Chat: Philosophy 103: Logic Review for Test #1

 

Session Start: Wed Feb 07 19:57:05 2007

Session Ident: #philosophy

[19:57] *** Now talking in #philosophy

[19:57] <larchie> The Philosophy Chat is now open

[19:57] <larchie> for discussion of Test I: The Structure of Arguments

[19:57] <larchie> ...

[20:01] <larchie> Hi Kyle

[20:01] <larchie> ...

[20:01] <guest> hey larchie

[20:01] <guest> haha lots of people here

[20:01] <larchie> Just you so far.

[20:01] <guest> yea I was joking

[20:02] <larchie> Last night no one showed up after 20 min...

[20:02] <guest> What is a the difference between a argument and explanation?

[20:02] <larchie> Several things-- first the intent

[20:02] <larchie> the argument seeks a proof whereas a

[20:03] <larchie> an explanation answers "why"

[20:03] <larchie> but the main difference is that an

[20:04] <larchie> explanation goes from less well known information to better known information

[20:04] <larchie> There a table here which points out more

[20:04] <larchie> differences

[20:04] <larchie> http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html

[20:04] <guest> alright, what about truth validity and soundness. keep it simple. I understand them...i think

[20:05] <larchie> what do you want to know about truth and validity?

[20:05] <larchie> The notes in the syllabus are pretty thorough

[20:06] <larchie> can you be more specific

[20:06] <guest> just the part were it says to be able to list differences

[20:06] <larchie> Truth is a property of statements

[20:06] <larchie> Validity is a property of arguments

[20:06] <larchie> Soundness is a property of both statements and arguments

[20:07] <guest> alright thanks!

[20:08] <larchie> More detail on these specific differences are given here

[20:08] <larchie> http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

[20:08] <guest> my employer Chuck Watson said he had you for a teacher....20 sum years ago.

[20:08] <larchie> I remember Chuck well--I am surprised it's been that long

[20:08] <guest> haha

[20:09] <larchie> What's he up to now?

[20:09] <guest> Just still in to law.

[20:09] <guest> Nice guy!

[20:10] <guest> he told me that you would say he got a B in your class but he he got an A

[20:10] <larchie> I'm not surprised

[20:11] <guest> he jokes alot

[20:11] <larchie> As in class lo those many years ago

[20:12] <guest> well thanks for the help

[20:12] <larchie> sure, anything else?

[20:12] <larchie> Be sure to come to class with examples in mind of

[20:12] <larchie> a statement and a sentence which is not a statement

[20:13] <larchie> and an argument and an explanation

[20:13] <larchie> and a deductive and inductive argument

[20:13] <larchie> Or you can pull examples from the

[20:13] <larchie> test itself.

[20:13] <larchie> The most missed indicators will be

[20:13] <larchie> "because" and "accordingly"

[20:14] <larchie> other than that the test is very close to

[20:14] <larchie> the online example test.

[20:14] *** tink85 has joined #philosophy

[20:14] <guest> ok, thank!

[20:14] <larchie> you're welcome

[20:15] <larchie> Hi Tamara

[20:15] <larchie> Just Kyle and I are in the Chat with you.

[20:18] <larchie> Tamara are you in the philosophy channel?

[20:18] *** tink85 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)

[20:19] <larchie> Tamara logged into a different channel apparently.

[20:21] <larchie> ...

[20:23] *** guest has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)

[20:23] *** guest has joined #philosophy

[20:26] <guest> Hi is this logic?

[20:26] <larchie> Yes, any questions

[20:26] *** guest has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)

[20:27] *** tink85 has joined #philosophy

[20:28] <larchie> Hi Tamara--I missed your message earlier

[20:28] <tink85> I was doing the problems from Problem Set3: Diagramming Arguments and had should with question number 3 & 5

[20:28] <larchie> somehow you logged on to a different channel

[20:29] <larchie> o.k. let me take a quick look

[20:29] <tink85> I know have to get use to using the computer besides just checking my e-mail and writing papers sorry!!

[20:29] <larchie> no problem

[20:30] <larchie> on #3 the premisses are 1 and 3 which lead to 2

[20:30] <larchie> and the argument is inductive..

[20:31] <larchie> on #5

[20:31] <tink85> Is it okay to type out the problem to make sure we are talking about the same one?

[20:31] <larchie> 1 is the conclusion and all the rest are premisses

[20:31] <larchie> hold on I cut and paste

[20:31] <larchie> 3--1) Students who napped for an hour improved in their ability to detect subtle changes in an image. (2) Hence, daytime dozing may enhance a person's capacity to learn certain tasks (3) since students who didn't nap declined in their ability to identify the changes.

[20:32] <larchie> #5--(1) By age 3, children diagnosed with autism have already begun a retreat into social isolation. The evidence is as follows: (2) Three groups of children were studied: those with autism, those with a developmental disorder, and those with no developmental disorder. (3) Each child wore a cap that recorded brain-wave responses as experimenters presented images of his or her mother's face, an unfamiliar woman's face, a favorite toy from home, and an unfamiliar toy. (4) Spikes in the brain's electrical activity signaled recognition of the mother's face and the favorite toy in both healthy chil

[20:32] <larchie> right??

[20:32] <tink85> yes sir that is the correct one

[20:33] <larchie> also 5 is inductive

[20:33] <larchie> did you get the structure above for #5?

[20:33] <tink85> No sir

[20:33] <larchie> The conclusion is stated first followed by the

[20:33] <larchie> evidence (which are all premisses).

[20:34] <larchie> Hence (1) is the conclusion and ...

[20:34] <larchie> (2)-(5) are premisses for (1)

[20:35] <tink85> will we have a question like this on the test?

[20:35] <larchie> Quite a few--

[20:36] <larchie> BTW if you get a chance be sure to

[20:36] <larchie> check the Chat log for some good

[20:36] <larchie> information earlier about what's most

[20:36] <larchie> missed in the past on this test.

[20:37] <tink85> okay thank you

[20:38] <tink85> With writing the definition if we are able to give an example of the question do we have to write out the wording

[20:38] <larchie> Yes, at least a characterization or description that is accurate

[20:39] <tink85> okay thank you I believe that was all of my questions

[20:40] <larchie> o.k. you're welcome

[20:40] <tink85> I was wrong were are the other questions posted at?

[20:41] <larchie> which questions?

[20:41] <tink85> From the last chat

[20:41] <larchie> No one showed up--but click on Chat Logs

[20:41] <larchie> on the homepage for Logic and the

[20:42] <larchie> link to the chat is at the bottom of the page

[20:42] <larchie> You'll see just me in the Chat announcing

[20:42] <larchie> that it's open etc.

[20:42] <larchie> Go to http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/

[20:43] <larchie> then click on "Chat Logs" link at the top left hand part of the page

[20:43] <larchie> Scroll down to "Spring, 2007"

[20:44] <larchie> Tonight's questions won't be posted until after this chat is over

[20:45] <tink85> Okay I will see you tomorrow this was a lot of help!

[20:46] <larchie> o.k. see you then

[20:46] <larchie> I'm glad to help

[20:46] <larchie> bye

[20:46] *** tink85 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)

[20:46] *** Disconnected

Session Close: Wed Feb 07 20:46:42 2007