingenious arguments to support Parmenide’s theory. The theory is reality is one. Zeno took a basic approach to demonstrate motion is impossible. His example was a rabbit moving from one hole to another, and must first reach the quarter point before reaching the next hole. The point needing to be reached is one-eighth the distance. Whether it is a rabbit or another creature it must reach a point of infinite number of points to get anywhere they wish to go. By the requirement of needing to move an infinite number of times anywhere would rule out motion. Second theory states for a rabbit to move from one hole to another, at each moment of its travel will occupy space meaning it is at rest. Since the rabbit occupies space each moment it is at rest each moment so it cannot move.

Zeno’s argument is that motion is not possible. Basically stating when a rabbit moves from one place to another the rabbit moves infinite times ruling out motion. When anything is attempting to reach a certain spot or location whether it is an animal or human we at any point can all stop. Zeno is saying motion does not exist at all because we all stop at some point. I believe him stating motion does not exist is Ludacris, because as we are moving we are in motion and then we stop and then we are back in motion once we began to move again. I believe for the most part his logics and arguments are fairly strong, but also weak. For instance when Zeno stated his arguments were to prove motion is possible. Motion is always possible because at some point again whether human or animal we are in motion within some point in our day when going from one place to another place. I do think Zeno made a great effort in the arguments for Parmenide. However I think the logic should have...

### Similar Documents

Free Essay

#### Prayer in Schools Logic Argument

...“Logic gives us guidelines for focusing on the actual argument, getting rid of extraneous material, and standardizing the presentation. This helps us see how the argument measures up against recognized standards as well as how it measures up against other standardized arguments” (Mosser, K., 2011.) Argument: Should prayer be allowed in school? For prayer in schools – * “As the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To prohibit school prayer is to prohibit the free exercise of one's religion. Thus, not only is eliminating prayer from public schools wrong, it is also unconstitutional. Moral and legal reasons demonstrate that prayer in public school should, therefore, be allowed” (Mosser, K.,2010). * There has never been any report that allowing prayer in school is physically or spiritually harmful to a child in any way. * Prayer teaches reflection and patience. * Therefore, it is our constitutional right to pray in schools and with prayer not being harmful it can actually teach a child reflection and patience which can help control behavior issues. Against prayer in schools – * People can tend to feel that with prayer religion is pushed upon them against their own beliefs and goes against their constitutional right. * There are too many different religions to have a specific religion class. * There are people who do not believe in a God at...

Words: 435 - Pages: 2

#### “How Can Logic Best Be Applied to Arguments?”

...“HOW CAN LOGIC BEST BE APPLIED TO ARGUMENTS?” | March 10 2015 | | | Abstract This talk surveys a number of methods currently being developed that assist in applying logic to the evaluation of arguments used in particular cases. A case is seen as speci_ed by a given text and context of discourse. The methods used are pragmatic, and are based on the Gricean Cooperative Principle (CP), as implemented in several types of goal-directed conversational exchanges. Abstract This talk surveys a number of methods currently being developed that assist in applying logic to the evaluation of arguments used in particular cases. A case is seen as speci_ed by a given text and context of discourse. The methods used are pragmatic, and are based on the Gricean Cooperative Principle (CP), as implemented in several types of goal-directed conversational exchanges. “HOW CAN LOGIC BEST BE APPLIED TO ARGUMENTS?” INTRODUCTION How can logic best be applied to arguments? The goal of this address is to extend the boundaries of the subject known as logic towards the task of evaluating arguments as found in given cases of natural language argumentation. Of course, recently in philosophy, many influential voices are saying precisely that it is not possible to carry out this task (in an objective way that would be suitable for use in logic). I will argue that it can be done, or at least that there are resources available that can be brought...

Words: 5702 - Pages: 23

#### Phil 201 Study Guide 4

...Study Guide: Lesson 4 A Little Logic Lesson Overview Logic is the primary tool or methodology in studying philosophy. Philosophy is about analyzing and constructing arguments and a good understanding of the basics of logical reasoning is essential in performing that task. The next 3 lessons will focus on logic and analyzing arguments. In this lesson, you will first be introduced to the laws of logic. These are the first principles for all reasoning. We will then discuss the specialized terminology we use in logic. Finally, we will examine 2 major kinds of logical reasoning: deductive and inductive. We will consider different forms of arguments under each and discuss how to evaluate these arguments. Take note that a large part of this lesson is about learning the terminology for logic. Tasks Read and take notes from chapter 5 of Philosophy: Critically Thinking about Foundational Beliefs, “A Little Logic.” As you read, make sure you understand the following points and questions: * Why are the laws of logic foundational? * The Law of Logic makes discourse possible. If they are not recognized as true, than nothing we claim makes any sense. Therefore, it is important to have a firm grasp of these laws. * List and explain the 3 laws of logic. 1. Noncontradiction – “Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Expressed symbolically: ~ (P•~P).² It reads, “It is not the case that there can be both P and non-P”. 2....

Words: 1412 - Pages: 6

#### Critical Thinking

...Evaluate the following argument. More specifically, identify the premises and conclusions. Determine whether the argument is deductive, or inductive (1pt). If it is deductive, determine whether it is sound, or unsound. If it is inductive, determine whether it is cogent, or uncogent (1pt). Explain your answers (2pt). 1. 84% of Liberal voters believe Dalton McGuinty has the best leadership abilities. Natalie Smith is a Liberal voter So she probably believes that Dalton McGuinty has the best leadership abilities, too. Premises: 84% of Liberal voters believe Dalton McGuinty has the best leadership abilities. Natalie Smith is a Liberal voter Conclusion: So she probably believes that Dalton McGuinty has the best leadership abilities, too. This is an inductive, cogent, argument. The conclusion of this argument can be identified via the conclusion indicator ‘so.’ The premises can be identified using the ‘because trick.’ The arguer believes that Natalie thinks McGuinty has the best leadership abilities, because 84% of Liberal voters think McGuinty has the best leadership abilities, and because Natalie is a Liberal voter. We can tell the argument is inductive since: 1) It fits the common pattern of inductive argument known as ‘statistical argument;’ moreover, 2) It fails the strict necessity test, since it is possible for each of the premises to be true but the conclusion false; and finally and most obviously 3) its conclusion contains the......

Words: 712 - Pages: 3

#### Being Logcal

...Work and has a price tag of \$12.95. The author, D.Q. McInerny, is a professor of philosophy and has taught logic at several institutes of higher learning before ending up at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska. He has written works on religious philosophy and has collaborated on three text books concerning philosophy and logic. McInerny has written with conviction but believes that logic must be exercised in the educational process (McInerny, 2005). In this particular work, McInerny attempts to make his readers understand logic by seeing their surroundings and environments in an objective and critical manner (McInerny, 2005). He is able to do so in lay-man’s terms that almost any reader would be able to comprehend. This piece was written as a handbook for presenting the very basic values of logic to people who have never had the chance to practice it before. Those that have been well versed in logic before may easily lose interest in a work this simplified. Summary Being Logical is organized into five parts: 1) Preparing the Mind for Logic; 2) The Basic Principles of Logic; 3) Argument: The Language of Logic; 4) The Sources of Illogical Thinking; and 5) The Principal Forms of Illogical Thinking (McInerny, 2005). Every part is broken down further and goes more in depth to its specific components. This helps to make the teaching of logic to not be too overwhelming. The first three serve as a foundation for logical thinking. The last two......

Words: 1616 - Pages: 7

#### Slice of Life

...Slice of Life A Synthesis Paper on Philosophy and Logic Jonn Denzel V. Ramos BSGE-1E Does God exist? How to build an attractive city? Does life is real or just an imagination? An average person fails to answer these questions objectively, but philosophers have this will on solving these problems. Philosophy and logic are the fundamentals in search for meaning. Philosophers have these skill set which makes them think different from others, which leads and guides them to real and unbiased answer, it is a slice of life where they embrace every single moment they put up time and effort in their search for answer. Long time ago, Ancient Greeks invented philosophy as the way of thinking and asking questions about all things through its ultimate causes. Pre-Socratic Pythagoras coined the word philosophia which means “love of wisdom” or people who are faithful to wisdom as St. Thomas Aquinas called as wise man. Philosophy began to spread throughout the rest of the world, as the knowledge and discipline that engages and sharpens our reasons. There are three components of philosophy, the material object, formal object and natural scope. The material object refers to the subject being observed and finding the root cause on how it exist is its formal object. The natural scope is simply defined as natural reason which philosophers use in search for explanations. Ordinary and profound are two types of knowledge in philosophy. Ordinary knowledge is the foundation or the simplest......

Words: 2734 - Pages: 11

#### Jjjkb

...b) To what extent was Hume successful in his critique of the cosmological argument? [10]Hume makes some very important challenges to the Cosmological argument which some believe count decisively against it. One of the key areas he calls into question is the argument’s dependence upon what Leibniz termed the principle of sufficient reason. In this principle an adequate explanation must be a total explanation. The universe requires an explanation of itself as a whole. But many would say, as Russell later told Copleston: “Then I can only say that you’re looking for something which can’t be got, and which one ought not to expect to get.” If you have explained each individual element of a series any explanation of the series as a whole would seem to be superfluous, and besides he says that ‘the whole’ doesn’t really exist anyway – it is ‘an arbitrary act of mind’ that makes things into wholes. What we term the ‘whole universe’ in modern physics may be only a bubble in a larger reality that we have no way of grasping. Also if we are only entitled to talk about causes when we have had experience of them, then this argument would seem to be over-stretching itself in speculating upon what it cannot know. On the other hand, there is of course a problem with stopping at a certain point and saying that we should seek no further explanation, in that it is a basic presupposition of all scientific work. However, even though a principle of rationality is that we can find an explanation......

Words: 2857 - Pages: 12

#### Logic

...Logical Concepts an overview What is logic? •  Logic is the science of reasoning, •  which is to say: the academic discipline that investigates reasoning. What is reasoning? •  reasoning is inferring (deducing) •  to infer is to draw conclusions (output) from a premise or set of premises (input). An Example of Reasoning You see smoke And you infer That there is fire (input) (deduce) (output) Another example of Reasoning You count 19 people in a group; which originally had 20 people in it; and you infer that someone is missing (input) (input) (deduce) (output) The Basic Idea Logic evaluates reasoning in terms of arguments. What is an argument? •  The word “argument” can mean many different things depending on the context. •  But for the purposes of logic, the term “argument” means something very specific: What is an argument? •  an argument is a collection of statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which are designated as the premises. •  Important note: premises are always intended to provide support or evidence for the conclusion, but they don't always succeed. (It’s still an argument either way.) What is a statement? •  A statement is a declarative sentence, •  i.e., a sentence that is capable of being true or false. •  For example: The door is closed. •  Other kinds of sentence are not capable of being true or false: •  Interrogative sentences are inquiries for information: Is the......

Words: 2744 - Pages: 11

#### Logic

...with formalizing logic as a discipline. Viewers are directed to the aspect of what arguments are in the area of logic. Arguments are not heated exchanges or personal assaults, but however they are a group of statements. Statements are sentences capable of being true or false. An example of a statement is saying, “All cats are vicious animals.” The next topic that is brought up in part one of the video is the subject of inference. Inference is the reasoning process of an argument. Inference can be explicit (using premise and/or conclusion indicator words) and implicit (the reader has to catch the inference). Finally the video concludes with the point that there are four non-inferences commonly mistaken for arguments these are: advice, assertion, reports, and explanations. Part two of the formal logic video is the topic of inference. As stated in the early video inference is the reasoning process of an argument. Viewers are now introduced with the topic of deductive and inductive arguments. A deductive argument means that there is no possibility of the conclusion being false when the premises are true. Inductive arguments mean that the premises merely make the conclusion likely (conclusion “goes beyond” the premises). Lastly inductive forms are arguments based on signs, prediction, and generalization just to name a few. Part three of the video talks about validity, strength, soundness, and cogency. Validity is either valid or invalid. Valid deductive arguments means......

Words: 423 - Pages: 2

#### Power of Logic

Words: 173379 - Pages: 694

#### Theo 313 Book Analysis 1

...Analysis In the book Is Jesus the Only Savior?, author Ronald Nash does an excellent job in presenting his arguments in a comprehensive, thorough method. In the preface, he does well to address the important clarification of terms needed when discussing whether or not Jesus is the only savior. It is essential to understand these terms—exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism—when diving into the various beliefs and interpretations concerning Christ and His claim that, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” (John 14:6). While the intention of the book is to address such beliefs and interpretations, it is important to establish early in the text, as he does, what the different beliefs are and to define them in a very basic form. In the first chapter, Nash lays the foundation for the rest of his book—exclusivism. Similar to the importance of defining all three of the different general views in the preface, it is incredibly important for him to establish a baseline of good theology, initially, in order to effectively discuss and argue the views of pluralism and inclusivism. This is certainly one of the greatest strengths of the book as a whole. Nash lays out the main purpose of the book on page 25, stating, “The major question I will seek to answer in the rest of this book is whether pluralists or inclusivists have produced arguments strong enough to justify the repudiation of exclusivism, which is the position of historic......

Words: 2019 - Pages: 9

#### Logic & Fallacies

...AND … 1. LOGIC 2. SCIENCE 3. THEORY 4. SOCIAL PROBLEMS LAW FOUNDATION Critical = informed and logical Responsible = social equity Creative = independent and considered Interrelations -- with other disciplines and institutions Historical, philosophical, economic, political and social context == acquaintance with historical development of theory Contemporary social issues: · Terrorism · Refugees · Crime and punishment Historical context John Locke? Karl Marx? LOGIC What is wrong with this statement? In the war on terror, you are either with us or against us Which of the following is sound? All men have hair I have hair Therefore I am a man All men have hair I am a man Therefore I have hair Logic definitions Logic = science that evaluates arguments Argument = group of statements, with premises claimed to support conclusions [also inference] Statement = sentence that is either true or false [also proposition] Premise = statement setting forth reasons or evidence Conclusion = statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply Arguments and non-arguments Arguments must have a factual claim and an inferential claim. The following are not arguments: · warnings or advice · belief or opinion · loosely associated statements · factual reports · explanations · illustrations · conditional statements Deduction and induction Deductive argument: the......

Words: 2057 - Pages: 9

...author says about logic, and how we can apply it to our cognitive source with the attempt of improving our thinking. When discussing logic, the author breaks his introductory topics into two categories; fallacies and definitions. Each of these also has three or more sub-categories. We will be able to take these fallacies and definitions and apply them to recognizing good logic, and poor logic. The first one I will bring up is the term Fallacy. The author defines a fallacy as, “a logical mistake in reasoning, especially one that it is tempting to make.” He tells us that what most of us define as fallacy is incorrect, at least for logical purposes. When it does not apply to logic, folks tend to think of a mistake, unbelief, or a sentence that just isn’t true all as being fallacy. He does not stop there. There are 4+ categories of fallacies in logic. The 1st one is called a petition principii which simply means, “to beg the question.” One can clearly see certain illogical statements as being fallacy when the premise is just the same, or has the same definition as the conclusion. Some even frame questions as such to answer any direct answer would be stating the premise to be true. (In response to your question in the essay, Mr. Slinker, I would have to answer with a question, “why do you think I’ve been beating my wife, and what proof do you have?”) The 2nd type of fallacy given is called ad hominem which reasonably states that instead of directing the argument toward the......

Words: 954 - Pages: 4

#### Logical Operations and Truth Tables

...and Truth Tables At first glance, it may not seem that the study of logic should be part of mathematics. For most of us, the word logic is associated with reasoning in a very nebulous way: "If my car is out of gas, then I cannot drive it to work." seems logical enough, while "If I am curious, then I am yellow." is clearly illogical. Yet our conclusions about what is or is not logical are most often unstructured and subjective. The purpose of logic is to enable the logician to construct valid arguments which satisfy the basic principle "If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true." It turns out that in order to reliably and objectively construct valid arguments, the logical operations which one uses must be clearly defined and must obey a set of consistent properties. Thus logic is quite rightly treated as a mathematical subject. Up until now, you've probably considered mathematics as a set of rules for using numbers. The study of logic as a branch of mathematics will require you to think more abstractly then you are perhaps used to doing. For instance, in logic we use variables to represent propositions (or premises), in the same fashion that we use variables to represent numbers in algebra. But while an algebraic variable can have any number as its value, a logical variable can only have the value True or False. That is, True and False are the "numerical constants" of logic. And instead of the usual arithmetic operators (addition,......

Words: 471 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

#### Critical Thinking

...than one of these attitudes toward one proposition. 5-RB: if a person’s evidence concerning a proposition supports that proposition, then it is rational for the person to believe the proposition. If a person’s evidence goes against the proposition, then it is rational for him to disbelieve the proposition. And if the person evidence is neutral, then it is rational for him to suspend judgment concerning the proposition. 6-PB: it is rational to proportion the strength of one’s belief to the strength of one’s evidence. The stronger one’s evidence for a proposition is, the stronger one’s belief in it should be. Standard form of an argument: argument written out as consecutively numbered premises and conclusion, with the justification for each line in the argument stated. Argument reconstruction: the process of rewriting in standard form an argument expressed in ordinary...

Words: 555 - Pages: 3