-
In the last lecture I explained what
propositional connectives are, I described
-
a particular category of propositional
connectives that we called truth
-
functional connectives, and I gave you an
example of one truth functional
-
connective. And, another word, and in
English isn't always used to mean a truth
-
functional connective, but sometimes it
is. And one thing I'd like to point out
-
right now, is that there are other words
in English that can be used to indicate
-
the very same truth functional connective
that the word and is used to indicate. For
-
instance, think about the English words
also, moreover, furthermore, and but. Now,
-
you might think the word and, and the word
but" mean two very different things. If I
-
say Walter is poor and happy, that seems
to mean something very different from
-
Walter is poor but happy. In particular,
when I say Walter is poor but happy, I'm
-
suggesting that there is contrast between
his poverty and his happiness. But when I
-
say Walter is poor and happy, I'm not
suggesting any such contrast. Still,
-
whatever contrast there might be between
his poverty and his happiness doesn't
-
effect the truth table for the truth
functional connective but. Let's consider
-
when it would be true to say Walter is
poor but happy. To show you what I mean,
-
about the words" but and, and," let's go
back to the truth table for the truth
-
functional connective and. So remember, if
you have two propositions, p1 and p2, and
-
you use the truth functional connective
and to put them together to make another
-
proposition, the proposition p1 and p2.
And now you wanna know when is that new
-
proposition, the proposition p1 and p2,
when is that going to be true? Well, the
-
answer is it's going to be true only when
p1 is true and p2 is true. In any other
-
scenario, the proposition p1 and p2 is
gonna be false. Let's take an example so I
-
can illustrate. Let's suppose, for p1 we
use the proposition Walter is poor, and
-
for p2 we use the proposition Walter is
happy, then we use the truth functional
-
connective, and, to put those put two
propositions together into a new
-
proposition and the new proposition is
gonna be Walter is poor and happy. Okay.
-
Now, when it going to be true that Walter
is poor and happy? Well, if it's true that
-
Walter is poor and it's also true that
Walter is happy then its going to be true
-
that Walter is poor and happy. But, if
it's false that Walter is poor, then it is
-
not going to be true that Walter is poor
and happy. And if it's false that Walter
-
is happy, then it's not going to be true
that Walter is poor and happy. So the
-
proposition Walter is poor and happy is
gonna be true, only when Walter is poor is
-
true and Walter is happy is true. In any
other possible scenario, the proposition
-
Walter is poor and happy will end up being
false. So, lets compare that to the
-
proposition that we get by combining
Walter is poor and Walter is happy with
-
the connective, but, Walter is poor but
happy. Now, when is it gonna be true to
-
say Walter is poor but happy? Well, it's
not gonna be true to say Walter is poor
-
but happy in any situation where it's
false that Walter is poor. Right? If it's
-
false that Walter is poor, then it's also
gonna be false that Walter is poor but
-
happy. It's also not gonna be true to say
Walter is poor but happy in any situation
-
where it's false that Walter is happy. If
it's false that Walter is happy, then it's
-
gonna be false that Walter is poor but
happy. So when is it going to be true that
-
Walter is poor but happy? The only
possible situation where it could be true
-
is the situation where it's true that
Walter is poor and it's also true that
-
Walter is happy. Now, you might think,
wait a second. When I say Walter is poor
-
but happy, I'm saying more than just that
Walter is poor and that Walter is happy.
-
I'm also suggesting a contrast between his
poverty and his happines. And maybe that
-
suggestion is misleading, maybe poor
people are often happy. But notice, what
-
you say can be misleading even if it's
true. For example, suppose someone comes
-
up to me with a car that's sputtering.
They might say, do you know where there's
-
a gas station around here? I need to fill
up this car with gas. And I might say,
-
there's a gas station just around the
corner. Now, what I say might be true,
-
there might really be a gas station just
around the corner even if I know that,
-
that gas station has been closed for three
years and has no gas. So, what I say is
-
misleading because I've lead them to
believe falsely, that they can get gas if
-
they can just get their car around the
corner. But even though what I've said is
-
misleading, it's still true because there
is a gas station around the corner, only a
-
closed one. So what you say can be true
but misleading and I suggest that when you
-
say Walter is poor but happy. That can be
true even if it's misleading to suggest
-
that poverty and happiness are somehow at
odds with each other. I've just said that
-
the word but in English can be used to
indicate the same truth functional
-
connective that the word and is sometimes
used to indicate. And there are other
-
words in English that can be used to
indicate that same truth functional
-
connective, also, furthermore, moreover,
and sometimes we even use the word too,
-
too. But now I wanna introduce a term
that's going to describe that truth
-
functional connective no matter what word
in ordinary language we use to indicate
-
that connective. The term is conjunction.
And the term conjunction, as I'm using it
-
here and as philosophers use it, is not
the same term that grammarians use when
-
they talk about conjunctive terms like
but, or, and, therefore. Here's something
-
that could help you understand what
conjunctions in the grammarian sense are
-
like. All of those terms are conjunctions
in the grammarian sense, but they're not
-
conjunctions in the philosopher's sense. A
conjunction in the philosopher's sense is
-
just the truth functional connective that
has this particular truth table. You can
-
use the conjunction to create a new
proposition out of joining two other
-
propositions and that new proposition that
you create using conjunction is gonna be
-
true, only when the other two propositions
are true. In any other case, the new
-
proposition is going to be false, that's
what a conjunction is. And we can use the
-
symbol ampersand, like that, in order to
signify conjunction. Now that we know the
-
truth table for the conjunction, let's
consider how we can use that truth table
-
to figure out when an argument that uses
conjunction is valid. Consider the
-
argument Walter is poor but happy,
therefore, Walter is happy. Is that
-
argument valid or invalid? Well, pretty
obviously, that argument is valid. There's
-
no possible way for the premise to be true
while the conclusion is false. But, can
-
you see why the argument is valid using
the truth table for conjunction? You
-
should be able to in a situation in which
the premise is true, Walter is poor but
-
happy, there are gonna have to be two
other propositions that are true, namely
-
Walter is poor and Walter is happy. So, if
its true that Walter is true but happy,
-
then its gonna have to be true that Walter
is happy and that's why the argument is
-
valid. That's why there is no possible way
for the premise to be true while the
-
conclusion is false. Let's consider some
other arguments that involve conjunction.
-
Consider the argument Walter is poor,
walter is happy, therefore, Walter is poor
-
and happy. Is that argument valid? Clearly
it is. And again, you can use the truth
-
table for conjunctions to see why it's
valid. In a situation where the first
-
premise Walter is poor is true, and in
which the second premise Walter is happy
-
is true. In that situation, the conclusion
Walter is poor and happy, is gonna have to
-
be true. So there's no possible way for
the premises of that argument to both be
-
true while the conclusion is false and so
that argument is also valid. Now notice,
-
just as we can combine two propositions
with each other using conjunction, we can
-
then also combine the resulting
proposition with another proposition using
-
conjunction. So, consider the proposition
Walter is poor but happy and popular. That
-
proposition uses two conjunctions to
combine three other propositions into a
-
single conjunctive proposition. To
understand how that works, let's look at
-
the truth table for that. So when is it
going to be true that Walter is poor but
-
happy and popular? When is that going to
be true? Well, if it's false that Walter
-
is poor, then it's definitely not going to
be true that Walter is poor but happy and
-
popular. So in all of these situations
right down here, walter is poor but happy
-
and popular, is gonna to be false. If it's
false that Walter is happy, then it's
-
definitely not going to be true that
Walter is poor but happy and popular, cuz
-
he's not gonna be happy. So, in these
situations right here where it's false
-
that Walter is happy, it's also gonna be
false that Walter is poor but happy and
-
popular. And if it's false that Walter is
popular, then of course, it's also gonna
-
be false that Walter is poor but happy and
popular. So, in this situation right here,
-
it'll be false that Walter is poor but
happy and popular. So, is it ever gonna be
-
true that Walter is poor but happy and
popular? Yes. It'll be true just when it's
-
true that Walter is poor, it's true that
Walter is happy, and it's true that Walter
-
is popular. That's the only situation when
it's gonna be true that Walter is poor but
-
happy and popular. In general, this is the
kind of truth table that we get when we
-
combine three propositions using
conjunction. So now, considered how we can
-
use the truth table for conjunctions of
three propositions to figure out whether
-
certain deductive arguments are valid or
not. So consider the following deductive
-
argument. From the premises Paris is the
capital of France, Jakarta is the capital
-
of Indonesia, and Washington DC is the
capital of the United States. Let's
-
conclude Paris is the capital of France,
and Jakarta is the capital of Indonesia,
-
and Washington D.C. is the capitol of the
United States. Valid or not? Well,
-
clearly, that argument is valid and the
truth table shows us why. The conclusion
-
Paris is the capital of France, and
Jakarta is the capital of Indonesia, and
-
Wash ington D.C. is the capital of the
United States is true just when it's true
-
that Paris is the capital of France, and
it's also true that Jakarta is the capital
-
of Indonesia, and it's also true that
Washington D.C. is the capital of the
-
United States. So whenever the premises
are true, the conclusion is also true, and
-
that's why that argument is valid. The
truth table explains why the argument is
-
valid. Now consider a different one. From
the premise Mick Jagger is a singer, a
-
man, and a septuagenarian. We could draw
the conclusion Mick Jagger is a
-
septuagenarian. Now is that argument
valid? Yes, it is and the truth table for
-
conjunction explains why it's valid. Think
about the situation in which it's true
-
that Mick Jagger is a man, a singer, and a
septuagenarian. The only situation in
-
which that's true is the situation in
which it's true that Mick Jagger is a man,
-
it's true that Mick Jagger is a singer,
and it's true that Mick Jagger is a
-
septuagenarian. But that means that if the
premises is true, then the conclusion has
-
got to be true. The premise is only true
in a situation in which the conclusion is
-
true and so that argument has got to be
valid and the truth table for conjunction
-
explains why. I have said that conjunction
can be used to connect two other
-
propositions into a new proposition. And
conjunction can also be used to connect
-
three other propositions into a new
proposition. But there's no limit to the
-
number of propositions that can be
connected using the truth functional
-
connective conjunction, or as we could
say, there's no limit to the number of
-
propositions that can be conjoined. You
can conjoin four propositions, five
-
propositions, or however many you like,
and notice that there's a pattern to the
-
truth tables for all of these
conjunctions. In every case, the conjoined
-
proposition is gonna be true only when all
of the propositions that are conjoined in
-
it are true. Now, I'ld like you to take
several minutes and look at the following
-
truth tables, and identify which of these
truth tables are truth tables for
-
conjunction and which of them are not.
Well, that's it for our discussion of
-
conjunction and reasoning with
conjunctions. In the next lecture we'll
-
introduce the topic of disjunction and
reasoning with disjunctions. See you next