-
In the last lecture. We talked about the
truth functional connective, conjunction.
-
We gave the truth table for conjunction.
And we showed how we could use the truth
-
table for conjunction to figure out which
inferences that use conjunction are valid
-
and which inferences are not. Today, we're
going to talk about the truth functional
-
connective, disjunction. We're going to
give the truth table for dis-junction, and
-
we're going to show how we can use that
truth table to figure out which inferences
-
that use dis-junction are valid and which
are not. Now in English, we usually
-
express disjunction by using the word or
but the word or can be used in a couple
-
different ways in English. For instance,
suppose that Manchester is playing
-
Barcelona tonight and you ask me, who's
going to win? And I say, well, I have no
-
idea who's going to win but I can tell you
this, it's going to be Manchester or
-
Barcelona. Now, what I'm suggesting when I
say, it's going to be Manchester or
-
Barcelona, is that it's not going to be
both. Manchester might win, Barcelona
-
might win. But there's no possible way
that both of them are going to win.
-
Sometimes, in English, when you want to
say that it's going to be one thing or the
-
other, but not both, you say, either or
either Manchester is going to win, or
-
Barcelona is going to win. But sometimes
when we use the word or, we mean it could
-
be one, or the other, or both. So for
instance, suppose you ask me what we
-
should have for dinner tonight and I say
well we could have chicken or fish. Well
-
there's no suggestion that we couldn't
have both maybe we could have a little bit
-
of chicken and a little of fish. So it has
to be chicken or fish or both. When I say
-
chicken or fish, I'm not suggesting it
can't be both. Sometimes in English we use
-
the phrase and, or to express that it
could be one or the other or both. I'll
-
say, we could have the chicken and, or the
fish. The truth functional connective
-
disjunction is expressed by the second
meaning of or. It's expressed by the
-
English phrase and, or where you me an it
could be one or the other or both. That's
-
what we're going to call disjunction in
this class. Now let's look at the truth
-
table for disjunction. So lets look at the
truth table for dis-junction. Suppose
-
you're using disjunction to combine the
propositions We eat chicken and we eat
-
fish into the disjunctive proposition We
eat chicken or fish. Well when is that
-
disjunctive proposition going to be true?
If it's true that we eat chicken, and it's
-
true that we eat fish, then it's going to
be true that we eat chicken or fish cuz
-
remember, when we use or here, we don't
mean either or, but not both. We mean and
-
or. Could be one, could be the other, or
could be both. So if it's true that we eat
-
chicken and it's true that we eat fish,
it's going to be true that we eat chicken
-
or fish. Now supposed it's true that we
eat chicken, but its false that we eat
-
fish. Well. Then, it's still going to be
true that we eat chicken or fish. Suppose
-
it's false that we eat chicken, but true
that we eat fish. Then, it's still going
-
to be true that we eat chicken or fish.
But suppose it's false that we eat chicken
-
and it's also false that we eat fish.
Then, is it going to be true that we eat
-
chicken or fish? No! Because we won't be
eating either. So then it'll be false that
-
we eat chicken or fish. This is the truth
table for disjunction. And, like the truth
-
table that we saw for conjunction, it's
going to work no matter what propositions
-
we put into here, or here, or here. So, no
matter what proposition you have right
-
here, call it P1. And, no matter what
proposition you have right here, call it
-
P2. When you use the truth functional
connective disjunction. To create a new
-
proposition out of those two
proposition's, so you got a new
-
proposition P one or P two. That new
disjunctive proposition is going to be
-
true. Whenever P1 is true, and it's also
going to be true whenever P2 is true. So
-
unlike conjunction. Where you need both of
the two ingredient propositions to be true
-
in order for the conjunctive proposition
to be true. In disjunc tion, you only need
-
for one of the of the two ingredient
propositions to be true in order for the
-
disjunctive proposition to be true. The
disjunctive proposition is false only
-
when. Both of the two ingredient
propositions are false. That's the only
-
time a disjunction is false. So now, let
me give you an example, of how you can use
-
the truth table for disjunction. Just show
that a particular kind of argument is
-
valid. We're going to discuss, a kind of
argument that is sometimes known. As
-
process of elimination. Here's how it
goes. Suppose, that you have to solve. A
-
murder mystery. Mister Jones, has been
stabbed in his living room. With a knife
-
in the back. Now, you figured out that
there were only two people in the house at
-
the time of his stabbing, the butler and
the accountant. You also know that the
-
knife is positioned in Mr. Johnson's back
in such a way that he couldn't possibly
-
have stabbed himself. So it had to be
someone else. And whoever else it was it
-
had to be someone who's in the house at
the time of the stabbing. So it could only
-
have been, the butler or the accountant,
or maybe both. So you know that the butler
-
did it, or the accountant did it. Now you
find out that the accountant is a
-
quadriplegic, so the accountant couldn't
have stabbed Mr. Jones in the back. So now
-
you know that the account didn't do it.
And so, from the two premises, the butler
-
did it, or the accountant did it. And the
accountant didn't do it. You can conclude,
-
the butler did it. Now, why is that
argument valid? Here's why. Think about
-
the truth table for disjunction again. So
remember the first premise, the butler did
-
it or the accountant did it is a
disjunction. It's going to be true
-
whenever one of it's disjuncts is true,
one of it's ingredient propositions is
-
true. So it's going to be true whenever
the butler did it, and it's going to be
-
true whenever the butler did it. The
second premise tells you that the
-
accountant didn't do it. So the only way
for the first premise to be true, given
-
that the accountant didn't do it, is fo r
the butler to have done it. And so you
-
know, since the accountant couldn't have
done it. That the only way for the
-
dis-junction, the butler did it or the
accountant did it to be true, is for the
-
butler to have done it and that's why you
can conclude the butler did it and your
-
argument is valid. That's one example of a
process of elimination argument. Of course
-
there are lots of others, but with all of
those others you can see why they are
-
valid by looking at the truth table for
dis-junction. Remember how you can use the
-
truth functional connective conjunction to
build a new proposition out of not just
-
two other propositions but sometimes three
other propositions. You can conjoin one
-
proposition with a second and with a
third. Well, you can do the same thing
-
with disjunction. You can disjoin one
proposition with a second and a third, to
-
create the proposition. Either this, or
that or the other or any combination of
-
the three. What does the truth table for
that look like? Here it is. The
-
disjunctive proposition, P1 or P2 or P3,
is going to be true. Whenever P1 is true,
-
it's also going to be true whenever P2 is
true. And it's also going to be true
-
whenever P3 is true. In fact, the only
time that P1 or P2 or P3, the only time
-
that, that disjunctive proposition is
going to be false is when all these
-
ingredient propositions are false. So
here's what the truth table for P1, or P2,
-
or P3 looks. Now let's use the truth table
for our triple disjunction to show how a
-
particular process of elimination argument
can be valid. Let's go back to our murder
-
mystery in order to do that. Now suppose
that you find out contrary to what you had
-
previously believed, that Butler and the
accountant were not the only people in the
-
house, at the time of Mr. Jonathan's
death. In addition, the maid was in the
-
house and the cook was in the house.
Alright. Well, now, you know, that the
-
butler or the maid or the cook did it. We
don't yet know which of them did it, but
-
we know that the butler or the maid or the
cook did it. Now suppose that yo u find
-
out that the maid and the cook, at the
time of the stabbing we're off in the
-
opposite corner of the house doing
something else together. Well now you
-
know, that the maid didn't do it. And you
know that the cook didn't do it. So what
-
can you conclude from those three
premises? Premise one, the butler or the
-
maid or the cook did it. Premise two, the
maid didn't do it. And premise three: the
-
cook didn't do it. Well, lets use the
truth table to figure this out. Premise
-
one of the truth table tells you that the
butler or the maid or the cook did it. So
-
the situation in which it falls that the
butler or the maid or the cook did it that
-
situation is ruled out by premise one. So
premise one tells you at that situation is
-
not the actual situation. Premise two
tells you that the maid did not do it. So
-
any situation in which its true that the
maid did it is also not the actual
-
situation. So this situation is one in
which its true that the maid did it so
-
that's not the actual situation according
to premise two. This situation is one in
-
which its true that the maid did it. So
that's not the actual situation according
-
to premise two. This situation is one in
which its true that the maid did it. So
-
that's not the actual situation according
to premise two, and this situation is one
-
in which it is true that the maid did it.
So that's not the actual situation
-
according to premise two. Premise three
tells you that the cook didn't do it. So,
-
that rules out any situation in which it's
true that the cook did it. Well, here's a
-
situation in which it's true that the cook
did it. So, that situation is ruled out by
-
premise three. And, here's a situation in
which it's true that the cook did it. So,
-
that situation is ruled out by premise
three. So, premise one rules out this
-
situation. Premise two, rules out this,
this, this and this situation. And premise
-
three, rules out this, this, this and this
situation. Well, whats left? The only
-
situation left that could be the actual
situation is this one. See cause in this
-
situation, it's t rue that the butler or
the maid or the cook did it just as
-
premise one tells us. Its false that the
maid did just as premise two tells us, and
-
its false that the cook did just as
premise three tells us. But, that's the
-
situation in which it's true that the
butler did it. So, the conclusion that we
-
can draw, based on the situations that are
ruled out by premises one, two, and three,
-
is that the actual situation is this one,
and in that actual situation, it's true
-
that the butler did it. So, the butler did
it That's why the process of elimination
-
reasoning that we just considered is
valid. If premise one says, the butler or
-
the maid or the cook did it. Premise two
says the maid didn't do it, and premise
-
three says that the cook didn't do it.
Then by process of elimination we can draw
-
the valid conclusion that the butler did
it and this is why. Let me give you
-
another example of how you can use the
truth table for disjunction in order to
-
show whether or not the process of
elimination argument is valid. Suppose we
-
know that Walter is a professional
football player. Well, that means that he
-
plays either American football, U.S.
Football, or European football, which
-
Americans call soccer, or Australian rules
football. But now suppose we find out that
-
Walter does not play American football.
And you conclude from that, that he must
-
play European football. So you argue as
follows. Premise 1- Walter plays either
-
American football or European football or
Australian Rules football, premise 2- he
-
does not play American football and
therefore you conclude he plays European
-
football. Well, that argument is invalid
and we can use the truth table for
-
disjunction to show why it's invalid. Look
at this truth table. Premise one, recall,
-
is that Walter plays American or European
or Australian rules football. So premise
-
one rules out the situation in which it's
false that Walter plays American or
-
European or Australian rules football. And
that's all it rules out. It just rules out
-
the situation in which it's false that
Walter plays an y of those. Premise two,
-
Walter doesn't play American Football.
That rules out the situation in which it's
-
true that Walter plays American football.
So it rules out this situation. And rules
-
out this situation. And it rules out this
situation. And it rules out this
-
situation. So, premise one rules out the
situation represented at the bottom.
-
Premise two rules out the situations
represented by these four columns at the
-
top. So, can we conclude that Walter plays
European football? No. He might play
-
European football but he might also play
Australian Rules football. He's looked all
-
the premise one and premise two together
rule out is these five situations. But
-
there is no three situations that are
possible. In one of them Walter plays both
-
European football and Australian rules
football. In another one of them, Walter
-
plays European football, but not
Australian rules football, and in the
-
third situation, this left open by
premises one and two, it's false that
-
Walter plays European football but true
that he plays Australian rules football.
-
So based on the information that premises
one and two give us, we cannot conclude
-
that Walter plays European football. He
might play Australian rules football
-
instead. So the argument that you made is
invalid. In the next lecture, we're going
-
to consider a truth functional connective
that's different from conjunction and
-
disjunction in the following way. While
conjunction and disjunction are
-
connectives that can be used to build
propositions out of two or more other
-
propositions. Negation, the connective
that we'll talk about next time, is the
-
connective that is used to build new
propositions out of just one single other
-
proposition. Negation, in other words, is
a connective that you apply to one
-
proposition to build a second proposition.
And that's what we'll talk about next
-
time. Now, there's some exercise's for you
to do. These exercises test your
-
understanding of the truth table for
disjunction and of how the truth table for
-
dis-junction can be used to determine
whether a part icular argument that uses
-
disjunction is a valid argument or not.