COLLEGE OF NURSING
Lesson 5: Theories of Knowledge and Criteria of Truth
Theories of Knowledge
Theories of knowledge, also known as epistemological
theories, seek to understand the nature, scope, and limits of
knowledge. Here are some prominent theories of knowledge:
1. Empiricism:
 Empiricism asserts that knowledge originates
from sensory experience and observation.
According to this theory, all knowledge is
derived from sensory perceptions and
empirical evidence.
 Empiricists argue that our senses provide the
foundation for acquiring knowledge about the
world, and that experience is the primary
source of justification for beliefs.
 Key proponents: John Locke, George
Berkeley, David Hume.
2. Rationalism:
 Rationalism holds that reason and rationality
are the primary sources of knowledge.
According to this theory, certain truths can be
known independently of sensory experience
through innate ideas or logical reasoning.
 Rationalists believe that knowledge is based
on innate concepts or principles that are
grasped through the intellect, rather than
through sensory perception alone.
 Key proponents: René Descartes, Baruch
Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
3. Empirical Rationalism (Critical Rationalism):
 Empirical rationalism synthesizes elements of
empiricism and rationalism. It acknowledges
the importance of empirical evidence in
acquiring knowledge, while also recognizing
the role of reason and critical thinking in
evaluating and refining beliefs.
 This theory emphasizes the iterative process
of conjecture and refutation, where hypotheses
are proposed and subjected to empirical
testing and criticism.
 Key proponent: Karl Popper.
4. Skepticism:
 Skepticism calls into question the possibility
of attaining knowledge with certainty.
Skeptics argue that knowledge claims are
inherently uncertain and subject to doubt.
 Philosophical skepticism challenges the
reliability of our senses, the validity of logical
reasoning, and the possibility of objective
truth.
 Key proponents: Pyrrho of Elis, Sextus
Empiricus, David Hume (in his empirical
skepticism).
5. Coherentism:
 Coherentism proposes that knowledge consists
of a coherent system of beliefs that mutually
support and reinforce each other. According to
this theory, beliefs are justified by their
coherence within a larger network of beliefs.
 Coherentists reject the idea of foundational
beliefs and argue that justification is derived
from the internal consistency and coherence of
one's beliefs.
 Key proponents: Wilfrid Sellars, Laurence
BonJour.
6. Foundationalism:
 Foundationalism posits that knowledge is built
upon a foundation of basic, self-evident
beliefs or truths. These foundational beliefs
serve as the starting point for acquiring and
justifying other beliefs.
 Foundationalists argue that certain beliefs are
properly basic and do not require further
justification, providing a secure epistemic
foundation for knowledge.
 Key proponents: Aristotle, Descartes, Alvin
Plantinga.
These theories offer different perspectives on how
knowledge is acquired, justified, and evaluated, reflecting
diverse approaches to understanding the nature of human
cognition and the pursuit of truth.
Criteria of Truth
The criteria of truth are philosophical frameworks or
theories that seek to define what makes a statement or belief
true. Here are three prominent theories of truth:
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
a. Correspondence Theory:
 According to the correspondence theory of truth, a
statement is considered true if it corresponds to or
accurately represents facts or reality. In other words,
truth is a matter of correspondence between statements
and the world.
 This theory suggests that truth is objective and
independent of human beliefs or perceptions. A
statement is true if it accurately reflects the way things
are in the world.
 Example: If I say "The sky is blue," this statement is
true if, in fact, the sky is indeed blue.
b. Pragmatic Theory:
 The pragmatic theory of truth emphasizes the practical
consequences or utility of beliefs. According to this
theory, a statement is considered true if it is useful or
effective in achieving practical goals or solving
problems.
 Truth is determined by its practical implications or
consequences rather than its correspondence with
objective reality. Thus, truth is seen as relative to
human interests and purposes.
 Example: A belief in the efficacy of a medical
treatment may be considered true if it leads to
improved health outcomes, regardless of whether the
treatment corresponds to an objective reality.
c. Coherence Theory:
 The coherence theory of truth posits that truth is a
matter of internal consistency and coherence within a
system of beliefs or propositions. A statement is
considered true if it coheres or fits logically with other
statements within a coherent system.
 Truth is determined by the logical relationships and
consistency among beliefs rather than their
correspondence with reality. In this view, truth is a
holistic property of belief systems.
 Example: In a legal case, multiple eyewitness
testimonies that corroborate each other and are
consistent with other evidence may collectively support
a coherent and therefore true narrative of events.
Each of these theories offers a distinct perspective on truth,
highlighting different aspects of the nature of truth and how it
can be understood or evaluated. Depending on the context and
the nature of the statement or belief in question, one or more of
these theories may be employed to assess its truthfulness.
Lesson 7: Symbolic Logic
1. Conjunction ( ∧ ):
 The symbol for conjunction, often referred
to as "and," represents the logical
operation of combining two statements
where both must be true for the
conjunction to be true.
 Example: If P represents the statement "It
is raining," and Q represents the
statement "The ground is wet," then the
conjunction P∧Q represents "It is raining
and the ground is wet."
2. Negation ( ¬ ):
 The symbol for negation, also known as
"not," is used to represent the logical
operation of negating or denying a
statement.
 Example: If P represents the statement "It
is raining," then the negation ¬P
represents "It is not raining" or "It is false
that it is raining."
3. Disjunction ( ∨ ):
 The symbol for disjunction, often referred
to as "or," represents the logical operation
of combining two statements where at
least one must be true for the disjunction
to be true.
 Example: If P represents the statement "It
is raining," and Q represents the
statement "It is snowing," then the
disjunction P∨Q represents "It is raining or
it is snowing."
Conditional statements and material implication
1. Conditional Statements:
 A conditional statement is a logical
statement that asserts a relationship
between two propositions, typically in the
form "if P, then Q."
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
 In a conditional statement P→Q, P is
called the antecedent or hypothesis, and
Q is called the consequent or conclusion.
 The conditional statement →P→Q asserts
that if P is true, then Q must also be true;
however, if P is false, no claim is made
about the truth value of Q.
 Example: If P represents "It is raining," and
Q represents "The ground is wet," then
the conditional statement P→Q can be
interpreted as "If it is raining, then the
ground is wet."
2. Material Implication:
 Material implication is a logical operation
that defines the truth-functional
relationship between the antecedent and
consequent of a conditional statement.
 According to material implication, a
conditional statement P→Q is false only
when the antecedent P is true and the
consequent Q is false; otherwise, it is true.
 Material implication captures the truth-
functional aspect of conditionals and is
used extensively in symbolic logic to
express logical relationships.
Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy
Argument forms and refutation by logical analogy are
important concepts in the study of logic, particularly in
analyzing deductive arguments. Here's an overview of
each:
1. Argument Forms:
 Argument forms refer to the general
structure or pattern of deductive
arguments. They outline the logical
relationships between premises and
conclusions, regardless of the specific
content of the propositions involved.
 Common argument forms include modus
ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical
syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, and
others.
 Understanding argument forms allows for
the recognition of valid deductive
reasoning patterns, which is essential for
evaluating the validity of arguments.
2. Refutation by Logical Analogy:
 Refutation by logical analogy is a method
used to demonstrate the invalidity of an
argument by comparing its form to a
known invalid argument form.
 In this method, if an argument has the
same form as a known invalid argument, it
can be refuted by analogy, even if its
premises are true.
 For example, if an argument follows the
form of affirming the consequent (a
known invalid argument form), it can be
refuted by demonstrating the invalidity of
the affirming the consequent pattern,
regardless of the truth or falsity of its
premises.
 Refutation by logical analogy is a powerful
tool for identifying flawed reasoning and
invalid argument structures.
Precise Meaning of "Valid" and "Invalid"
In logic, particularly in deductive reasoning, the terms
"valid" and "invalid" are used to evaluate the logical
structure of arguments. Here's a precise meaning of each:
1. Valid:
 An argument is considered valid if its
conclusion logically follows from its
premises. In other words, the conclusion
must be true whenever the premises are
true.
 Validity is concerned with the logical
relationship between the premises and
the conclusion, rather than the actual
truth of the premises or conclusion.
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
 Even if the premises of a valid argument
are false, the conclusion must still be true
if the argument is valid.
 Validity can be thought of as a measure of
the argument's form or structure. If the
argument follows a valid logical pattern, it
3.
is considered valid.
2. Invalid:
 An argument is considered invalid if its
conclusion does not logically follow from
its premises. In other words, there is at
least one way for the premises to be true
while the conclusion is false.
4.
 Invalidity indicates a flaw in the logical
structure of the argument, such that even
if the premises are true, the conclusion
may still be false.
 An invalid argument does not necessarily
mean that the conclusion is false; it simply
means that the conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the premises.
5.
 Invalidity can arise from logical fallacies,
errors in reasoning, or incorrect argument
forms.
Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables
Testing argument validity on truth tables is a method used
in symbolic logic to determine whether an argument is
logically valid. Here's how it works:
1. Constructing Truth Tables:
 A truth table is a systematic way to
enumerate all possible truth values for the
propositions (or variables) involved in an
argument.
 Each row of the truth table represents a
different combination of truth values for
the propositions, starting from all
propositions being true (T) to all
propositions being false (F).
2. Assigning Truth Values:
 Assign truth values (T or F) to each
proposition in the argument, considering
all possible combinations of truth values.
 Include columns for each premise and the
conclusion of the argument.
Evaluating the Argument:
 Calculate the truth value of each premise
and the conclusion based on the assigned
truth values for the propositions.
 Check whether the conclusion is true
whenever all premises are true in each row
of the truth table.
Determining Validity:
 If the conclusion is true in every row
where all premises are true, the argument
is considered valid.
 If there is at least one row where all
premises are true but the conclusion is
false, the argument is invalid.
Example:
 Suppose we have the argument:
 Premise 1: P∧Q
 Premise 2: Q→R
 Conclusion: P→R
 Construct a truth table with columns for P,
Q, R, Premise 1, Premise 2, and
Conclusion.
 Assign truth values to P, Q, and R (T and F)
and calculate the truth values for Premise
1, Premise 2, and Conclusion based on the
given propositions.
 Check if the Conclusion is true whenever
both premises are true in each row of the
truth table.
 If the Conclusion is true in every row
where both premises are true, the
argument is valid; otherwise, it is invalid.
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
Some Common Argument Form
Common argument forms in logic represent patterns of
reasoning that frequently appear in deductive arguments.
Here are some of the most common ones:
1. Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent):
 If P→Q is true and P is true, then Q must
be true.
 Example: If it is raining (P implies Q: If it is
raining, then the ground is wet) and it is
indeed raining (P: It is raining), then the
ground is wet (Q: The ground is wet).
2. Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent):
 If P→Q is true and Q is false, then P must
be false.
 Example: If it is raining (P implies Q: If it is
raining, then the ground is wet) and the
ground is not wet (¬Q: The ground is not
wet), then it is not raining (¬P: It is not
raining).
3. Hypothetical Syllogism:
 If P→Q and Q→R are true, then P→R must
also be true.
 Example: If it is raining (P implies Q: If it is
raining, then the ground is wet) and if the
ground is wet (Q implies R: If the ground
is wet, then the grass will grow), then it is
raining, the grass will grow (P implies R: If
it is raining, then the grass will grow).
4. Disjunctive Syllogism:
 If P∨Q is true and one of the disjuncts is
false, then the other must be true.
 Example: Either it is raining or it is
snowing (P or Q: It is raining or it is
snowing). If it is not raining (¬P: It is not
raining), then it must be snowing (Q: It is
snowing).
5. Constructive Dilemma:
 If (P→Q)∧(R→S) are true and either P or R
is true, then either Q or S must be true.
 Example: If it is raining, then the ground is
wet (P implies Q: If it is raining, then the
ground is wet) and if it is sunny, then the
flowers bloom (R implies S: If it is sunny,
then the flowers bloom). If it is raining (P:
It is raining) or it is sunny (R: It is sunny),
then either the ground is wet or the
flowers bloom (Q or S: The ground is wet
or the flowers bloom).
Statement Forms and Material Equivalence
In logic, statement forms and material equivalence
are essential concepts for understanding logical
relationships between propositions. Let's explore each of
them:
1. Statement Forms:
 A statement form is a template or pattern
that represents a class of statements or
propositions with variables instead of
specific propositions.
 Statement forms abstract away from the
content of propositions, focusing solely
on their logical structure or form.
 Example: The statement form "P ∧ Q"
represents the conjunction of two
propositions, where "P" and "Q" can be
replaced by any specific propositions. For
instance, "It is raining ∧ It is windy" is an
instantiation of the statement form "P ∧
Q."
2. Material Equivalence:
 Material equivalence is a logical
relationship between two propositions,
indicating that they have the same truth
value in all possible scenarios.
 Two propositions P and Q are materially
equivalent if they have the same truth
values in all rows of their truth tables.
 COLLEGE OF NURSING
 Material equivalence is denoted by the  Example: "The sky is blue" is identical with
symbol "⇔" (double arrow) and is read as itself, so the statement "The sky is blue" is
"if and only if" or "is equivalent to." true.

 Example: Propositions P and Q are 2. Law of Non-Contradiction:

materially equivalent if the truth table for
 This law states that contradictory
P is identical to the truth table for Q. For
statements cannot both be true at the
instance, "It is raining" and "The ground is
same time and in the same sense.
wet" are materially equivalent if they are
Symbolically, it can be expressed as
always true or always false together,
¬(A∧¬A).
meaning that whenever one is true, the
other is true, and whenever one is false,  Example: "The sky is blue" and "The sky is
the other is false. not blue" cannot both be true at the same
time and in the same sense.
3. Example:
3. Law of Excluded Middle:
 Consider the statement forms "P → Q" (if
P, then Q) and "¬Q → ¬P" (if not Q, then  This law states that for any proposition,
not P). either it is true or its negation is true.
Symbolically, it can be expressed as A∨¬A.
 These statement forms are materially
equivalent, meaning they have the same  Example: For the statement "It is raining,"
truth values in all possible scenarios. either "It is raining" is true, or "It is not
raining" is true.
 This equivalence is known as the
contrapositive property, which states that
a conditional statement and its
contrapositive have the same truth value.

 Example: If "If it is raining, then the

ground is wet" is true, then "If the ground
is not wet, then it is not raining" is also
true, and vice versa.

Understanding statement forms and material

equivalence is crucial for analyzing logical relationships
between propositions and constructing valid arguments in
logic. These concepts provide tools for abstracting away
from specific content and focusing on the logical structure
of propositions.

Three Laws of Thought

1. Law of Identity:

 This law states that each thing is identical

with itself. In other words, if a statement is
true, then it is true. Symbolically, it can be
expressed as A=A.