The Watch and the Watchmaker ATTACHED
Post to Week 4 – Discussion 1 a critique of an topic set in “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and “A Nicety of the Teleological Topic”.. Your nicety should vindication that the topic you’re criticizing either (i) has a sophistical announce or (ii) is feeble. If it has a sophistical announce, erect a deductively substantial topic in which the misentry entails the mock of the announce you’re arguing across. If it is feeble, erect a counter-case.
A counter-case is an topic with the similar frame as the topic you’re criticizing not attributable attributablewithstanding in which the announces are distinctly gentleman and the misentry is distinctly sophistical. The topic on the correct is a counter-case of the topic on the left—it shows that the frame of topic used on the left is not attributable attributable attributable such that the fact of the misentry follows with want from the fact of the announces.
Whole senators are citizens
Some citizens are from Ohio
Therefore: some senators are from Ohio
Whole cats are mammals
Some mammals are dogs
Therefore: some dogs are cats
These topics have the similar frame in that the logic of each topic turns on the kinsfolk indicated betwixt the provisions “all”, “some”, and “are”. Not attributable attributableice that you can substitute whole other provisions in each topic, and they procure contemplate the similar:
Whole S are C
Some C are O
Therefore: some S are O