Lecture 5 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
Lecture 5 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
VALIDITY, TRUTH,
SOUNDNESS,
STRENGTH, COGENCY
(2) how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises
(3) this claim is an objective feature of an argument, and it may or may not be
related to the subjective intentions of the arguer,
LECTURE OVERVIEW:
a valid deductive argument is an argument where it is impossible for the conclusion to be false
given that the premises are true. The conclusion follows from the premises strictly by necessity.
An invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument where it is possible for the conclusion to
be false even if the premises are true. The conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the
premises, even though it is claimed to.
a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises
an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or
both
a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion is
false if the premises are true. The conclusion does follow probably from the premises.
a weak inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from
the premises, even though it is claimed to.
GENERAL
INSIGHT TO
THIS CHAPTER
This chapter explores the idea that the validity
of a deductive argument is determined by its
form. This is suggested by the table.
This means that all arguments in the valid
column have the same valid form, and all
arguments in the invalid column have the same
invalid form.
The form of an argument illustrates the
argument’s internal structure or pattern of
reasoning. If the pattern of reasoning is good,
the argument will be valid; if not, it will be
invalid.
All A are B.
All C are A.
All C are B.
HOW TO IDENTIFY VALID DEDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
We start by assuming that each of the premises is true, and then we look at whether it is
possible for the conclusion to be false given that assumption.
There are no arguments that are “almost” valid and “almost” invalid.
If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is valid;
if not, it is invalid.
Both premises are true, so it is easy to assume that they(claims) are true.
Next, is the conclusion false? If banks were included in one part of the group of financial
institutions and Old Mutual were included in another part this case insurance, then Old
Mutual would not be a bank, since it is an insurance company. Yes, thus, the argument is
invalid.
If A is true and B is true to some extent(inferential link), then C is false. Which then
renders your argument invalid.
HOWEVER
There is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the premises and conclusion that does
determine the question of validity. Any logical argument with genuinely true premises and an
incorrect conclusion is invalid. The premises could very well be false while the conclusion is
false if both premises are genuinely true.
Most important point of deductive logic is that any deductive argument having actually true
premises and a false conclusion is invalid.
SOUND AND UNSOUND DEDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
DEFINITION: a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises.
HOWEVER
Because a valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false, and because a sound argument does, in fact, have true premises, it follows
that every sound argument will have a true conclusion.
A valid conclusion supported by true premises but with an unnecessary false premise
would still constitute a sound argument.
No addition of a false premise to an originally sound argument can make the argument
unsound. Such a premise would be superfluous(excessive) and should not be considered part of
the argument.
Every logical argument is either sound or unsound since every premise is either true or
false and every deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
Many, if not most, premises have truth values that are unknown or impossible to determine,
it is not always possible to determine the soundness of a deductive argument.
THEREFORE
BUT
DEFINITION: a weak inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow
probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
UNIFORMITY OF NATURE
All inductive arguments depend on what philosophers call the uniformity of nature.
This idea holds that patterns that exist in one spatial location tend to appear in other areas and that
the future will often resemble the past.
For example, in the past, sugar has always tasted sweet. According to the uniformity of nature, sugar
will continue to taste sweet in the future. Also, just as sugar tastes sweet in Los Angeles, so does it in
New York, London, and everywhere else.
Our conclusions about what we would ordinarily expect to occur are ultimately supported by
nature's consistency.
If the conclusion was false, this occurrence would cause us to react with surprise.
The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments runs parallel to that for
deduction.
• then we determine whether, based on that assumption, the conclusion is probably true.
• This determination is accomplished by linking up the premises with regularities that exist in
our experiential background.
If the argument is an argument from signs, we connect the information in the premises with
what we know about signs: some kinds of signs are trustworthy, others are not.
If the argument is a generalization, we connect the information in the premises with what we
know about a sample being representative of a population.
The strength or weakness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity
of the premises and conclusion, BUT from the probabilistic support the premises give the
conclusion.
EXAMPLE OF A STRONG INDUCTIVE
ARGUMENT
All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at least 50 million years old. Therefore,
probably the next dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years old.
The premise is true, given that all dinosaur bones discovered have been over 50 million
years old (and that thousands of such bones have been discovered).
The uniformity of nature dictates that the next one to be discovered will also be over 50
million years old. This is what we would naturally expect, and anything contrary would be
surprising.
The uniformity of nature principle has been rejected because not all swans in the past have
been white and we can therefore not assume that all swans in the present are white either.
A black swan might appear. This black swan could have such an impact as to invalidate our
conclusion, even if our premise was true.
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.50)
GENERAL THINGS TO REMEMBER
Premises must not exclude or overlook evidence that undermines the stated premises and requires
a different conclusion. This provision is called the total evidence requirement.
If not met, an argument might have literally true premises and a probably false conclusion and still
be strong.
When we speak of the conclusion being probably false, we mean probably false in the actual world
considering known evidence.
NOTE: the only arrangement of truth and falsity missing for strong arguments is true premises
and probably false conclusions.
To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than
improbable.
In other words, given that the premises are true, the likelihood that the conclusion is true must be
more than 50 percent, and as the probability increases, the argument becomes stronger.
2. This barrel contains 100 apples. Eighty apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore,
probably all 100 apples are ripe.
The first argument is weak and the second is strong. However, the first is not absolutely weak nor
the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or weakened by the random
selection of a larger or smaller sample. The incorporation of additional premises into an inductive
argument will also generally tend to strengthen or weaken it.
HOWEVER
As an illustration of the need for the total evidence requirement, consider the following argument:
Swimming in the Caribbean is usually lots of fun. Today the water is warm, the surf is gentle, and on
this beach there are no dangerous currents. Therefore, it would be fun to go swimming here now.
If the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is cogent. But if they ignore the fact
that several large dorsal fins are cutting through the water (suggesting sharks), then obviously the
argument is not cogent.
Queenstown is a city in South Africa. Lisa was born in Queenstown. Therefore, Lisa is a
South African.
STRONG UNCOGENT ARGUMENT
EXAMPLE
The vast majority of Rose Bowl games have been played in freezing weather. Therefore,
probably the next Rose Bowl game will be played in freezing cold weather.
People have been listening to rock music for hundreds of years. People will probably still be
listening to it years from now.
WEAK UNCOGENT ARGUMENT
EXAMPLE
The ebb and flow of the tides has been occurring every day for millions of years. But nothing
lasts forever. Therefore, the motion of the tides will die out within a few years.
Franklin Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear. Therefore, we do not have to fear a
serial killer attack.
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.50)
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, p.53)