Part 1 - 6th jan

 The nomenclature of Skepticism

 Investigative: investigating and inquiring activity.
 Suspensive: the feeling after the skeptical investigation.
 Aporetic: it puzzles whether to assent or deny, for it investigates everything.
 Pyrrhonian: Pyrrho is the first systematic exponent of skepticism.
 What is skepticism
 An ability to set out oppositions among things.
 Equipollence.
 Suspension of judgment.
 Tranquility.

Part 2 - 9th jan

he skeptic or Pyrrhonian
Those who possess skeptical ability.
The principles of skepticism
The causal principles of skepticism is to become tranquil.
The constitutive principles is equipollence.
Do skeptics hold beliefs?
Skeptics do not reject beliefs forced upon them by appearances.
What kind of belief do skeptics reject?
Skeptics reject all kind of beliefs of unclear objects of investigation.
Skeptics/Pyrrhonists do not assent to anything unclear.
Do skeptics belong to a school?
Skeptics do not belong to a school if it is based on an unclear belief.
Skeptics coherently follow to appearances, traditional customs, law and persuasions, their own
feelings without holding any dogmatic opinion.

Part 3 - 13th jan

 Do skeptics study natural science?

 Skeptics don’t make assertions and firm conviction on scientific beliefs.
 Skeptics study natural science for tranquility through equipollence.

 Do skeptics reject what is apparent?

 Skeptics do not reject what is apparent.
 Skeptics reject what is said about what is apparent.
 Skeptics accept that “sugar is sweet”, but they investigate “sugar is sweet by
nature”.
  The standard of skepticism
 Standards adopted to provide convictions.
 Standards of action in everyday life.
 The standard of skeptical persuasion is what is apparent.

 The fourfold everyday observances are:

 Guidance by nature, necessitation by feelings, handing down of laws and customs,
and teaching of kinds of expertise.

Part 4 - 20th jan

 What is the aim of skepticism?

 Tranquility in matters of opinion and moderation of feeling in matters forced upon us.
 Skeptics are disturbed by things which are forced upon them.
 Perpetual trouble by holding things as good or bad by nature.
 Dogmatists suffer from additional opinion, but skeptics do not.

 The general modes of suspension of judgment

 Tranquility follows suspension of judgment.
 Suspension of judgment comes about through the opposition of things.
 Skeptics oppose what appears to what appears, what is thought of to what is thought
of, present things to present things.
 The Ten Modes
 The modes through which skeptics conclude to suspension of judgment.
 1. The mode depending on the variations among animals.
 2. The mode depending on the differences among humans.

 3. The mode depending upon differing constitutions of the sense-organs.

 4. The mode depending on circumstances.

Part 5 – 27th jan

 5. The mode depending on positions and intervals and places.

 6. The mode depending on admixtures.
 7. The mode depending on quantities and preparations of existing things.
 8. The mode deriving from relativity.
 9. The mode depending on frequent or rare encounters.
 10. The mode depending on persuasions, customs, laws, and belief in myths and
dogmatic suppositions.

Indian Logic: Reasoning and Argument

Logical terms in inference

 X is a philosophical view because it is a Pyrrhonian view. For example, Pyrrho’s

view.
 Subject: X
 Object to be proved: a philosophical view.
 Thesis: X is a philosophical view.
 Reason/evidence: a Pyrrhonian view.
 Example, Pyrrho’s view.
 Similar class: whatever is philosophical view.
 Dissimilar class: whatever is non-philosophical view.

Triple Characteristics
Three-membered inference

 Subject: X is a philosophical view.

 Forward pervasion: whatever is Pyrrhonian view is a philosophical view.
 Counter pervasion: whatever is non-philosophical view is non-Pyrrhonian view.
 Subject must be common for both the proponent and the opponent.
 Forward pervasion shows the presence of reason in all similar cases.
 Counter pervasion shows the absence of reason in all dissimilar cases.

Reasoning
How to Think Critically

 Reasoning is a logical thinking process.

 By knowing reasoning, thinking becomes clear and systematic.
 Reasoning removes all sorts of unjustifiable thoughts.
 There are two types of reasoning in Indian logic: assertive and deconstructive.
 Assertive reasoning is of three kinds.
 Causal reasoning, identity reasoning, and non-observation reasoning.
 All three types of assertive reasoning are triple-characterized reasoning in structure.
 The first two are affirmative reasoning and the last one is negative reasoning

Argument
How to Communicate Critically

 Argument is a set of propositions in which the conclusion is derived from the

premises.
 Argument must be either sound or unsound.
 There is a difference between logical validity and logical soundness in Indian logic.
 Sound argument must necessarily be triple-characterized in structure.
 There are two types of argument: assertive and deconstructive.
 Assertive argument is either affirmative or negative in structure.

 There are three types of assertive argument.

  Causal argument, identity argument, and non-observation argument.
 The first two types of argument are affirmative and the last one is negative in
formulation.
 All three types of argument are triple-characterized arguments.

Part 6 - Reasoning_Reading
Pdf given
Part 7 – 30th jan
Causal Reasoning

 Causal reasoning infers cause through its effect.

 Example: there is fire because there is natural smoke, e.g., in a hearth.
 Fire and natural smoke are cause and effect.
 Causal relation is necessary relation.
 Wherever there is natural smoke there is fire, like in a hearth.
 Wherever there is not fire there is not natural smoke, like in a lake.
 Here relation is conceptual relation of the concepts ‘fire’ and ‘natural smoke’.

Causal Argument

 Causal argument proves the existence of a cause through its effect.

 Example, wherever there is natural smoke there is fire. There is natural smoke on
that hill. Therefore, there is fire on the hill.
 Wherever there is X, there is Y. There is X. Therefore, there is Y.
 The first premise is a major premise, the second premise is the minor premise, and
the last proposition indicated by ‘therefore’ is the conclusion.
 The existence of fire on the hill is inferred from the necessary relation between fire
and natural smoke found over there on the hill.

Identity Reasoning

 Identity reasoning is based on necessary relation of the identity or nature of things.

 Example, this object is a table because it is a wooden table.
 There is necessary relation between the concepts ‘table’ and ‘wooden table’.
 Whatever is wooden table is a table.
 Whatever is not a table is not a wooden table.
 Relation between general and particular, a word and its meaning.

Identity Argument

 Identity argument proves the necessary conceptual relation between two things
which share the same identity.
  Example, whatever is a product is caused and conditioned. This classroom is a
product. Therefore, this classroom is caused and conditioned.
 Whatever is X is Y. Z is X. Therefore, Z is Y.
 In this argument, the necessary conceptual relation between ‘product’ and ‘cause
and condition’ is seen in ‘classroom’.
 The caused and conditioned nature of classroom is inferred from the necessary
relation between ‘product’ and ‘cause and condition’.

Part 8 – 3rd feb

Non-observation Reasoning

 Non-observation reasoning is negative formulation of the first two types of reasoning.

 Example, there is no fire because there is no natural smoke, e.g., in a lake.
 Wherever there is no natural smoke there is no fire.
 Wherever there is fire there is natural smoke.
 This is not a PG classroom because it is not a classroom, e.g., a waiting room.
 Whatever is not a classroom is not a PG classroom.
 Whatever is a PG classroom is a classroom.

Non-observation Argument

 Non-observation argument proves the non-existence of an object through conceptual

necessary relation.
 Example, wherever there is no natural smoke, there is no fire. There is no natural
smoke on the hill. Therefore, there is no fire on the hill.
 Whatever is not a classroom is not a PG classroom. This is not a classroom.
Therefore, this is not a PG classroom.
 Whatever is not cognized by a true cognition does not exist. A bird is not cognized by
a true cognition in this room. Therefore, there is no bird in this room.

Prasaṅga/Consequentialist Reasoning

 Prasanga argument shows contradiction in opponent’s argument.

 Investigation of cause
 If song makes people feel happy by nature, then it must make all people feel happy
all the time because it is the true nature of song.
 Investigation of effect
 If tension is actually caused by low marks, then all Xs who score low marks must be
in tension because tension is the result of low marks by its nature.
 Investigation of nature
 If X is good by nature, then it must be good for all because that which is good by
nature cannot be non-good.
Part 9 – 6th feb
Prasaṅga/Consequentialist Argument

 Investigation of cause
 If song makes people feel happy by nature, then it must make all people feel happy
all the time. Song makes people feel happy by nature. Therefore, song must make all
people feel happy all the time.
 Investigation of effect
 If tension is actually caused by low marks, then all Xs who score low marks must be
in tension. Tension is by its nature caused by low marks. Therefore, all Xs who score
low marks must be in tension.
 Investigation of nature
 If X is good by nature, then it must be good for all. X is good by nature. Therefore, X
must be good for all.

Logical Fallacy
Unsound Reasoning and Argument

 Unestablished reasoning and argument

 Unestablished reasoning: Sound is impermanent because it is visible, e.g., a table.
 Unestablished argument: All visible things are impermanent. Sound is visible.
Therefore, sound is impermanent.
 In these examples of reasoning and argument, the first character of the triple
characteristic mark is not met.

 Uncertain reasoning and argument

 Uncertain reasoning: Sound is impermanent because it is knowable, e.g., a chair.
 Uncertain argument: All knowable objects are impermanent. Sound is knowable.
Therefore, sound is impermanent.
 Uncertain reasoning: X is from Delhi because X is from India, e.g., Y.
 Uncertain argument: Whoever is from India is from Delhi. X is from India. Therefore,
X is from Delhi.

 Contradictory reasoning and argument

 Contradictory reasoning: Sound is permanent because it is produced, e.g., a pot.
 Contradictory argument: All products are permanent. Sound is a product.
Therefore, sound is permanent.
 Contradictory reasoning: It is sunny because it is raining, e.g., yesterday’s rain.
 Contradictory argument: Whenever is raining, it is sunny. It is raining. Therefore, it
is sunny.
 Contradictory reasoning: X is famous because nobody knows X, e.g., Y.
  Contradictory argument: Whoever is not known by anyone is famous. X is not
known by anyone. Therefore, X is famous.

Part 10 – Fallacies of Vagueness pdf

Part 11- 10th feb

Fallacies of vagueness

 Uses of unclarity
 Invalid arguments in everyday life.
 Unclarity due to unclear language and thought.
 Intentional unclarity.
 Obfuscation: use of unclear language to confuse others.
 Is there absolute clarity?
 Clarity of a word or a statement depends on the context in which it occurs.
 Example, the textual standard definition of water is that which is wet and flows.
 If this is the case, all types of liquid would be water, and that is not the case in
everyday convention.

 Vagueness
 The most common form of unclarity.
 Vagueness occurs in a given context if the words are not used clearly enough for the
context.
 Borderline cases.
 The standard example is baldness.
 Borderline cases of “rich”, “healthy”, “tall”, “beautiful”.
 Vagueness depends on context.
 The idea of “good player”.

 Heaps
 Argument from the heap or the sorites argument, “soros” is meant by “heap”.
 Impossibility of producing a heap of sand by adding one grain.
 Can one become rich?
 Someone with only one cent is not rich.
 If someone with only one cent is not rich, then someone with only two cents is not
rich.
 Someone with only two cents is not rich.
 If Someone with only two cents is not rich, then someone with only three cents is not
rich.
 If this is the case, then someone with any number of cents is not rich, but “rich” is not
negated.
 The fuzzy area between rich and poor.
 Slippery slopes
 Slippery-slope argument.
 If this happens, then that would happen.
 Conceptual slippery-slope fallacy
 This fallacy shows the absence of difference between two opposite concepts.
 If one is allowed to lie, then all will lie. Therefore, there will be no difference between
truth and a lie.
 If employees are asked to work on this Sunday, then every Sunday will become
working day, and there will be no difference between holiday and working day.
 If one rupee doesn’t make one rich, then any number of rupees doesn’t make one
rich, and there is no difference between rich and poor.

Part 12- 13th feb

 Fairness slippery-slope fallacy

 Small changes or one step toward fairness must lead to extreme consequences.
 The problem of borderline in fairness.
 Barely passed and barely failed.
 Treating very similar cases in a very strikingly different ways.
 The point is not that there is no difference between passing and failing, the
differences that do exist doesn’t make it fair to treat very differently.
 Gender equality, reservation in education, abortion, death penalty, taxation,
compassionate actions.

 If gender equality is applied in sports, then all sports will be played by all types of
gender, and men’s and women’s sports will be disappeared.
 If students from some social backgrounds are given relaxations, then the entire merit
system will be collapsed eventually.
 If abortion is allowed, then people will abort whenever they want.
 If murderers are punished by death penalty, then other criminals will be executed.
 If rich people are taxed by the government to help the needy people, then the
government will eventually take all wealth from the rich people.
 If a latecomer student is allowed to enter the exam hall, then all other students will
ask for an extra time.

 Causal slippery-slope fallacy

 Once a certain kind of event occurs, other similar events will also occur, and this will
lead eventually to disaster or prosperity.
 Causal slippery-slope can slide into bad results as well as good results.
 If students are allowed to choose their assignment topics, soon they will choose
grades by themselves, and eventually, they will choose questions to be asked in
exams.
 If same sex marriage is allowed, soon people will prefer homosexuality leading to
complete breakdown of the traditional family structure.
  If traffic lights are removed, people will start driving randomly leading to unresolvable
traffic jams.

 If one member in a family becomes kind-hearted, then all other family members will
become compassionate, and that eventually convert the entire community into
compassionate community.
 If one IIT student gets placement in a big company, then all other IIT students will get
good placement and all companies will be run by IITians.
 If some people do not produce smoke in Delhi, then all other people will follow them
making Delhi a pollution free city.
 If many people become honest, then all other people will become honest too, and the
entire world will become a cheating free world.
 If a farmer does organic farming, then all other farmers will follow him, and all people
in the world will enjoy organic food.

Part 13 – Fallacies of Ambiguity pdf

Part 14 – 17th feb

Fallacies of ambiguity

 Ambiguity
 Ambiguity occurs when it is unclear which meaning of a term is intended in a given
context.
 Semantic ambiguity
 Sometimes we do not know which interpretation to give to a phrase or a sentence
because its grammar or syntax admits more than one interpretation.
 Expressions that are misleading or potentially misleading are ambiguous.
 Example, the word “cardinal”.
 “The cardinals are in town.”
 A priest, a bird-watcher, and baseball fan would react the remark differently.

 The priest would prepare for a religious function. The bird-watcher would get out
binoculars. The baseball fan would head for the stadium.
 In this context, the remark might be criticized as ambiguous.
 “X is at the bank.” “X has deposited 500 rupees in the bank.”
 Syntactic ambiguity
 “The conquest of the Persians.”
 Persians' conquering someone or someone’s conquering Persians.
 “Mary had a little lamb.”
 Mary had a little lamb; it followed her to school. Mary had a lamb and then some
broccoli.

 Ambiguity leads to the fallacy of equivocation.

 Fallacy of Equivocation
 Equivocation occurs when the same expression is used in different senses in an
argument.
 Six is an odd number of legs for a horse. Odd numbers cannot be divided by two.
Therefore, six cannot be divided by two.
 If something is desired, then it is desirable. If it is desirable, then it is good.
Therefore, if something is desired, then it is good.
 If something is desired, then it is capable of being desired. If something is capable of
being desired, then it is good. Therefore, if something is desired, then it is good.

 Definitions
 Definitions avoid fallacies of clarity.
 Lexical/Dictionary definitions
 The most common kind of definition.
 The goal of lexical definition is to provide factual information about the standard
meaning of a word.
 Lexical definitions are sometimes circular definitions. “Car” as “automobile” and
“automobile” as “car”.
 Lexical definitions are sometimes incorrect definitions. “Fan” as “a device waved in
the hand or operated mechanically to create a current of air.”

 Disambiguating Definitions
 Disambiguating definitions specify a sense in which a word or phrase is used by a
particular speaker on a particular occasion.
 Disambiguating definitions can be used to removed semantic ambiguity.
 “When I said the banks were collapsing, I meant river banks, not financial
institutions.”
 Disambiguating definitions are also used to remove syntactic ambiguity.
 “When I said that all of my friends are not students, I meant that not all of them are
students, not I meant that none of them are students.”
 Whether the ambiguity is semantic or syntactic, the goal of disambiguating definition
is to capture what the speaker intended rather than what a word means.

 Stipulative Definitions
 Stimulative definitions are used to assign a meaning to a new term or to assign a
new or special meaning to a familiar term.
 “By such expression I mean so”. “Googol” to stand for number 1 followed by 100
zeros.
 Technical terms in different disciplines have stipulative definitions.
 Stipulative definition might go wrong if a stipulative term is used for different
meanings.
 Precising Definition
 Precising definitions are used to draw a sharp boundary around the things to which a
term refers.

 Precising definitions are combinations of dictionary definition and stipulative

definition.
 Example, the precising definition of “city”.
 Systematic or Theoritical Definition
 Systematic definitions are used to give a systematic order or structure to a subject
matter.
 Are definitions always needed? Is definition absolute or conventional?
 When do we require definitions?

homosexuality - 5 points by Burton Leiser

against scientific laws
man-made
Part 15– Fallacies of Relevanc pdf uncommon
purpose of organ
immoral ( bad )