All right, so let's then grade our homework. So you can grab chapter 13. And we'll let you self-grade your homework here. I'm kind of arbitrary in when I let you self-grade your homework and when I let you pass it along to someone else. Now, I like how he points out on the chapter review, on the worksheet, that there's nothing morally wrong with using an ending. And that's probably why this subject isn't I'm glad that Dr. Lyle included a chapter on enthamines, because it is important to think about unstated premises and unstated conclusions, especially unstated premises. An unstated conclusion is not nearly as dangerous as an unstated premise, because when people are arguing, then they are going to be tempted to leave out the premise that is not necessarily agreed upon, the premise that they don't want to have to prove, and then therefore if they can just get you to accept the unstated premise and then follow down to their conclusion, it makes their argument seem very reasonable. However, an argument is not sound if it has a premise that is unproven or unreliable. Here you've got the arguments and you've got valid and invalid, and then you've got sound and unsound. So a valid argument can be either sound or unsound depending on whether or not the premises are true. So if you're hiding a premise that is not true, or is disputed, then you might make it look like you have a sound argument when you really don't. And that's why it's necessary to think carefully, that's why it's necessary to examine premises, and that's why written communication is such a great form of communication. You can stop and you can analyze and you can think about the arguments that are being presented. Whereas if you're in a conversation with someone or in a Lincoln-Douglas debate or something like that, Arguments come pretty fast, and you don't have a lot of time to think, okay, what was the missing premise, and is that premise true, and how do I answer back to that? And, you know, you need to be able to do that. And so it's important when having a discussion that you listen, that you take time to think and consider how you're going to answer. and you don't just answer right away. But the Bible teaches us that we are to be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, and that he who gives an answer before he hears, it's falling and shame to him. And so we're thinking, we're using our reason and analyzing what is true and what is not true. And I encourage you to do that in your reading, especially if you're reading something that is important. and is making arguments in areas of your moral life, and your spiritual life, and your social life that's going to affect financial decisions, all those important things in life that you're carefully analyzing arguments. Now, a lot of the arguments that we receive nowadays is through YouTube or other social media platforms, and the ones that are in video format You need to stop and pause it and think about the arguments that are being presented and not just listen to it on 1.5 speed while you're doing the dishes. Because if that's how you take in information, you're not giving yourself time to analyze the arguments and to determine the validity and the soundness of those arguments. And this is how people then become very poor thinkers. and they've listened to a video, and now they've got an opinion, but they haven't actually examined that thought. Same thing with preaching. When I preach in this pulpit on Sunday morning, I preach for 50 minutes straight, usually, and I'm presenting argument after argument, and conclusion after conclusion, and it's coming pretty fast. And so, you need time to be able to stop and analyze, was that argument really founded? Was that conclusion based upon good logic? Did the premise really have truth in it? And so, I know it's hard to do this. I know it takes a lot of work. And that's why I've been putting up this quote over and over again, that in self-education you have to resist your desires and inclinations until they are proved to be right. And this is very important in every department of your daily life, and that's what self-education is all about. And the other quote that I've been showing you here from Thomas Traherne, as nothing is more easy than to think, so nothing is more difficult than to think well. I've seen that, tragically, among Christians, over and over again, just this last week, that people do not stop and carefully analyze and think about the arguments that are being presented. They're not stopping and thinking about the reasons and whether or not the logic is sound and the premises. And people just think emotionally, and they respond without being patient, without being kind, without being humble, without being thoughtful, without being reasonable. And these are essential character traits for Christians. If we don't demonstrate to the world a reasonableness, a humility, a love, a gentleness, then we're not representing Christ before the world. And we can't treat one another that way. If we're arguing about Calvinism and Arminianism, if we're arguing about Distensationalism versus Reform Theology, if we're talking about some sin that some pastor committed has come out in the news, whatever it is that we're talking about, we have to recognize God is going to judge us for every word that comes out of our mouth, and that includes the words that you type into social media, and that includes the words that you say in a video, and that those who are teachers online, are going to be held to a very high standard, very high moral standard, very high ethical standard. And if we are not being careful to think well, then that's our responsibility and we're misleading others. And God's going to judge us for that. So just an encouragement to be different from the culture around you and to manifest these qualities that Jason Lyle is teaching us. careful reasoning, all of these things. All right, so back to the subject of Chapter 13 and anthememes. Let's go ahead and look at the short answers. Number one, for each of the following anthememes, supply the missing premise or conclusion to make the argument valid or cogent. Let's back up to our chart there, because we have our keywords. Valid, cogent. Really, I wonder why he didn't use valid and strong. You know, strong is the parallel here for the valid, whether you begin with an inductive argument or a deductive argument. I assume most of these are deductive arguments, but we'll take a look and see whether or not there's any strong arguments in here. Anyway, number one. All scientists believe in evolution, and Dr. Dawkins is a scientist, the unstated Whoever typed out the answer in the study guide wasn't being very careful with our terminology. See how hard it is to use the right terms? Even the study guide, I think, unless I'm muddled in my brain this morning, put the word premise in the answer key, when it should be the unstated proposition, is the conclusion, which is, therefore, Dr. Dawkins believes in evolution. So the conclusion, all scientists in evolution. And here you see a logical argument, a deductive logical argument, that is a syllogism. It's using that language of categories. All scientists fit in the category of people who believe in evolution. And then Dr. Dawkins is in that category of scientists. Therefore, Dr. Dawkins is in the category of people who believe in evolution. Now, it's not asking us to evaluate whether or not the argument is sound or not. It says the argument does not need to be sound. And this argument is not sound, because there are scientists who do not believe in evolution. So the premise, all scientists believe in evolution, is false. And therefore, the argument is unsound, even though when we supply the conclusion in this anthony, it is a valid argument, formally speaking. OK? Number two. No mobs have these bulbs at the tip of their antenna. Therefore, this insect is clearly not a mob. So the conclusion is indicated by the word therefore. And the conclusion has the subject and the predicate. This insect is the subject. Clearly not a mob. Not a mob, things that are not mobs, is the predicate. And so then you look for the middle term, The middle term would be this bulb at the tip of its antenna. Let me just say clearly, the answer to the question is, this insect has bulbs at the tip of its antenna. So the designated minor premise is this insect has bulbs at the tip of its antenna. So the major premise, no moths have these bulbs at the tip of their antenna, that's another syllogism, and you've got these categories of insects that have these bulbs at the antenna. No moth belongs to that category. This moth does have that, and so therefore it's not in that category. This insect has that, so therefore it's not in that category. So, the missing premise is the minor premise, this insect has bowled to the tip of a shanty. Now, it says supply the missing premise or conclusion. You don't have to state whether it's a premise or a conclusion on your answer. As long as you have the correct premise or conclusion, even if it's not labeled as a premise or conclusion, I accept that as a correct answer. Any questions about the first two? Number three. Rhode Island has a misleading name, therefore it does not exist. The unstated premise is all things that have a misleading name do not exist. And that's the major premise. And then the minor premise is a specific example of something that has a misleading name. And therefore, it's in the category of things that do not exist. So once again, this is an argument that is valid, but it is unsound. Because the premise that things that have misleading names don't exist is a false premise. Now, should we use misleading names I think in the case of Rhode Island, I'll forget it. I always think about Grand Island. And I think, well, it's not really an island. Why do they call it Grand Island? But there's nothing immoral in naming it Rhode Island or Grand Island or any of those things. And it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. that you would have instead of things that are misnamed don't exist. What would be a proper premise to build a conclusion off of? Things with misleading names can cause miscommunication. That would be a good one. Therefore, Rhode Island, the name of Rhode Island can cause miscommunication. a valid and sound argument. So it's good to think through what would be the valid version of the argument, or excuse me, what would be the sound version of the argument. All right, number four. Of course, Tim is a creationist. He is a Christian, after all, and so the unstated premise is all Christians are creationists. All Christians Being a Christian, notice that it's out of order. The conclusion comes first. Of course, Tim as a creationist is the conclusion, and he is a Christian after all. That phrase, after all, indicates that we're out of order, and of course, that seems to indicate a conclusion, although it doesn't necessarily have to, but it can indicate a conclusion. So, the conclusion, Tim is a creationist. minor premise he is a Christian, so the unstated major premise is all Christians are creationists. Again, you don't have to say that's a major premise or anything like that. Yeah? Good question. Alright, really good thing we have this class early in the morning, because it makes us think, and we need all of our brain power for this. Number five. In my opinion, God is very mean. Therefore, he does not exist. The unstated premise, in this case is the major premise, and the unstated major premise, according to the answer key, is that things that, in my opinion, are very mean, do not exist. Okay? Now, here's an example that I think is very important to talk about. That when you are examining an anthony, you could be wrong about what the missing premise of the argument is. And this is a case, I think, where Dr. Lyle is wrong about what the missing premise in the mind of the person making the argument is. Remember what I said, that you want to be slow to come to your conclusions, and you want to be gracious to people. You don't want to just be trying to trap people and say, well, your unstated premise is this, and therefore your argument is unsound. You're not just trying to win an argument, you're trying to reach a person, you're trying to develop a relationship, you're trying to show Christian character, and you're trying to keep the golden rule. What's the golden rule? Treat others the way that you want to be treated. So if you make an argument, you don't want someone coming along and saying, well I know what your unstated premise is, and it's this, and therefore your argument is unsound, and you say, well, wait, that's not my unstated premise. My unstated premise is this. And so there can be multiple ways of looking at an unstated premise, because you might have unstated premises. There might be more than one premise that is unstated, and you're leaving both of them out, and maybe it was a bad idea for you to do so, because there are things that need to be discussed, and you need to prove your premises before you try to go on to your conclusion. But if I was talking to an atheist and he said, in my opinion, God is very mean, therefore he does not exist, I would not tell him that your unstated premise is things that are very mean do not exist, because that's not what he's saying. He knows that there are people that are mean that exist. And so what is his argument? If he knows that mean things and mean people exist, what is his argument? His argument is, it's more complex. is good. If something is good, then it is not mean. Okay? God appears to be mean to me, therefore I don't think God exists. That's the full development of the argument. And so, which one of those premises would you want to discuss with the atheist in light of his objection to the existence of God? Where would you go in his unstated premises to reason with him? Not to win an argument, not to make him look foolish, but to reason with him. How would you reason with him? Let me state it again. His argument is this. If God exists, then he would be good, morally good. Things that are morally good, or people that are morally good, are not mean. God seems to be mean. Therefore, I don't think that God exists. So, where would you go to reason with him? Yeah? We discussed whether the things that God does was actually mean because assuming he meant faith was bad to him or something like that, then we have to go there to discuss whether definition of mean, you might want to ask him what observations does he have of God that appears to him to be mean, fit into that category, and reason from there. And to help him to see that God is not mean, depending upon how you're interpreting that, that God has good reasons for what he's doing, to show that even if you don't understand the reasons that God has for doing things that are good, That you have to be careful that you don't, in your opinion, make a conclusion about God that you may not understand. And so you kind of just want to open up doubts, open up questions in his mind. Do you really know that God is me? And how do you know that? So good questions will be like a crowbar that are opening up people's minds because people have these closed minds and they just want to argue and fight and win. And they're not looking and seeking out their truth. But a good question can get somebody thinking. And if they start thinking, they might start asking questions of themselves. If they start asking questions, they might start to understand and realize new things that they haven't understood before. So that's our goal, to help people come to a better understanding. The Bible says that the minister of God must not be quarrelsome. Do you know what it means to be quarrelsome? It means you like to win fights and pick fights. But instead, the servant of God, the man of God, must be patient with everyone, able to teach. And we're hoping to rescue people from the snare of the devil that they have been held captive to do his will. So the internet atheist, he's always railing against God. We want to be patient with him. We want to be kind to him. You will win more people with kindness than you will by making them look foolish. Very much an important emphasis here on your attitude when you engage in arguments. I think that's something that gets lost in a lot of logic and debate in these types of areas. Let's not forget the ethics side of Christianity as well. The unstated premise here, if you're just looking for the textbook answer, is that things that are mean do not exist. However, if you have something different, I'm going to give you credit for any answer on this one, because I think that it's a bad question, and I wanted to address it. Number six. It is sunny today, and it is usually clear on nights that follow sunny days. What is unstated here in number six therefore it will probably be clear tonight. Sunny today, usually clear on nights following sunny days, therefore it will probably be clear tonight. So here is an inductive argument. Notice the word probably? So a probability argument that leads to a strong conclusion is one where the premises follow from So the probability is usually clear on nights. That's a probability statement. So the conclusion is strong if the premises are true. Is it usually clear on nights that follow sunny days? I suppose so. I'd say that's probably a true statement. So the unstated proposition is the conclusion. Therefore, it will probably be clear tonight. Any questions on that one? Number seven. Natural selection does not literally select anything, therefore it is not really real. We already discussed this one on the quiz. The unstated major premise is that which is non-literal is not real, or that which does not literally select is not real. Either one of those answers is fine. Then flip it over. Number eight. Of course, you should tithe, the Bible says you should. Number eight, again, it's not in standard form. The conclusion is first, and then the premise is second, and the missing premise is you should do what the Bible says, or all the things the Bible commands, or something you should do Now, as a preacher, a theologian, I'll let you know that tithing was a part of the Old Testament law, and that we are not under the Old Testament law. And while there's certain principles that we can draw out of the Old Testament law that can guide us in making wise decisions and moral decisions in our life, there's no New Testament commandment to tithe. And so this argument is actually unsound. even though it's valid, and even though many Christians accept it as a sound argument, because they don't necessarily discern the difference between being under the Old Covenant and being under the New Covenant, and how those laws relate to us in the New Covenant. So, interesting little bit of dispensationalism there for you. Number nine. Whatever does not kill you will only make you stronger, and this certainly will not kill you. The unstated conclusion is, therefore, this will make you stronger. In other words, certainly might make you think that it's a conclusion. Sometimes a conclusion can be introduced with words like certainly. But in this case, no. The certainly is part of the premise. And so what is missing here is the conclusion, therefore, this will make you stronger. And here's an example of when it can be good rhetorically to use an end to mean. There's nothing wrong with using that domain, especially when it comes to the conclusion, because, as he points out in the chapter, when you allow the person who's listening to you to follow your logic and reach a conclusion in their own mind without you spoon-feeding it to them, it can be a way of engaging that person with your argument. drawing them in and then making the conclusion more meaningful and personal to that person. So you go to someone who's scared of water skiing and tell them, whatever does not kill you will only make you stronger and this certainly won't kill you. Then you leave for them to figure out, oh, that means that this is going to make me stronger and therefore I'm going to do it. Empathies can be great, especially in the conclusion. Number 10. All scientists with a PhD must write a dissertation. So obviously, Kenny has written one. The unstated premise is the minor premise, which is Kenny is a scientist with a PhD. So those are the answers for Chapter 13 worksheet. Put the number correct out of 10 on top of the page, and then hand those towards the middle. And then you will collect those. We'll collect those and write down your scores and hand them back. All right. We're doing great, but we've still got one more chapter to cover. We're going to try to do this quickly. See if we have any time for a mixer activity here at the end of class. Go ahead and grab worksheet number 14. And let's do the review on the chapter that is introducing the different categories of informal logical fallacies. So informal logical fallacies are different from formal logical fallacies. How? Don't answer, but think. I want everybody to think in your mind what's the difference between a formal logical fallacy and an informal logical fallacy. I was not taught these things. I don't know these things. I'm learning them alongside of you. So informal logical fallacy, formal logical fallacy, how are those different from each other? Those fallacies, one's formal, one's informal. And so a formal logical fallacy is one where you have an invalid. before we covered informal logical fallacies, and Dr. Lyles pointed out that if you wanted to study formal logical fallacies, that's a more advanced course. So you can follow up a course on informal logical fallacies with a course on formal logic. And we just have dipped our toes into the area of formal logic. But we're going to focus instead on informal fallacies, which have to do with premises that are not true, or conclusions that are irrelevant. As he introduces in this chapter, he's got errors of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance, where there's nothing wrong, so to speak, with the form of the logic, but there is an error in ambiguity in the language that is used. presumption, that is you have a premise that is not agreed upon, that is not reliable, or relevance. You've formed an argument with a conclusion, but it's not a conclusion that is relevant to the current discussion. So those are the three major categories. And then in the rest of the semester, we'll take specific examples of fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of relevance. So there are specific examples of these categories. So, question number one. An argument assumes something that is very questionable. That would be a fallacy of presumption. If you're assuming something that's questionable, that is presumption. Number two. An argument that makes a point that is true, but it is not the point the arguer is trying to make. That's a fallacy of relevance. Number two is relevance. Number three, an argument uses a word in two different and inconsistent ways without clarification. That's a fallacy of ambiguity. Presumption first, then relevance, then third, ambiguity. Turn it over. Now we have some examples. Number four, clearly John is a registered Republican. Yesterday he made several negative remarks about Hillary Clinton. that making negative remarks about a Democrat proves that a person is a Republican. Now, do Republicans tend to make more negative remarks about Democrats, and do they tend to not make negative remarks about Republicans? That's true. However, there are Republicans that I will make negative remarks about, because I'm a Republican, and there are Republicans that I don't like. And same thing with Democrats, there's many different branches of Democrats and many different kinds of Democrats and so one might be very critical of the Hillary Clinton type of Democrat. Remember when Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were in the primary and Hillary would say things about Bernie and Bernie would say things about Hillary and that doesn't prove they're Republicans, right? So they have to be careful about these errors of presumption. Darwin believed in evolution and we know that evolution is true because evolution means change and things change every day. This is a fallacy of ambiguity. This ambiguity as to molecules demand evolution versus change within a kind. The kind of change that we see from generation to generation within a specific kind of animal. So here, this is a fallacy of ambiguity. And we'll get into what specific type of ambiguity is this coming week when we look at equivocation. Equivocation is the specific type of ambiguity that is being engaged in here. Number six. I wouldn't believe anything Joe says about government. He doesn't even pay taxes. This is a fallacy of relevance. Joe's unwillingness to pay taxes or being exempt from paying taxes, whichever the case is, is not relevant to his knowledge about government. Maybe someone could be very knowledgeable about government, and that's why they don't pay taxes, because they figure out how they can get out of paying taxes according to the tax law, which gives lots of loopholes and kickbacks and is a very complicated system. During the presidential debate with President Trump a few years ago, he was accused of not paying taxes. whether or not somebody knows about government is not relevant to whether or not they pay taxes. Or maybe you don't have any income. You don't pay taxes because you don't have income. Number seven. Well, of course, Dr. Smith believes in evolution. He is a scientist, after all. You see, we keep going back to this well over and over again. There's an assumption that scientists believe in evolution. And so this is a fallacy. that is not true, then you are presumed. Assumption, presumption, they often go together. The arguer has assumed without proof that all scientists believe in evolution. Now, if you want to make an inductive argument, you could. You could say most scientists believe in evolution. Dr. Smith is a that Dr. Smith believes in evolution. Now you have an inductive argument instead of a defective one. And now you have a cogent argument instead of an unsound argument. Because it is true that most scientists believe in evolution. Number eight. Practice makes perfect. And doctors practice medicine. Therefore, doctors are perfect. It's a great argument for doctors. I'm sure they love it. However, it is unsound. because it is committing the fallacy of ambiguity. Perfect in the premise is not the same thing as perfect, excuse me, practice. The ambiguity is not in the word perfect, although there is a little bit of ambiguity there. The fallacy is the ambiguity in the practice. The way the word practice is being used So, you can't change the meaning of the word in the course of the argument without committing the fallacy of ambiguity. Specifically, once again here, the fallacy of equivocation, which is what Chapter 15 is going to be about. Alright, so, let me then hand out the assignments for this next week. Write at the top of your paper the number correct. and hand those towards the center. Larissa, make sure everybody gets one of those. Would you hand those out? Make sure everybody gets one. We've got three this week. We're going to try to cover three chapters today. Keep it simple, because we've got a lot that we're handing out. One of chapter 15, one of chapter 16, and one of chapter 17 on equivocation, reification, and the fallacy of accent. Equification, reification, and accent is chapter 15, 16, and 17. I've set aside a little bit extra time for homework this week. I need a logic book. Somebody give me a logic book. I want all the girls on this side. All the girls move over here. All the guys move closer. We got girls on the east side, boys on the west side. We're going to do a little competition here between you. I won't make you come up front, but I'll have you stand up one at a time, and we'll start in the front row, and then we'll move our way towards the back. And what we're going to do is I'm going to read for you the definition of a term, and when you know the answer, you raise your hand. Nope, no looking in the book. The first person to raise their hand, I will call up, and if they get it right, then their team gets a point. We're going to go around and do this in the eight minutes that we have left. see whether the boys or the girls are able to get more of the answers for the vocabulary. Question? Are you allowed to ask your teammate? Nope. You gotta have your hand up and you gotta call on him. Okay? So this is putting you on the spot. Alright. So. First. Stand up. Baby, stand up. Alright. I'll give you the definition if you can give me the answer. Pertaining to the amount, degree, or number of something. Quantitatively. Quantitatively. Yes. Very good. This girl's got a point. You can do it a little bit quicker. All right. No more. And Hayden? Hayden. Hayden. OK. Next one. Opinions formed from evidence. what people reason to be true or likely to be true from evidence or reason. No guesses? Now that was the definition for inferences. All right. Very simple. An argument in which the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true. An argument in which the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true. Ballot? No. Dita? Conclusion follows from the premises of some probability. All right. No points on that. All right. Contestants, you ready? A common error in reasoning. She was quick. She had us when it's just the word common. All right. We got our next two ready? A thing is itself. The law of identity. The thing is itself. It's a law of identity. Next. The opposite proposition formed by adding it is not the case to the original proposition. No, no. It's not your turn. The opposite proposition formed Negation. Negation is the opposite. to provide adequate reasons for a proposition. Justify. To justify is to provide adequate reasons for a proposition. All right. Back to the front. We've got Aidan and Kaden. Dependent on the thoughts or feelings of the individual. An informal argument that is likely to be true. An informal argument that is likely to be true. No. Can I guess? Cogent. Cogent. Likely to be true. All right, let's see here. Next. You got a couple more? Let's see if the boys can get caught up here at the end and they can come back. A stipulative or lexical definition that is associated with a particular scientific theory. Theoretical, yes. Theoretical, that would be a good one. There you go. All right. Correct. Hands went up at the same time. I gave the tie to the team that was behind. Alright. A fallacious definition not found in any dictionary that is intended to persuade someone. It is a persuasive or rhetorical definition. I also call it a fallacious definition, which was in the definition, but you can't use the word in a definition. All right, last one. A categorical argument containing two premises and one conclusion. A syllogism? Yes, that's right. All right, good job, girls. Seven to two. Guys, you're going to have to work on it. Thank you. She's appropriated mine. OK.