INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF

THE HUMAN PERSON

“

2
LOGIC
⊹ Is the branch of Philosophy that seeks to
organize reasoning.

⊹ Is the art of using reason well in inquiries

after truth and the communication of that
truth to others.

3
Methods of Philosophizing –
Distinguishing Opinion from
Truth
QUARTER 1-MODULE 3
LESSON OBJECTIVES
A. Distinguish Deductive and
Inductive arguments;
B. Construct arguments;
C. Evaluate the validity and
soundness of a deductive
argument.
Unlocking of
difficulties
6
Proposition
Is any sentence that signifies either truth or falsehood.

Premise
Is a proposition that logically proves or supports a conclusion

Conclusion
A proposition that logically follows from the premise.

Argument
Consist of 2 or more propositions offered as evidence for
another proposition 7
 ARGUMENT

PREMISE CONCLUSION

Premise: Lovea May eats 5 extra-large size of

Premise 1 : All men are mortal.
pizza everyday.
Premise 2 : Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore Lovea May is extremely
Conclusion : Therefore, Socrates is
mortal
overweight.
SYLLOGIS
M 8
 2 TYPES OF
ARGUMENT

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
REASONING REASONING

9
 1. The last six times we played
sepak takraw, we won, so I know
we’re going to win on Saturday

2. I own an orange fish. My friend

owns an orange fish. Therefore, all
fishes are orange.

3. All crocodiles are reptiles. Joe is a

reptile. Therefore, Joe is a crocodile.

4. There is no mail delivery on

holidays. Tomorrow is Charter Day,
so I know my student loan check
won’t be delivered. 10
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

A deductive argument is based on a An inductive argument is the opposite

strong premise for the conclusion of a deductive argument. It is from
(General to Specific ) . It is intended to specific to general. They use data and
be true or certain. observations to draw a pattern.
If the Premises are TRUE, your
reasoning will lead you to a logically
certain conclusion

11
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEDUCTIVE &
INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE REASONING INDUCTIVE REASONING

1. PROPOSITION 1. General to Specific 1. Specific to General

2. VALIDITY 2. If the Premises are 2. If the premises are

TRUE, the conclusion TRUE, the conclusion
must be True is probably true
( VALIDITY) (PROBABILITY)

3. USAGE 3. More difficult to use. 3. Used often in

use to solve logical everyday life ( fast
problems. and easy ). Evidence
is used instead of
- Uses Laws, Facts to proved facts.
create PROOF
- Uses patterns,
observation,
examples and trials to
form a conclusion
12
 1. The last six times we played
sepak takraw, we won, so I know Inductive
we’re going to win on Saturday

2. I own an orange fish. My friend

owns an orange fish. Therefore, all Inductive
fishes are orange.

3. All crocodiles are reptiles. Joe is a

Deductive
reptile. Therefore, Joe is a crocodile.

4. There is no mail delivery on

holidays. Tomorrow is Charter Day, so Deductive
I know my student loan check won’t
be delivered. 13
 Inductive

P1: Mr. McCain drove poorly in 4 of the

past 5 years

P2: We saw him swerve to miss a buss

yesterday.

P3: He had hit 5 lampposts in the last

year.

C: Mr. McCain drove the car into the

lamppost outside

14
 Deductive

P1: His wife saw him leave te house with

his car undamaed

P2: He now has a dent in his car

P3: The lamp post was broken at 6:30 am

C: Mr. McCain drove the car into the

lamppost outside

15
 HOW TO EVALUATE
A deductive
ARGUMENT ?

2
Validity
- -If all the Premises are true,
then the conclusion must also
be True- cannot be false
- -it is logically impossible for
te premises to be true and te
conclusion false
- - the truth of the premises
GUARANTEES the truth of
the conclusion 17
Validity
- 1. All actors are robots.
- 2. Tom Cruise is an actor.
- Therefore, Tom Cruise is a
robot.

- Concerns on the form and

structure not in the content.

18
inValidity
- It is possible for all the
premises to be TRUE and the
conclusion to be FALSE.
- - It is logically possible for
the premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
- - The truth of the premises
DOES NOT GUARANTEE
the truth of the conclusion. 19
inValidity
- 1. All actors are robots.
- 2. Tom Cruise is a robot.
- Therefore, Tom Cruise is an
actor.

20
3. All crocodiles are reptiles. Joe is a
INVALID
reptile. Therefore, Joe is a crocodile.

4. There is no mail delivery on

holidays. Tomorrow is Charter Day,
so I know my student loan check VALID
won’t be delivered.

21
P1: All aliens speak.
P2: Splock is an Alien. INVALID
C: Therefore, Spock speaks English.

P1: All dogs have fur.

P2: Claire has a lot of fur. INVALID
C: Therefore, Claire is a dog.

22
Sound Argument: . Is valid, all the premises are true, a
nd has a true conclusion.

factual claim
Concerns form and content as
oppose to validity which concerns
form and structure.

Unsound Argument
Either is invalid, has one false
premise, or a false conclusion
23
 SOUND ARGUMENTS

Example: Example:

P1 : Manila is in Philippines. P1 : Talisay City is in Manila.

P2: Rafael is in Manila. P2: Rafael is in Talisay City.
C : Therefore, Rafael is in C : Therefore, Rafael is in
Philippines Manila.

24
UNSOUND ARUMENTS

All Lamborghini Countachs are cars.

A Honda Civic is a car.
Therefore, a Honda Civic is a Lamborghini Countach.

All architects are people.

A landlord is a person.
Therefore, a landlord is an architect.

In an invalid argument, the truth of the premises does not

guarantee the truth of the conclusion. 25
 1. The last six times we played
sepak takraw, we won, so I know Inductive
we’re going to win on Saturday

2. I own an orange fish. My friend

owns an orange fish. Therefore, all Inductive
fishes are orange.

26
LESSON 2:

FALLACIES
27
FALLACIES
Any kind of errors in reasoning , that renders an argument invalid.

Violates the rules of logical thought but often seem plausible or

convincing.

28
LESSON OBJECTIVES
A. Distinguish the fallacies
present in an argument;

B. Construct arguments.
 1. Argumentum Ad Hominem or
Attacking/against a Person

Characteristics: attacking the person, focus our

attention on people rather than on
arguments or evidences.

Example: Why would I believe you? You’re not

even the smartest person in our section?
2. Argumentum Ad Baculum
or Appeal to Force

Characteristics: Using threat or force or an

undesirable event to advance an
argument.

Example: My father is known to be the richest

man in this town. I’m sure you know
what he is capable of. Don’t you dare
mess up with me.
3. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam
Or appeal to pity or emotion

Characteristics: Strong appeal to sympathy and pity

Example: Ma’am pls. Accept my late submission of

modules. I spent the last five days with
four hours of sleep each day, working
extra time on it.
4. Argumentum Ad Populum or
Appeal to people

Characteristics: The idea presented must be true

because many or most people believe it.

Example: You should turpin to channel 6. It’s the

most watched channel this year.
5. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
Or Appeal to Authority

Characteristics: Insisting that a claim is true simply because

a valid authority or expert on the issue said

it was true, without any other supporting

evidences offered.
Example: “UFOs do not exist because the
astronomer Carl Sagan said it”.
6. Fallacy of Composition

Characteristics: assuming that what is true of a part, is

therefore true for the whole.

Example: Because all of the components of a car

are light and easy to carry, then the car
itself must also be light and easy to carry.
 7. Fallacy of Division

Characteristics: Assuming that what is true for the whole is

true for it’s part.

Example: The boys in my neighborhood like to play

volleyball. So my new neighbor, Jacob, will
surely like to play volleyball.
8. Post Hoc ( Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc )/
Cause and Effect

Characteristics: One event is said to be the cause of a later

event simply because it occurred earlier.

Example: I noticed that ever since you bought that

bag, everything has been going wrong in
your life. Dispose it, that might be the
reason why you are unhappy.
 9. Slippery Slope

Characteristics: Assuming a very small action will lead to

extreme outcomes.

Example: If we allow our 16 year old to have a

boyfriend, then what’s next? A baby?
10. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam or
Appeal to Ignorance

Characteristics: The argument offers lack of evidence as if

it were evidence to the contrary. The argument says, "No
one knows it is true; therefore it is false," or "No one knows
it is false, therefore it is true."

Example: “If someone is guilty, they always try to

deny their guilt. This man has never said that
he is not guilty, and therefore he must be
innocent.”
 11. Hasty Generalization Fallacy or
Over Generalization Fallacy

Characteristics: it is basically making a claim based on

evidence that is just too small. Essentially,
you cannot make a claim and say that
something is true if you have only one or
two evidences.

Example: Some teenagers in our community recently

vandalized the park downtown. Teenagers
are so irresponsible and destructive.