Logic for Lawyers: The Appeal to Reason.

Handbook
David Koepsell, JD/PhD

To accompany lessons found at: http://logicforlawyers.net

Logic for Lawyers

Chapter 1 HISTORY, TERMS, and CONCEPTS 1.1 Ancient Logic: Argument vs. Argumentation The difference is importantas demonstrated by these famous philosophers. Aristotle (385-322 B.C.E.) Develops logic which remains relatively unchanged for nearly 2000 years, with some changes along the way. Specifically: the syllogism. Recognized that all sciences begin from certain postulates and axioms, explicitly stated. States laws of thought at foundation of logic. Aristotles laws of thought 1) the law of identity (A=A) 2) the law of non-contradiction (A does not equal ~A) 3) the law of the excluded middle (either A or not A but not both A and ~A). Are these laws simply laws of thought? what other options?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

Plato had discussed affirmations and denials, and recognized the importance of syntax and grammar in argument in The Sophist Aristotle systematizes in the Organon which includes Categories and the Prior and Posterior Analytics. For roughly 2000 years, the syllogistic is considered to be logic itself, and no substantial improvements are made. e.g: All A is B All B is C Ergo All A is C Theophrastus discovers the hypothetical syllogism, and thus anticipates the logic of non-categorical propositions: If A then B If B then C Thus, if A then C Indian and Chinese logic: We should note that the Chinese (Buddhist) and Indian (Hindu) traditions developed systematized grammars, syntax and rules of inference Arabic Logic: inherits Aristotles and refines, including the innovation of the null set, and numerous other innovations on Aristotles syllogistic Problems with the Syllogism? What sorts of entities do categorical

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

syllogisms deal with, and what sorts are omitted? Medieval logicians begin to deal with logic of material consequences. e.g If p then q. Pitfalls of the syllogism, once again, by our philosopher friends 1.2 Modern Logic Leibniz believes he can devise a completely universal, formal, logical language. Says logic is at heart mathematics, Devises a logical algebra with 13 basic axioms. Pascal believed these axioms could be the foundation for reasoning machines. Father of modern logic may be Bolzano, who (like Aristotle) believes that the theory of logic is the theory of science. Claims all sentences are reducible to the form a has b. Defines a proposition as logically analytic when all its descriptive constituent terms occur in it vacuously (anticipates Quine). Are there non-analytic propositions? Is that the realm of science? Logically Analytic: all bachelors are non- married men (vs. synthetic) Can you state a synthetic proposition? J.S. Mill and Bolzano do much to define inductive method. Question: does analytic truth add information to the world? If not, how is induction important to science?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

By 19th and 20th c., Leibnizs vision of mathematizing logic had taken hold. This begins in earnest with Boole (1847) and then eventually Russell and Whiteheads Principia Mathematica Frege: 1848-1925,and then Wittgenstein who develops a truth-table method of evaluating validity (which we will employ in our course)

1.3 Subject Matter of Logic What is logic about? Words? semantics/grammar Thoughts? laws of thought Objects? metaphysics Is it a science, and if it is, what are its fundamental axioms, if any? Keep asking yourself: what justifies accepting those axioms?

Pragmatism and Logic Pragmatism criticizes Aristotles logic: Syllogistic principles do not reflect the way the mind works truly Formal logic tends to degenerate into verbal exercises regarding dialectical skills Is logic a science, a part of science, or something else? How does it relate, say, to mathematics?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

Logic and Science Logic is not about the way we think or the way we reason (psychology) Why not? Logic is not about the way the world works (physics) Why not? Logic is the theory of inference Logic helps rule out that which is absolutely impossible, and thus determines the field of what in the absence of empirical knowledge is abstractly possible Logic helps then to frame hypotheses essential in science A theory of inference is necessary in all fields for attaining truth via the scientific method, as is a theory of induction Deductive reasoning enables us to discover what it is to which we must consistently commit ourselves if we accept certain propositions A major role of deduction is the formulation of hypotheses. Mathematics and logic enable us to explore the possible outcomes of various hypotheses, and then we match experimental outcomes with predicted results.

1.4 Critical Thinking Critical Thinking involves understanding and using various modes of language in accordance with various rules of thinking to

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

form and analyze arguments. We use our critical thinking skills to develop convincing arguments and to discern whether the arguments of others are worthwhile.

We Must Understand: SYNTAX - relationships among symbols SEMANTICS - relationships of symbols to things in the world PRAGMATICS - relationships of language to the user of a language There are fixed rules of inference that allow us to examine certain sentences and combinations of sentences and determine whether they offer good reasons to believe them or not.

We Must Understand: LOGIC - is the study of arguments and argument forms ARGUMENTS - are composed of a conclusion and one or more premises VALID ARGUMENTS - have conclusions which follow from their premises SOUND ARGUMENTS - are VALID arguments whose premises are also TRUE

1.5 Logic and Metaphysics Remaining questions: What are the objects of logic?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

What are the objects of mathematics? How do they relate to each other, and to the objects of the real world? How do we account for abstract entities in science? In naturalism? Are you a Rationalist? Or are you an empiricist? What are the implications for each for the nexus between logic and the sciences? How do we get new information about the world? Leibniz: Natural science is naught but applied mathematics (and logic, by extension) Royal Society 1662. We feel certain that the forms and qualities of things can best be explained by the principles of mechanics, and that all effects of Nature are produced by motion, figure, texture, and the varying combinations of these; and that there is no need to have recourse to inexplicable forms and occult qualities, as to a refuge from ignorance Boyle to Spinoza But Boyle concluded from his observations: The world behaves as if there were diffused throughout the universe and intelligent being

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

Whereas Halley: the doctrines of Christianity are now inconceivable Why the divergence? Stems from the fact that the laws of logic and mathematics are axiomatic and seemingly immutable part of the firmament of nature itself e.g law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, law of identity Then what role for science and investigation? Tests, constantly, this firmament.

1.6 Basic Assumptions of Critical Thinking

EVERYONE is already skilled to a degree in the rational process of ANALYZING, DEFENDING and EVALUATING CLAIMS EVERYONE CAN IMPROVE these basic skills by becoming AWARE of PRINCIPLES behind them, and using them DELIBERATELY rather than instinctively THESE PRINCIPLES are IMPLICIT in ordinary practices of defending and evaluating claims - not invented

Few persons care to study logic, because

everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

10

to that of other men. Source: Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), pp. 1-15. What is an ARGUMENT? Definition: to make an ARGUMENT is to make a CLAIM and to OFFER other CLAIMS as reasons to accept it. Definition: In other words - an ARGUMENT is a set of claims, one of which is meant to be SUPPORTED by the others NOT AN ARGUMENT: By the end of September in New England, the leaves are already changing, the nights are cooler and the days are noticeably shorter. Some start feeling a sense of dread thinking about the long winter ahead. Is this an ARGUMENT? Every person in the U.S. is entitled to a decent minimum level of the health care. But thousands must go without it because they cannot afford it. Clearly, then, justice demands that we change our health system. Is this an ARGUMENT? Shes armed, so shes dangerous.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

11

1.7 Conclusion vs. Premise CONCLUSION: a claim meant to be supported by reasons offered in the argument. PREMISE: a claim put forth as a reason for a conclusion. Definition: All ARGUMENTS can be divided into a conclusion (at least one) and one or more premises.

General Considerations Arguments can be of any length, occur in any context and regard any subject matter. Arguments are NOT MERE DISPUTES General Considerations Arguments may fail for a number of reasons, including:
PREMISES may be FALSE or

IRRELEVANT or fail to adequately SUPPORT conclusion It hasnt rained in weeks. It is certain to rain tomorrow. May be of an invalid form

1.8 Recognizing Arguments

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

12

Today is the 5th, yesterday was the 4th. Is this an argument?

Inference Indicators Examples:

So Thus Hence Therefore Consequently It follows that We can conclude that This entails that

Premise Indicators Examples:

So Thus Hence Therefore Consequently It follows that We can conclude that This entails that BUT - imprecise in English due to ambiguities e.g. since. Unstated (implicit) Premises and Conclusions: Arguments with them are called enthymemes The bigger the burger the better. The burgers are bigger at Burger King.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

13

What is the unstated conclusion? Herman cannot be the person who robbed the store because Herman does not have a snake tattoo on his left arm. What is the unstated premise? Questions, Commands, Exclamations, and Exhortations Because arguments are sets of CLAIMS, certain sentences cannot comprise them:

Questions Commands Exclamation Exhortations

Some sentences must be interpreted and not taken literally to work as parts of an argument Example: Clouds are rolling in and the wind is picking up. Go check the boat now! What is the last sentence? -to be a conclusion, how must we interpret it? You should go check the boat now!

1.9 Multiple Conclusions and Complex Arguments Some large arguments are composed of

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

14

numerous smaller arguments. Example: Eric forgot to pay his gas bill again. It looks like the poor guy is obsessed with finishing the novel he has been writing. Anyway, he will be cold this winter.

Simple and Complex Arguments Two types of conclusions in complex arguments: Intermediate - used as further premises Final - ultimate conclusion of an argument Simple arguments have no INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS
Consists of only ONE inference

1.10 Traditional Analysis Aristotle: All propositions either assert or deny something of something else. Subject is the thing about which the assertion is made. Predicate is the thing asserted. Any counterexamples? How about it is raining? What is the subject? How about there was a parade? Arent these propositions? What is the subject?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

15

TERMS in an argument, either a class of objects, or a set of attributes which determine the objects. Called: Denotation/extension and connotation/intension. philosopher extension is Socrates, Plato, etc. and intension is lover of wisdom, intelligent, etc. Some Questions to Ponder In what sense do the intension and extension of terms belong to the objects? Are they functions of nature? Mind? Of what? What assumptions do we make about objects and the use of terms in science?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

16

Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments

Once we have decided that a passage contains an argument, we want next to identify its PREMISES, its CONCLUSION and the relationship between them. Showing the Structure of Arguments Simple Arguments - standard form Also called a syllogism
STRIKES BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ARE ILLEGAL THE TEACHERS AT PS 197 ARE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES THE STRIKE BY THE TEACHERS AT PS 197 IS ILLEGAL

Complex Arguments: Congress refuses to raise taxes and so the deficit will continue to increase. Furthermore, consumer interest rates will be high for the indefinite future because the Federal Reserve is maintaining tightmoney policies. Things dont look bright for future generations. * Locate intermediate conclusions and final conclusion Intermediate Conclusion Congress refuses to raise taxes The deficit will continue to increase The Federal Reserve is maintaining tight-

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

17

money Intermediate Conclusion Consumer interest rates will be high in the indefinite future Final Conclusion Things dont look bright. 2.1 Strategies of Analysis Indicators and Context: Identify Inference Indicators FIRST go through a passage and pick out words which indicate premises and conclusions Consider the larger context Ex: Today is the 5th. Yesterday was the 4th. CONTEXT can help us Q: How? What context would clarify this? PROBLEM: Sometimes we just dont know the context Dealing with Claims:

Identify each CLAIM (PROPOSITION) in a

passage (perhaps put each claim in brackets) He is destitute and utterly without hope and so will end up on the streets. Q: How many sentences?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

18

How many claims? We must not forget to notice separate claims, and we must not divide up single claims Reformulate Claims when Necessary As with go check the boat now! Or for example: I dont think Dworkin is competent to stand trial. She seems entirely confused about her identity. Reformulated: Dworkin seems entirely confused about her own identity Dworkin is not competent to stand trial Because language is used in so many ways, claims are made in innumerable ways. Reformulation is thus sometimes necessary. Discard Elements that Dont Belong Come on now. Pay attention. Marriage is an institution that should be discarded. I was married for four years myself, you know. Dont listen to the moralists. All marriage does is make it hard to get out of a bad relationship. Q: Is this an argument? All marriage does is make it hard to get out of a bad relationship. Therefore: Marriage is an institution that should be discarded.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

19

Structures Identify the Main Argument Every argument has ONE FINAL CONCLUSION The final conclusion and premises that directly support it are called the MAIN ARGUMENT Identify any SUBARGUMENT Any premise may be an INTERMEDIATE conclusion An INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION TOGETHER with its supporting premises are the SUBARGUMENT Identify any Replies to Objections Often, arguments contain subarguments that are replies to anticipated objections Q: Why remove objections in an argument via subarguments? IN GENERAL: These rules are strategies - there is no set order to them. Do what you can as you go. Arguments are not like MATH Q: Why?

2.2 Two Special Problems Arguments and Explanations Explaining why someone robbed a bank is qualitatively different than ARGUING THAT he robbed a bank. ARGUING - gives reasons for accepting a

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

20

proposition (claim) EXPLANATIONS - assume truth of the claim and accounts for why it happened Just ask yourself: Is the passage explaining why something happened rather than that it is the case? PROBLEM: Influence indicators often work as explanation indicators. Examples: I dont love you anymore because you always make fun of me. Since you stayed on the beach all day, your nose is sun burnt. We are sitting in the dark because you forgot to pay the electric bill. Each of these contains a SINGLE STATEMENT about a cause or a reason, not two statements - not a premise and conclusion. Teachers assign students more work than they can do, because, if they dont students wont do the minimal amount. Q: Is this an argument that teachers over assign work, or is it an explanation as to WHY they over assign work? A: Depends on the CONTEXT, right? RULE: Because some explanations occur within an argument, when it does it must be treated as a SINGLE CLAIM.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

21

2.3 Conditionals If the battery is charged, then the car will start. Such a statement is NOT itself an inference. IT MAKES a SINGLE CLAIM DISJUNCTIVE SENTENCES present alternatives : X or Y. The roof will be patched or the documents will be destroyed by rain. IT MAKES a SINGLE CLAIM

RULE: CONDITIONALS or DISJUNCTIONS MAKE SINGLE CLAIMS - treated as a SINGLE UNIT

2.4 More Terms of Traditional Analysis Categorical propositions How to deal with propositions expressed non-categorically? E.g Germany lost the war. Can you represent this as a categorical proposition? Categorical propositions have been classified on the basis of their quantity and their quality All steaks are juicy: something is affirmed of every steak some steaks are tough:: information is

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

22

supplied about and indefinite part of the class steaks Quantity Propositions which predicate something of all of a class are called universal Those that predicate something of an indefinite part of a class are called particular What is the existential quality of each? Some can it mean all? Quality All snakes are poisonous: predicate is affirmed of the subject. What is the quality? No dogs are stinky: predicate is denied of the subject. What is the quality? How about: All citizens are not patriots? Exclusive and Exceptive Propositions: The wicked alone are happy; Only the lazy are poor; None but savages are healthy In each, something is predicated of something else in an exclusive way. (how else could we state these? All students except freshmen may smoke; All but a handful were killed. These are exceptive how else could we state this?

2.5 Dewey: the function of Inquiry The process of inquiry as inquiry consists

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

23

of treating the general propositions that are formulations of ways of action as hypotheses -- a mode of treatment that is equivalent to treating the formulated modes of action as possible, instead of required or necessary This applies to conceptions as well as kinds Every proposition that involves the conception of a kind is based upon a set of related traits or characteristics that are the necessary and sufficient conditions of describing a specified kind. These traits are selectively discriminated by observation out of the total perceived field. Questions: why do we describe certain kinds and not others? Why do we select certain criteria and not others? What criteria count in describing relevant kinds? e.gWhales were once considered fish, until some other criteria were considered relevant to classification. If youre Ahab, does it matter? Why would Dewey say this?: The existential basis of a universal proposition is a mode of action. A universal proposition is not, however, merely a formulation of a way of acting or operating. It is such a formulation as serves to direct the operations by means of which existential material is selectively discriminated and related so it functions as the ground for warranted inferential

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

24

conclusions Homework From the following premises, figure out what can be concluded necessarily: (a) All babies are illogical. (b) Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile. (c) Illogical persons are despised. Devised by Lewis Carroll

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

25

Chapter 3 Evaluating Arguments

The WORTH of an argument depends upon: The TRUTH or FALSITY of its PREMISES How much support the premises provide for the CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS are meant to be VALID - premises must GUARANTEE the CONCLUSION NON-DEDUCTIVE - premises are meant to make the conclusion likely. 3.1 Deductive Arguments CONCEPT OF VALIDITY - in colloquial language we may use the term valid to speak of criticisms or RESULTS. But in logic it is only properly used to describe an ARGUMENT. Definition: In a VALID argument, there is NO POSSIBLE way for premises to be true and conclusion FALSE.In other words: If all premises are TRUE, conclusion would have to be true. Ex: If whales are mammals, they have lungs. Whales are mammals. Whales have lungs. Ex: Everyone in the world yesterday was exposed to the virus. You were in the world then.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

26

You were exposed. Ex: Harold is this womans son. So this woman is Harolds mother. But Rasputin was stabbed, shot, poisoned, and strangled. So Rasputin is dead. VALIDITY concerns the amount of support that a set of premises lends to a conclusion if we grant the premises, we must grant the conclusion VALIDITY does not require premises to be true. Thus, a valid argument may have False premises and true conclusions False premises and false conclusions True premises and true conclusions BUT NOT EVER - true premises and false conclusions Ex: All fish read Russian novels. Tuna are fish. So tuna read Russian novels. Q: Is it VALID? What use is such an argument? Q: Is the argument SOUND? 3.2 VALIDITY AND ADDED PREMISES For any VALID argument, it remains valid no matter what further premises are added.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

27

BUT

All platypuses are mammals. Nadine is a platypus. Therefore: Nadine is a mammal Almost no mammals lay eggs Nadine lays eggs Therefore: Nadine is a mammal Even though additional premises give us strong reasons to reject the conclusion, the ARGUMENT is STILL VALID. Q: What if we add Nadine is a duck, not a platypus. The premises state a contradiction, nonetheless it is VALID. Evaluating Arguments Deductive Arguments Informal Methods of checking Validity Conduct a thought experiment to determine whether under any circumstances you can have True premises and false conclusion. Ex: Ninety-nine percent of students in this course will pass. Uri is a student in this course. Uri will pass this course. Ex: All the relatives of the deceased were at the funeral. So there is no denying everyone at the funeral was a relative of the deceased. Thought experiment: Suppose deceased had only 5 relatives and they were ALL at the funeral - Now suppose several unrelated friends were also at the funeral. What do we get?

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

28

3.3 True premises and False conclusions Ex: The thimbleful of water has been in the 10 Fahrenheit freezer for twenty-eight hours. Thus it is frozen. It is possible given these premises that we get True premises and False conclusion if, for instance water has no freezing point. Must distinguish the POSSIBLE from VALID The give premises above dont rule out the possibility that water has no freezing point. Ex: Some vegetarians are malnourished All malnourished people need vitamins. Some vegetarians need vitamins. Thought experiment: Suppose first premise is true because there are 3 malnourished vegetarians. For second premise to be true each of these 3, being malnourished must need vitamins. Conclusion is thus true. No matter how many malnourished vegetarians there may be. LIMITATIONS of informal method: -just because we cannot imagine a situation of True premises and False conclusion, does not mean such a situation does not exist - we may be just UNABLE TO conceive it. Better methods are available.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

29

3.4 Non-deductive Arguments Not meant to be valid but to make conclusion more likely than not. CHARACTERISTICS: ex: 96% of adult Americans watch more than 10 hours TV per week John is an adult American John watches more than 10 hours TV per week ex: 75% adult Americans own VCRs Ralph is an adult American Ralph owns a VCR ex: 35% of adult Americans watch cable TV Susan is an adult American Susan watches cable TV General characteristic is such arguments make the conclusion probable or likely In the 1st example, the premises make the conclusion very probable In the 2nd, the conclusion is much less likely In the 3rd, it is barely probable 96% of adult Americans watch more than 10 hours TV per week John is an adult American John watches more than 10 hours TV per week 75% adult Americans own VCRs Ralph is an adult American Ralph owns a VCR

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

30

35% of adult Americans watch cable TV Susan is an adult American Susan watches cable TV

96% of adult Americans watch more than 10 hours TV per week John is an adult American John watches more than 10 hours TV per week 75% adult Americans own VCRs Ralph is an adult American Ralph owns a VCR 35% of adult Americans watch cable TV Susan is an adult American Susan watches cable TV General characteristics: nondeductive support for an argument is a matter of DEGREE whereas validity is either/or Rather; nondeductively successful or not e.g. - Just 40% of adult Americans who work 2 jobs watch TV more than 10 hours per week. - John works two jobs (likelihood new drops to 40%) General consideration - whereas addition of new info to valid argument does not affect its validity, New info MAY affect success of nondeductive argument 3.5 Varieties of Nondeductive Arguments

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

31

Statistical Syllogism (3 examples above) reasons from some proportion of a population to an individual. In standard discourse people use phrases like almost all a great majority most etc. Makes it harder to evaluate. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION Influence is from some sample of a population to ALL or SOME PERCENTAGE Every hyena so far encountered by humans has been aggressive All hyenas are aggressive. In a phone survey, 47% of registered voters said the intended to vote for George George will receive 47% of the vote Q: When are these arguments more successful? (as sample size increases) CAUSAL ARGUMENTS (discussed later) ARGUMENTS by ANALOGY e.g. if one reasons that hamsters make good house-pets by saying that gerbils are good house-pets and hamsters are like gerbils PLAUSIBILITY or CASE-BUILDING Ms. Monroe was widely praised for her acting in 2 films last year

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

32

Both of those films were box-office hits Ms. Monroe has never won a major award for her work Ms. Monroe will win this years Hollywood Woman of the Year award Q: How to evaluate? - Are some of the premises relevant? Do they help support the conclusion? What if in this case, another actress did better in more films? What are the criteria for that award?

3.6 Some Valid Argument Forms and Symbolizing arguments SENTENTIAL FORM If the spider is a brown recluse, then it is dangerous. The spider is a brown recluse, therefore it is dangerous. CONNECTIVES: if-then, and, or (conjunction, disjunction)

If A then B (A=antecedent, B=consequent) B ~A (~ stands for not)

SYMBOLIZING (try this on your own): If cigarette advertising leads teenagers to smoke and advertisers lie about their aims, then either cigarette advertising should not

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

33

be allowed or it should be strictly regulated. Parentheses are useful to group claims. 1. Modus Ponens (MP) If P, then Q P Q
(Therefore)

PQ P Q

Pr. 1 Pr. 2 C P T T F F Q T F T F PQ P T T F T T F T F Q T F T F
We can prove validity with truth tables. There is NO instance where all true premises leads to false conclusion. Thus, its a valid form.

TRUTH TABLES TT T TF F FT T FF T T F F F TvT TvF FvT FvF T T T F TT TF FT FF

Components can be NEGATIVE SENTENCES ~ P ~ Q~ P Q P~Q ~P ~P P______ ~ P ~ Q~ P Q ~Q

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

34

Or:

P PQ Q

2. MODUS TOLLENS (MT) If P, then Q PQ ~Q___ ~P If Bob is guilty, he is lying now He is not lying now Bob is not guilty. Also: ~P ~Q Q_______ P

3. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (HS) If P, then Q If Q, then R Therefore if P, then R PQ QR PR

If taxes go up, inflation goes down If inflation goes down, most people will be richer if taxes go up, most people will be richer 4. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (DS) Either P or Q PvQ Not Q ~Q___ Therefore P P

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

35

Either Picasso was this centurys greatest artist or Klee was Klee was not this centurys greatest artist Picasso was this centurys greatest artist
5. CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA (CD) Either P or Q PvQ If P, then R PR If Q, then S QS Therefore R or S RvS Either astrology is a science or a superstition If it is a science, then newspapers should not print horoscopes on the comics page If it is a superstition, then horoscopes should not appear in newspapers at all. CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA (CD) A DILEMMA is a set of alternatives Argument form uses a set of alternatives and a disjunction to allow inference to another set of alternatives. 6. CONJUNCTION (Conj.)

P Q Therefore P and Q QP

P P Q___ Q__ P Q

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

36

7. SIMPLIFICATION (Simp.) P and Q Therefore P Q 8. ADDITION (Add.) P Therefore P or Q PvQ PQ PQ P

Harpo was one of the Marx brothers Harpo was one of the Marx brothers or Karl was.

3.7 Invalid Argument Forms 1. Denying the Antecedent PQ ~ P___ ~Q 2. Affirming the Consequent PQ Q____ P We can easily test with a truth table:

Affirming Consequent

Pr. 1

Pr. 2

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

37

P T T F F

Q_ T F T F

PQ___Q_____P T T T F T T T T F T F F
Pr. 2 PQ T F T T C ~Q F F T T

Invalid form, since true premises lead to a false conclusion.

Denying Antecedent Pr. 1 P Q T T T F F T F F

~Q F T F T

Ex. Affirming Consequent -If Jill is an atheist she opposes compulsory prayer in public schools -She does oppose compulsory prayer in schools Jill is an atheist. These are FORMAL FALLACIES

3.8 Showing Validity of Complex Arguments E~N ~N A EA E

If life imprisonment is as effective as capital punishment in deterring murder, then capital punishment is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then it should be abolished altogether. Thus, if life imprisonment is as effective as capital punishment in deterring murder, capital punishment should be abolished altogether. All of the evidence indicates that life

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

38

imprisonment is just as effective in deterring murder.

Thus, capital punishment should be abolished altogether.

The VALID argument forums are INFERENCE RULES that allows us to move from one step to another validly So: 1) E ~N 2) ~N A 3) E A 1,2 HS (hypothetical syllogism) 4) E 5) A 3,4 MP (modus ponens) This is a DEMONSTRATION of validity SvP -Either students are learning more then in the past or professors are becoming more lax in their grading. SH -But if students are actually learning more, their scores on standardized tests would be higher than they used to be. ~H -The fact is that scores on standardized tests are not higher than in the past. P -So professors are becoming more lax in their grading standards 1) S v P 2) S H 3) ~H 4) P

Q: Is this valid? How do we get to the conclusion?

We must devise a set of inferences leading

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

39

from premises to conclusion by deductive method. Q: What do premises tell us about S? 1) S v P 2) S H 3) ~ H 4) ~ S 5) P

2, 3 MT about S 1, 4 DS

Equivalent Forms 1) C = ~~ C (Double Negatives). It is not the case that cats do not like cream. = Cats like cream. 2) COMMUTATION (Com) (P Q) = (Q P) 3) CONTRAPOSITION (Contra) (P Q) = (~Q ~P) 4)DEFINITION OF IMPLICATION (Imp) (P v Q) = (~P Q) 5) EXPORTATION (Exp) [(PQ) R] = [P (Q R)] -If the tire is flat, and the spare is missing, then you must walk. = -If the tire is flat, then if the spare is missing, then you must walk. 6) De MORGANS RULES (DM) ~ (P Q) = (~P v ~Q) #1 It cannot be both the Leonid works for the KGB and that he works for the CIA. = Either Leonid does not work for the

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

40

KGB, or he

does not work for the CIA.

#2 ~ (P v Q) = (~P ~Q)

Immediate Inferences

Original Proposition Obversion Contraposition Obverted Contraposition (A) All S is P (E) No S is non-P (E) No non-P is S (A) All non-P is non-S (E) No S is P (A) All S is non-P (I) Some non-P is S (O) Some non-P is not non-S (I) Some S is P (O) Some S is not non-P None None (O) Some S is not P (I) Some S is non-P (I) Some non-P is S (O) Some non-P is not non-S

Homework None of the unnoticed things, met with at sea, are mermaids.
Things entered in the log, as met with at

sea, are sure to be worth remembering.

I have never met with anything worth

remembering, when on a voyage.

Things met with at sea, that are noticed, are

sure to be recorded in the log. Practice: deduce the following Andrews was at his office or else had gone to Bridgeport, and either Andrews was at his office or he missed the call from Charleston If Andrews was at his office then Davis saw him If Davis saw him then the extradition papers were signed If Andrews went to Bridgeport and missed the call from Charleston, then if a felony was involved, the extradition papers were signed

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

41

The extradition papers were not signed Therefore no felony was involved

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

42

Chapter 4, Syllogistic Rules

4.1 Four types of categorical propositions:
A: All x are y E: No x are y I: Some x is y O: Some x is not y Universal Affirmative Universal Negative Particular Affirmative Particular Negative

All x is y All y is z All x is z

minor premise major premise (y=middle term)

Subject predicate - major - predicate of conclusion minor term Subject distributed distributed undistributed undistributed Predicate undistributed distributed undistributed distributed

A: E: I: O:

A term is DISTRIBUTED if it refers to the whole class it names. A term is UNDISTRIBUTED if it refers to only part of the class. 4.2 Rules for Valid Syllogisms: 1) FIRST RULE: The middle term must be distributed at least once. [In a valid categorical syllogism, if both premises are true then the conclusion must be true.] UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE (excluded) So: All Communists are in favor of reform. All Liberals are in favor of reform. (middle term) All Liberals are Communists. We know that predicate of an A statement is never distributed thus middle term is not distributed at least once, so it is INVALID.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

43

2) SECOND RULE: no term may be distributed in the conclusion which is not distributed in the premises (undistributed) ex: A) All radicals are in favor of reform E) No conservatives are radicals. E) No conservatives are in favor of reform (distributed)

3) THIRD RULE: The number of negative premises must be the same as number of negative conclusions. INVALID All x are y All z is not y z is y 4) FOURTH RULE: if both premises are negative, there is no conclusion, and if both premises are particular, there is no conclusion.

4.3 Diagramming Syllogisms Categorical syllogisms deal with classes with attributes in certain universes of discourse, or domain of reference: What is the universe of discourse: Hamlet killed Polonius A: Hamlet, the play. Two classes yield four possible combinations of quality and quantity: (A,E,I,O) picture them as sets:

Thus A: All Philosophers are idlers

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

44

The E proposition: No philosophers are idlers

The I proposition: Some philosophers are idlers

The O proposition: Some philosophers are not idlers

so, to diagram a categorical syllogism, e.g.: AII-2 1. The AII-2 has the M terms in the predicate of both premises. 2. The syllogism is written out as

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

45

All P is M. Some S is M. Some S is P. 3. The diagram below shows that the "X" could be in the SMP area or in the SPM area. Since we do not know exactly which area it is in, we put the "X" on the line, as shown. When an "X" is on a line, we do not know with certainty exactly where it is. So, when we go to read the conclusion, we do not know where it is. Since the conclusion cannot be read with certainty, the AII-2 syllogism is invalid.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

46

Chapter 5, Causal Analysis

Why do we want to explain causes? -Responsibility? -Control -Prediction According to David Hume, a cause is nothing more than a constant conjunction between events. When we notice that event A always precedes event B, we say A causes B Sufficiency Whenever a car engine is running and no coolant is in the radiator, the engine will overheat. Lack of coolant is a sufficient condition for engine overheating. SUFFICIENT CONDITION: Whenever the factor occurs, the event occurs. Q: What other sufficient conditions? broken water pump broken fan belt rusted coolant tubes Whenever A [=C1, C2Cn], then B [=E1, E2 En] Events will follow

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

47

Necessity Not everyone infected with Poliomyelitis gets polio. Thus: Infection with polio virus is not a sufficient condition for getting the disease. Virus is a NECESSARY CONDITION for the disease. Definition: a factor is a necessary condition for an event if the event does not occur absent that factor. Everyone who gets polio has been infected with polio virus, but since not everyone so infected gets polio, it is NOT SUFFICIENT. As a necessary condition for B Means = If B, then A Or: If ~A then ~B If a factor is BOTH necessary and sufficient, then whenever A occurs, B occurs, and whenever A does not occur, B does not occur. If A then B and if ~A, then ~B Mills Methods of Testing Causal Claims 1) Method of Difference: Case 1: P, Q, R, S Case 2: P, Q, R

Event occurs Event does not occur

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

48

The only DIFFERENCE is condition S, so S is probably cause of event. 2) Method of Agreement: Case 1: P, Q, R, S Case 2: T, U, V, S

Event occurs Event occurs

The only common factor = S, so S may be the cause. 3) Joint Method of Agreement and Difference: Case 1: P, Q, S Event occurs Case 2: P, T, U Event occurs Case 3: R, V, S Event does not occur P is common to cases 1 and 2, so P is likely the cause. And although 1 and 3 have S in common, event does not occur in 3, so S cannot be the cause. 4) Method of Concomitant Variation: Case 1: When P increase in a population, Event E occurs more often Case 2: When P decreases in a population, Event E occurs less often. Case 1 and Case 2 indicate that changes in P and E occur concomitantly (at same time) so it suggests P may be cause of E. And although 1 and 3 have S in common, event does not occur in 3, so S cannot be the cause.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

49

Chapter 6, Presenting a Case and Arguing by Analogy

Before making an ordinary argument, Five Important Starting Points: 1) Have a clear idea of the relation of your position to your position on other issues. Q: Why? 2) Have a clear view of your position in general 3) Who is your audience? -Undecided? -Sympathetic? -Hostile? 4) What is the medium? Article? Speech? Debate? Letter? 5)Why are you presenting your case? Three Main Parts of the Argument or Case: 1) Arousing Sympathy 2) Presenting Facts 3) Driving Home the Conclusion 6.1 Part I - Arousing Sympathy There are few ways to do this: 1) Appeal to Pity - appeals to emotions of audience. Not overdoing it, but subtly present incontrovertible facts, and relate to an emotion the audience shares.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

50

e.g. Socrates on trial: My friend, I am a man, and like other men, a creature of flesh and blood, and I have a familythree sons, and yet I will not summon them hither to petition for an acquittal 2) Appeal to Authority a) AUTHORITY must be trusted by the audience b) Present those who appear DISINTERESTED c) Must be considered conscientious about area in which his expertise is claimed d) Should be well known e) Must be authority in a RELEVANT FIELD f ) Should be both current and historical authorities g ) Should have an opinion generally representative of general expertise in his field h ) Should be NUMEROUS, DIVERSE, and DIFFERENT as possible e.g. Not all from Chicago School of Economics, etc. 3) Appeal to Tradition - ad populum An ideal, a theoretical or abstract principle which the audience holds in high regard e.g., free speech, pornography

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

51

6.2 Arguments by Analogy Nature of the argument is that 2 distinct subjects have certain features in common and thus if one possesses a certain feature, the other should as well. Q: Is this fallacious? I ) Used in Factual Arguments e.g., Mills Argument re: Other minds Do they feel pain - Other people have same sensory equipment as me - Psychological modes of operation of that equipment is same - When I accidentally injure myself I feel pain - When I injure myself I exhibit behaviors Anyone else who injures himself exhibits same behaviors as do I and thus feel pain II) Used in Moral Arguments 2 Types 1) Because two cases are similar, we should extend treatment ALREADY GIVEN to one another e.g.: A and B both have characteristics 1, 2, 3 A received Treatment T B did not receive Treatment T B ought to receive Treatment T or we should compensate B

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

52

2) Attempt to show that an instance in which an actions legitimacy is in doubt resembles one in which it is justified e.g.: Where a fetus threatens the life of a mother Versus: Brain-controlled innocent person III) Model - Uses a familiar and well-understood system to represent a system not wellunderstood

There are two types in science:

1) Formal - a set of concepts and principles belonging to one system employed to develop an understanding of another system e.g.: Kinetic theory of gasses = room full of ping-pong balls or critical mass and mouse traps Galileo rolled marbles down a slanted board 2) Material - A physical system is taken to represent parts of another physical system. Assumes 2 systems score enough relevant features. e.g.: LAB ANIMALS Rats and mice are NOT exactly humans Also - miniature tornados

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

53

IV) How to Analyze Arguments by Analogy 1) Degree of analogy should be high -Similarities = POSITIVE ANALOGY -Differences = NEGATIVE ANALOGY Degree of ANALOGY is ratio of positive and negative analogies. If positive analogy is proportionally higher than negative, then degree of analogy is high LIMITING CASE of a high degree of analogy is when 2 cases are virtually identical in every respect except for PARTICULAR space they occupy. e.g. 2 hydrogen atoms 2 marbles 2 people? In moral arguments, critiques often focus on pointing out relevant differences. 2) An analogy should be relevant to the conclusion Confidence in a conclusion is increased when SHARED CHARACTERISTICS are closely connected with ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISITC POSSESSED by first subject and attributed to the second

6.3 Fallacies
Relevance, Adequacy, Mistaken Assumptions: 1) FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE whose premises are not relevant to the conclusion

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

54

a) APPEAL TO IGNORANCE (Ad Ignorantiam) -Consists of arguing that because a claim has NOT been demonstrated to be false, the claim is true. Q: Why is this fallacious? A: It provides NO REASONS b) APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (Ad Verrecondiam) -Not a proper expert in the field

c ) APPEAL TO GENERAL BELIEF (Ad Populum)

d) APPEAL TO POPULAR ATTITUDES AND EMOTIONS (also Ad Populum) -Patriotic impulses, emotions, etc. e ) GAMBLERS FALLACY e.g., 5 last flips have been heads, so the next will be tails. 2 ) FALLACIES OF INADEQUATE EVIDENCE a ) FALSE CAUSE (Post Hoc)

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

55

Merely accidental correlation alleged to be cause b ) HASTY GENERALIZATION -generalizing on the basis of an inadequate set of cases 3 ) FALLACIES OF ILLEGITIMATE ASSUMPTION a ) FALSE DILEMMA (False Alternatives) Correct: You must either marry or remain single Incorrect: You must be either Democrat or Republican Or: You are either with us, or against us b ) LOADED QUESTION (Complex Question) When did you stop beating your wife? c ) BEGGING THE QUESTION (Petitio Principii) When some reason offered for some conclusion is not really different from that conclusion itself - the premise offered to justify a conclusion logically implies it, but offers NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE for it. - Descartes: First considers possibility of evil deceiver, then concludes: God exists, is himself no evil deceiver, and would

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

56

allow NO evil deceit d ) SLIPPERY SLOPE Mistakenly assumes that when there is little or no significant difference between adjacent points on a continuum. There is no important difference between even widely separated points in the continuum. e.g. speed limit e.g. abortion 4 ) FALLACIES OF CRITICISM a ) AGAINST THE PERSON (Ad Hominem) - Rejecting a claim by offering as grounds some personal characteristics of the person supporting it. Also Circumstantial Ad Hominem - A charge not against the general character, but against the person in a particular set of circumstances e.g.: a lawyer for a tobacco company b ) YOU TOO (Tu Quoque) When alleged to lie, you replied so do you!

c ) POOH-POOH - a refusal to examine an argument seriously, dismissing it out of hand

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

57

d ) STRAW MAN - Misrepresenting an opponents claim or argument so it is easier to criticize e.g.: The theory of evolution boils down to the idea that men are descended from apes. e ) LOADED WORDS - Using judgmental terms (negative or positive) in describing someone or something. e.g.: Medical research on animals must simply stop. Such torture of innocent creatures is morally indecent. Such crimes and atrocities must be made illegal. 5) FALLACIES OF RESPONSE a) DEFINITIONAL DODGE - Redefining a crucial term to avoid acknowledging a counterexample that would falsify it.

Smith e.g.: All pornography devalues women. Q: What about Fanny Hill Response: Then Fanny Hill is not pornography because pornography always devalues women -But it is pornography - Smith has committed to a definitional dodge to pretend it is not a counterexample to his initial claim. b) EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE:

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

58

Correct: Means that exceptions test the rule Incorrect: To say that an exception establishes truth of a rule

6.4 Presenting the Facts

A) STATISTICS 1) Must come from a reliable source 2) Because statistical data are rarely uniform, they may be grouped or interpreted in different ways. E.g., state polls versus national polls 3) Getting on the Bandwagon - If you can show that a majority support your opinion, then raise this and invite others to join you. 4) Use large numbers. If percentages are close, cite the actual number. Or to discount small numbers, cite the number B) THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS - Used to explain raw data we observe e.g.: French Revolution The Establishment Oedipus Complex None of these are directly observable, but try to explain things we do observe.

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

59

e.g: I want to argue that society is corrupt and we are victims of a super conspiracy. When asked to provide evidence I can say the conspiracy has destroyed the evidence. C) CLASSIFICATION - Theoretical constructs are one way to classify or organize information - others include: 1) ALL AND SOME Should you say All good union members respond to strike calls. or Good union members respond to strike calls. also - Some is too weak 2) CONTINUUM Some categories have no clear boundaries e.g.: Bald Not Bald The arguer can draw some lines 3) GOLDEN MEAN Appeals to the notion that the mean is better than the extremes. Identify what the audience perceives as the extremes. e.g.: Moderate is mean b/w liberals and conservatives Liberal b/w radicals and reactionaries

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

60

Conservative b/w fascists and socialists D) DEFINITION Three ways in which you should be aware of your definitions: 1) TRUTH BY DEFINITION If your terms are defined carefully enough, and after factual data are correct the case is fool-proof 2) EQUIVOCATION Some words have more than one meaning: a-theist anti-theist 3) CREATIVE THINKING (Euphemism) E) ANALOGY - Already described DEFINITION - Its Role and Use -An explanation of the meaning of a word - stating the rules or conditions for using the words - essential in argument. There are two types of definitions: 1) REPORTIVE DEFINITION A definition intended to explain how words are actually used - offered as factual report - can be true or false e.g.: great aunt = the sister of ones grandmother or grandfather. Used to report both ordinary and special meanings (e.g., plate has 20 meanings) divided into 3 further uses:

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

61

a) Lexical Definition - A report of how the word is used in everyday life b) Disciplinary Definition - the way the word is used in a special discipline c) Historical Definition - Report on how a word was used at certain times in history 2) STIPULATIVE DEFINITION A statement of a rule that will be followed in using the word defined. A resolution to use a word in a certain way. Let X = Y a) ARBITRARY - Where a new word or symbol is introduced to stand for a stated meaning. Let D stand for disposable income Some eventually enter our language e.g.: Mores utopia Capelcs robot b) PRECISING STIPULATIVE DEFINITIONS - Restrict the ordinary meaning of a word to make it more exact in a certain context. e.g.: Savings will mean money invested Turns ordinary terms into technical terms

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

62

Methods of Definition Five typical ones include: 1) Use of Synonyms provided another word or phrase e.g.: flat means apartment Not always precise, may be needed 2) Genus and Species Mentioning a feature of an object to which a word refers that places the object within a class, then mention another feature that places it in a subclass. e.g.: people govern themselves Directly or through representatives 3) COMPLETE ENUMERATION Listing all items to which a word refers e.g.: Arabic Numerals 1, 2, 3, 0. 4) _ORIENTATION Pointing to an object correctly designated by the defined word. e.g.: table chair 5) EXAMPLE

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

63

Mentioning examples of the sort of things designated e.g.: a deficiency disease is one like scurvy, pellagra or Even numbers include 2, 4, 6, 10 RULES for DEFINITION 1) AVOID CIRCULARITY - A definition that assumes an understanding of a key part of the meaning fails.

2) AVOID OBSCURE, METAPHORIC, or AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.

3) AVOID ACCIDENTAL CONDITIONS e.g.: women = members off the more exploited sex uses an accidental feature. 4) AVOID DEFINITIONS that are either TOO BROAD or TOO NARROW e.g.: Art Tolstoy = that which communicates the religious sentiments of mankind too narrow and too broad (e.g. by taking a pilgrimage).

6.5 Probability and logic

Probable inference, like all inference, is

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

64

based upon certain relations between propositions. No proposition is probable in itself. A proposition is probable in relation to other propositions which serve as evidence for it. Whether a proposition has a degree of probability does not depend on the state of mind of a person. Questions of probability, like those of validity, depend on objective considerations, not on the bases of impulse or emotion. An inference is probable only in so far as it belongs to a definite class of inferences in which the frequency of the conclusions being true is a determinate ratio of the frequency of the premises being true. Equivalent to saying: the meaning of probability involves relative frequencies. Since the probability of a proposition is not an intrinsic character of it, the same proposition may have different degrees of probability, in accordance with the evidence which is marshaled in its support. The evidence which may be marshaled in support of a proposition may have different degrees of relevance. In general, that evidence is chosen for a proposition which will make the degree of probability of that proposition as great as possible. That relevance cannot be determined on formal grounds alone While the meaning of the measure of the probability of an inference is the relative

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

65

frequency with which that type of inference will lead to true conclusions from true premises, it is true that in most cases the definite numerical value of the probability is not known what to do then? Even where we cannot form an opinion about the definite degree of probability, we may still have evidence to determine a propositions relative probability in relation to other propositions. Mathematical probability Defined as the fraction whose numerator is the number of possible favorable events, and whose denominator is the number of possible events provided that all the possible events are equi-probable. f = number of favorable events, u = number of unfavorable events. If both are equiprobable, then: ___f___ f+u Probability of 0 means impossible, probability of 1 means it is necessary. Burden of probability is to determine the probability of a complex event from a knowledge of the probability of its component events. Two events are independent if the occurrences of the one is not affected by the occurrence or non-occurrence of the other. Asserting independence is a material

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

66

assumption that must be explicitly stated.

Probability of joint occurrence take, for

instance two coin flips. Generally, the product of the probability of component independent events. Probability of getting two heads on a series of coin flips is thus: 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 P(ab)=P(a) x P(b) Probability of disjunctive events:

Two events are disjunctive if both cannot simultaneously occur. On any one coin flip, the alternatives are disjunctive. If P(a) and P(b) are the respective probabilities of two exclusive events a and b, then: P(a+b) = P(a) + P(b) as with probability of heads per coin flip. (1/2) The Psychology of probability Probability has often been identified with strength of belief in the likelihood of particular occurrences. According to De Morgan: the state of mind with respect to an assertion, a coming event, or any other matter on which absolute knowledge does not exist. On this interpretation, the calculus of probability may be employed only when our ignorance is equally distributed between several alternatives. Principle of insufficient reason (or indifference)

The Appeal to Reason

Logic for Lawyers

67

if there is no known reason for predicating of our subject one rather than another of several alternatives, then relatively to such knowledge the assertion of each of these alternatives have an equal probability. Similarly, if there is no known reason for believing that two events are independent rather than dependent, it is just as probable that they are independent as it is that they are not. Two alternatives are just as probable if there is perfect indecision, belief inclining neither way. Material events can be influenced by means of probable inference, and that influence is independent of belief. Beliefs about events vary wildly among circumstances and people and historically.

The Appeal to Reason