Unidad 2: Logic, rhetoric and argumentation

Dilemas fundamentales:

1. ¿Es siempre mejor decir la verdad aunque suponga ponernos en una situación difícil?

2. ¿Cuál sería un indicador de que se está tratando manipular y no convencer sobre “lo mejor”?

3. ¿Porqué es una falacia utilizar argumentos basados en la emoción si son tan efectivos?

4. ¿Es importante saber argumentar en nuestra vida diaria?

NAMEDATEThe Unit Organizer BIGGER PICTURE

LAST UNIT /Experience CURRENT UNIT NEXT UNIT /Experience

UN

IT S

ELF-

TEST

Q

UES

TIO

NS

is about...

UN

IT

RELATIO

NSH

IPS

UNIT SCHEDULE UNIT MAP

CURRENT UNIT1 32

4

5

6

7

8

Logic, rhetoric and argumentation Theories on Human Morality

Taller de Filosofía: comprender el quehacer filosófico utilizando el lenguaje natural como expresión de la búsqueda de la verdad entendiendo su conexión con el lenguaje formal.

1. Valora y utiliza la capacidad argumentativa, de forma oral y escrita, como herramienta contra la arbitrariedad, el autoritarismo y la violencia.

2. Conoce y maneja con rigor conceptos como símbolo, comunicación, lenguaje formal, lógica, juicio lógico, razonamiento, demostración, discurso, elocuencia, orador, retórica, exordio, inventio, dispositio, argumentación, elocutio, compositio, actio, falacia, debate, negociación, persuasión y concepto universal, entre otros. Utiliza los elementos y reglas del razonamiento de la lógica de enunciados.

3. Comprende y explica la estructura y el estilo de la retórica y de la argumentación.

4. Conoce la estructura y orden del discurso y escribe breves discursos retóricos estableciendo coherentemente la exposición y la argumentación.

5. Construye un diálogo argumentativo en el que demuestra sus propias tesis, mediante las reglas y herramientas de la argumentación.

6. Distingue un argumento veraz de una falacia.

7. Analiza y comenta textos breves y significativos sobre el arte de la y retórica y la argumentación de Platón, Aristóteles, Cicerón, Quintiliano, Tácito así, como, de autores contemporáneos.

1 Ficha 2.1

4 Ficha 2.4

2 Ficha 2.2

Trata de responder a todos los dilemas de esta unidad de forma argumentativa

3 Ficha 2.3

Saber filosófico y saber científico

- Language: Conventional symbolic System

- The relation between symbols and their meanings must be learnt

- Chimpanzees can learn to use symbols but they cannot create new combinations

Human Communication

- Factors: Sender, Message, Receiver, Code, Channel, Context, Situation, Feedback, Noise.

- Functions: Referential, Conative, Emotive, Phatic, Poetic, Metalingual

Human Communication

Language, reality and truth: - True means to affirm that the meaning corresponds

to reality - Theory of sense and reference - The figurative theory of meaning - Imprecision of natural language: Perfect connection, one by one word, simple statements, formal rigour and precision

Logic: - The principles of correct reasoning. - Basis for building the perfect language to express

scientific concepts. - Calculus (grammar) and interpretation (semantics) - Deductive Inference. Statement or premises - Formal validity is not the truth when the premises

are false.

Elements of propositional Logic: - Formal language designed to verify the validity of

deductive reasoning. - Statement: sentence which provides objetive

information about an occurrence. - Proposition: the sense that one proposition with an

identical sense has. Statement is linguistic expression of a proposition.

- Connectives: To connect propositions. Table see below:

Type Symbol Example SymbolisationNegation ¬ There is no science without method ¬ PConjunction ∧ Rationalist trust in reason and

empiricists in the senses P ∧ QDisjunction ∨ He will wait until she comes out or will

leave without seeing her P ∨ QMaterial conditional → If you are teacher, you will never be

rich P→QBiconditional ↔ You will go to University if, and only if,

you pass the entrance exam P↔Q

Testing inferences: - Used in Scientific research. - Truth Table - Natural deduction calculus - Formalisation: From natural language to language

of logic. - Categorematic terms to statements (p, q, …) - Syncategorematic terms to connectives - Punctuation marks to brackets

If Pedro decides he wants to be an expert at video games and a dreadful student, his parents will not be happy and they will not Let him play videogames. Pedro decides he wants to be an expert at videogames pPedro will be a dreadful student qPedro´s parents will be happy rPedro´s parents will Let Pedro play videogames s

(p ∧ q) → (¬r ∧ ¬s)

Truth tables method: - Establish all the possible values of truth, 2n - Atomic propositions, two possible values: 1 or 0 - Knowing how the truth values of a molecular

proposition behave, depends on the connectives. - Indetermination, Tautology or Contradiction

Type Symbol Values Negation ¬ P =1

¬p = 0Conjunction ∧ 1∧1 = 1

1∧0 = 00∧1 = 00∧0 = 0

Disjunction ∨ 1∨1 = 11∨0 = 10∨1 = 10∨0 = 0

Material conditional → 1→1 = 1

1→0 = 00→1 = 10→0 = 1

Biconditional ↔ 1↔1 = 11↔0 = 00↔1 = 00↔0 = 1

Rhetoric: - Main function of language is to communicate and

inform. Very often to influence too. - The true is often not enough to convince or influence

the receiver. How the message is deliver it’s also important.

- Rhetoric is a technique for developing effective and persuasive discourses.

- Sophists: They doubt of the possibility of a single truth, therefor, convincing would be merely the goal for Rhetoric.

- Plato and Aristotle: an objetive truth is possible to be reached. Convincing must have an ethical purpose.

Structure of the discourse: - Inventio: gathering ideas - Dispositio: organise elements in the discourse - Elocutio: Correcting polishing - Memoria - Actio: intonation and body language - Exordio: introduction - Narratio: Expresing facts - Argumentatio: back up of the Hypothesis - Conclusion: Ethic considerations and feelings

Argumentation: - Cooperation among the participants of a debate to

reach a greater status quo of the topic. Paul Grice, 1975

- A argumentative dialogues should comply with: Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner

- Tools: Reassuring Terms, Protective Terms, Biased Terms, Persuasive definitions

Argumentation in informal logic: - Based on inductive reasoning: generalisation,

analogy, signs, authority - Based on deductive reasoning: principles, casual

argumentation, contrasting ideas, exemplification

Based on inductive reasoning

generalisation analogy signs authority

Jennifer always leaves for school at 7:00 a.m. Jennifer is always on time. Jennifer assumes, then, that she if she leaves at 7:00 a.m. for school today, she will be on time.

Every windstorm in this area comes from the north. I can see a big cloud of dust in the distance. A new windstorm is coming from the north.

The children in that house yell loudly when they play in their bedroom. I can hear children yelling in that house. Therefore, the children must be playing in their bedroom.

This is true because I have read it on Internet.

Based on deductive reasoning

principles casual argumentation

contrasting ideas exemplification

Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal. Socrates is mortal.

Every time I eat peanuts I have a headache. Peanuts make me have headaches.

When it rains it is cold normally, It is warm so it’s not raining.

Studying is worthy. Look, Agustina studied real hard for this test and got a good grade.