PHI-103 Quiz 1 Study Guide

cogito ergo sum

"I think; therefore, I am." - Rene Descartes Descartes found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place

Aristotle

- Advocated an epistemology that emphasized the significance of a posteriori knowledge of the world - Empiricism - Knowledge of the world acquired through sense experience - student of Plato

genetic fallacy

- Arguing against position because its origins are suspect, or how a person came to hold a belief - Discredits the sources or origin of an argument instead of the argument itself

fallacy of composition

- Erroneous inference from the part to the whole Ex. assuming a sports team is skilled because its individual players are skilled

Law of identity

- Every proposition is identical to itself Example: if it is true that God exists, then it is true that God does exist. Water is H2O

Requirements for a "sound" or "good" deductive argument

- It is formally and informally valid - It has true premises - A good argument must be formally valid - it leads us to a sound conclusion which means it is true/valid

Jesus the Logician

- Jesus' aim in utilizing logic is not to win battles, but to achieve understanding or insight in his hearers. - This understanding comes only from the inside, from the understanding one already has

Branches of philosophy

- Logic (think or argue) - Metaphysics (existence) - Epistemology (knowledge) - Ethics (actions/right from wrong) - Politics (force/government form) - Aesthetics (art/beauty) - Philosophy of time, science, mathematics, mind, language, death, history, religion

Empiricism

- Most (if not all) knowledge is based on experiences and senses - The world itself orders minds and cognitive perceptions rather than innately order cognitive process - Virtually indubitable/indisputable knowledge could be attained through analysis of the data or facts of this world - Truth is obtained by the examination of the world - Follows method of natural sciences - Aristotle, Locke, Bacon, Newton, Hume, Berkeley

Law of non-contradiction

- No proposition can be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense Example: Martin Luther King Jr. cannot be both MLK and non-MLK at the same time in the same sense

Advantages of appealing to reason on important issues

- Philosopher tries to articulate and sharpen our ordinary beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions about the world, and through reason tries to see what those beliefs presuppose, how they are logically tied together, what they logically lead to - Important part of everyday life

Rationalism

- Reason alone is sufficient knowing/discerning everything about the world/life - Math as the ideal of intellectual inquiry - Don't need a reason to prove these beliefs - Plato, Descartes, Augustine, Leibniz

"The Unexamined Life"

- Socrates - uttered this statement during his trial for corrupting the youth and impiety. - Only in striving to come to know ourselves and to understand ourselves do our lives have any meaning or value.

Alternatives: Coherentism

- The central thesis of coherentism assumes that all beliefs representing knowledge are part of an interconnecting system - Illustrated by Otto Neurath's image of a raft, in place of foundationalism's building a metaphor - Acknowledges epistemic certainty to be ideal, rather than a present reality - Losses power by requiring person to be consciously aware of and actively involved with ever belief, decision, choosing which beliefs to discard, which to retain, and which to add

Normative judgements

- The function of philosophy concerned with establishing standards for distinguishing the correct from the incorrect, whether in ways of reasoning, believing, esthetic judgments, or acting - Philosophy often tries to distinguish what is from what ought to be. To establish norms, philosophy often appeals to the nature or essence of things

Pragmatism

- The principal aim of inquiry and value of knowledge is the promotion of effective action as opposed to the representation of true nature of reality - Knowledge or warranted assertion is the product of inquiry, a problem-solving process by means of which we move from doubt to belief - Knowers must be agents of actively growing knowledge, not theorists - An approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application - Dewey, Peirce, James

Plato

- There are truths we know that are certain and unchanging (Mathematical, moral, etc.) - Knowledge could not ultimately be derived from sense experience - Knowledge is ultimately acquired through the use of a priori reason - Knowledge is derived solely from reason independently of the sense. The truth of a priori knowledge is claimed to be both necessary and universal - Rationalism - student of Socrates

Argument supporting the relationship of God and logic

- Thomas Aquinas 2nd proof - Some things are in motion - Nothing in the world can move itself but must be moved by another - There cannot be an infinite regress of motions - There must be a First Mover who is responsible for all other motions - This First Mover is what we call God. - Therefore, God exists

Jesus the Reasoner

- Using an A Fortiori Argument (arguing by analogy) - The truth A is admitted - The support for B is stronger than support for A - Therefore, the truth of B must be admitted

Two major views concerning the relationship of God and logic

- View 1: Among those who believe in God (theists), it is popularly believed that God "created" logic - View 2: Logic is not something that God creates; rather Logic is an expression of what God is (an aspect of God's nature)

Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)

- an argument whose conclusion explains the cause of something - an argument that compares several rival explanations that seek to explain the key information, and whose conclusion is the best explanation. It has its own specific standard argument form

Law of excluded middle

- every statement is either true or false (there are no other options) Example: Water is H2O is either true or false

Logic

- rational thinking - asks what it means to think logically, and what makes for a good argument

Epistemology

- study/theory of knowledge - asks whether one can know anything what one can know and how one can know it

Ethics

- the principles of right and wrong that guide an individual in making decisions

Metaphysics

- the study of the nature of reality - what exists/what does it mean to exist

Denying the Antecedent (invalid)

1. P -> Q 2. ¬ P (not P) 3. ¬ Q (not Q) Ex. 1. If it is Sunday, then the Library is closed. 2. It is not Sunday. 3. Therefore, the library is not closed. The second premise denies the antecedent instead of the consequent

Modus Ponens (MP) (valid)

1. P -> Q (If P, then Q) 2. P 3. Q (therefore, Q) Ex. 1. If yellow is brighter than purple, then it is brighter than black. 2. Yellow is brighter than purple. 3. Therefore, yellow is brighter than black

Hypothetical syllogism (HS) (valid)

1. P -> Q (If P, then Q) 2. Q -> R (If Q, then R) 3. P -> R (Therefore, if P, then R) Ex. 1. If it is Valentine's day, Oscar will invite Julia to dine at a fine restaurant. 2. If Oscar will invite Julia to dinner at a fine restaurant, they will dine at Delatorre's. 3. (so) If it is Valentine's day, then Oscar and Julia will dine at Delatorre's.

Modus Tollens (MT) (valid)

1. P -> Q (If P, then Q) 2. ¬ Q (not Q) 3. ¬ P (not P) Ex. 1.If it is Monday, then it is a weekday. 2. It is not a weekday. 3. Therefore, it is not Monday. If both premises are true, then the conclusion is true

Affirming the Consequent (invalid)

1. P -> Q (if P, then Q) 2. Q 3. P Ex. 1. If George Washington was assassinated, then he is dead. 2. George Washington is dead. 3. Therefore, George Washington was assassinated. The fact that Washington is dead does not entail/necessitate that he was assassinated cause he could have died for many reasons.

Constructive dilemma (valid)

1. P -> Q, R -> S (if P, then Q, and if R, then S) 2. P v R (P or R) 3. Q v S (therefore, Q or S) Ex. 1. If Angela has a good attitude, then she will encourage her friends, and if Angela has a bad attitude, she will not be sociable. 2. Angela has a good attitude or Angela has a bad attitude. 3. Therefore, Angela will encourage her friends or not be sociable. The premise contains two conditionals The premise is the disjunction of the antecedents of the two conditionals

Disjunctive syllogism (DS) (valid)

1. P v Q (P or Q) 2. ¬ P (not P) 3. Q (therefore, Q) Ex. 1. Roger will go to school or he will go to the movie. 2. Roger will not go to school. 3. Therefore, Roger will go to the movie. A disjunctive syllogism is true when either or both sentences are true.

ad hominem argument

An attack on another person instead of their point of view

Idealism

An external world does not exist There is no mind independent reality: - Reality is a series of mental ideas - Whether in human minds or in the mind of God

Indirect realism/critical realism (representationalism)

An external world exists We perceive the world indirectly and imperfectly (fallibly) Sense data (mental image of objects) is the intermediary between our mind and the world; what we perceive are the effects eternal objects have on us

Direct realism (naive realism)

An external world outside of outside mind exists We perceive the world directly and correctly as it is Unmediated by conscious or unconscious inference Immediate and exact knowledge of its objects

The coherence theory of truth

An idea or proposition is true if it fits in or is consistent with the totality of truth of the entire interconnecting system (of ideas or propositions) Criteria:explanatory power, logical implication, notion of competition, interest in gaining the truth Objection: Coherence may be a necessary condition of truth, but it is not what is meant by truth (B.Russell)

The pragmatic test of truth (or theory) of truth

An idea or proposition is true if it works or satisfies, or is capable of doing so Criteria: Individual (subjective) truth in terms of personal needs, verification, or consequences The social and objective nature of knowledge and truth Objection: Something other than what is made to happen (or could be made to happen) or made to work (or could be made to work) is what is meant by truth

inconsistency fallacy

Arguing from contradictory premises Ex. trying to please different groups one might say contradictory things about an issue to win the favor of each group

appeal to ignorance

Arguing that a lack of evidence proves something The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof Ex. Nobody has every proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God.

slippery slope

Arguing without good reason that taking a certain step will lead to inevitable (perhaps catastrophic) consequences Ex. Handguns and Nuclear War debate argument

Constructive approach to philosophy

Attempting to find the answers to the basic and important issues in life

Constructive task of philosophy

Attempting to find the answers to the basic and important issues in life

Descartes' method in seeking certainty of knowledge

Begins with doubt (in contrast to inherited understanding) Begins with the individual (rather than with the community) Begins with the fallible human subject (rather than with what we seek to understand)

Alternatives: Pragmatism

Charles Sanders Peirce - the problem regarding foundationalism is its suppositions, which he views as nothing more than imaginary. Cartesian doubt is mere self-deception, and not real doubt Method involves: - Seeking to establish firm beliefs about reality from inferences of perceptual experience - The pragmatic elucidation of truth asks the question: what can be expected to follow from a true hypothesis The logic - vagueness of perception and perceptual judgement lead us to formulate: - Equally general inferences (abductions) - From which more specific predictions are made (deductions) - Tested in various ways (induction) Fallibilistic epistemology - all knowledge is liable to be erroneous, and thus even perceptual judgements must be open to revision Truth is a coherent system of meaningful beliefs validated by practice Christians and Peirce's pragmatism: - A community-centeredness rather than isolated individualism in attempting to establish trust and reality - Humility in recognition of the fallibility of human interpretation - Fallibilistic epistemology need not sacrifice the category of truth or truthfulness

distinctions between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions

Conditional statements (P -> Q) say that P is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for Q and the Q is necessary but not sufficient for P P is sufficient for Q if P is all that is required for Q to occur P is not necessary for Q, meaning that P is not the only way for Q to occur Important for modus ponens and modus tollens

Two types of arguments Jesus' used

Constructive dilemma - valid, if both premises are true, the conclusion is true A Fortiori argument

J. Warner Wallace's use of Inference to the Best Explanation about God's existence

Cosmological: - Beginning of the universe (expanding universe) - Finely-tuned universe (appearance of, at least) Biological: - Life from non-life - Finely-tuned human beings (appearance of, at least) Mental: - Consciousness - Free agency Moral: - Objective, transcendent moral truths - Problem of evil

Theory of Knowledge (epistemology)

Definition #1: a branch of philosophy which investigates the nature, scope, and quality of human knowledge...[which] tries to establish the normative criteria for what is count as knowledge...Knowledge is, in short, a much more reliable guide to action than mere belief or opinion Definition #2: in essence, knowledge is the ability to represent things as they are on an appropriate basis of thought and experience Definition #3: knowledge is true belief based in the right way on the right kind of ground (perceptual, memorial, introspective, rational, testimonial, inferential)

Deductive arguments

Definition - the premise guarantees the truth of their conclusion Example: If today is Sunday, the library is closed. Today is Sunday. Therefore, the library is closed (sentences 1 and 2 are the premises of the argument, and sentence 3 is the conclusion)

Inductive arguments

Definition - the premises render the conclusion more probable than its competitions - the truth of their premises does not guarantee the conclusion ex. 1-75% of students attending GCU are religious Natalie attends GCU Therefore, Natalie is probably religious.

What is philosophy?

Definition: the attempt to provide for oneself an outlook on life based on broad fundamental principles underlying everything (Nagging questions to firm answers) Explanation: defined by a concern of normative issues (what we ought to do) than is found in other objects

The Nature of Truth

Descriptive: Applying to statements, propositions, or beliefs that are necessarily true (analytically) of contingently true (empirically) - adjective Instrumental: Applying to beliefs that guide thought or actions successfully (ex. acting on belief that fire burns helps one to avoid getting burned) - adverb Substantive or ontological: Referring to the real, ultimate reality or being, what exists in actuality (noun) Existential: Referring to one's way of life or ultimate commitment (verb)

Hume's Theory of Knowledge

Experience - all the content of our thought is derived ultimately from experience Customs Habits

Justification in epistemology

Foundationalism: strong (classical) foundationalism, soft (modest) foundationalism Alternatives: coherentism, pragmatism, contextualism

Jesus the Intellectual

Jesus is the ultimate foundation for human knowledge - not just the knowing of Christians or the knowledge of God but the knowing of everything by everyone In him there is both wisdom and knowledge

straw man

Misrepresenting someone's argument in order to make it easier to refute

The correspondence theory of truth

Our thoughts, ideas, or claims are true if they correspond to reality Works best with a theory of knowledge that thoughts and ideas are copies of physical objects mediated by the senses Works less well when dealing with nonphysical objects, such as morality, emotions, hopes, fears, and the like Objection: Ideas are radically different from objects

Criteria of truth

Philosophers tend toward one of three primary theories/options in determining principles or standards by which truth may be judged or decided

Allegory of the Cave

Plato claims that knowledge gained through the sense is no more than opinion and that, in order to have real knowledge, we must gain it through philosophical reasoning

Elements of a philosophical argument

Premises: A group of statements that support the truth of the conclusion (in deductive arguments) Conclusion Conditional statements: A conditional is true if the first statement (antecedent) is a sufficient condition for the second sub-statement (consequent) Ex. If Sally is in Beijing, then Sally is in China Antecedent: First statement Consequent: Second (sub-statement)

Analytical task of philosophy

Rational examination of important concepts and their meaning and use (ex. murder, violence, human abortion, evil, good), entailing an analysis of the world

Analytical approach to philosophy

Rational examination of important concepts and their meaning and use (ex. murder, violence, human, abortion, evil, good), entailing an analysis of the world

false dilemma/complex question

Reducing several possibilities to two alternatives Ex. A pollster asks you this question about your job: would you say your employer is drunk on the job about once, twice, or more times per week?

Argument opposing the relationship of God and logic

Stone Paradox and Square Circles - God cannot create immovable stones or square circles, but this does not count against God's all-powerfulness. - God can do anything that is logically possible

Foundationalism

Strong (classical) foundationalism: - Properly basic beliefs possess the kind of justification necessary for knowledge and are infallible, indubitable, or incorrigible - Ex. a foundation of a building and the whole structure of the building resting on that foundation Soft (modest) Foundationalism: - Shares with strong foundationalism the idea of first principles or properly basic beliefs, yet with significant modifications - Ex. belief in God may be viewed as properly basic Four reasons why: - Foundational beliefs are not immune to doubt and may be overridden - Humans are epistemically entitled to first principles, without having to provide justification - Basic beliefs do not require our reflective awareness - Foundational principles are rooted in our psychological natures

Scientism

The belief that the only things that exist are the things science can prove through its very particular, restricted methods. Scientism limits the application of human reason to that which can be observed and measured.

Plausibility

The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than its rival hypothesis

Explanatory scope

The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than its rival hypothesis

Explanatory power

The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically (knowability) probable than its rival hypothesis

Descartes argument for the existence of God

There are degrees of reality There is a distinction between objective reality and formal reality

Philosophers in relation to an alleged neutral starting point

There are no absolute starting points in philosophy, and philosophy is continually examining the views of other philosophers and of its own past

argument in a circle/begging the question

Using a conclusion as a premise to prove the conclusion Ex. Freedom of speech is important because people should be able to speak freely.

sound deductive argument

a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises ex. all humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Informal Fallacies (10 types)

ad. hominem argument, argument form authority, argument in a circle/begging the question, appeal to ignorance, false dilemma/complex question, slippery slope, straw man, genetic fallacy, fallacy of composition, inconsistency fallacy

Two Invalid Arguments

affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent

Three primary views concerning knowledge of the external world

direct realism, indirect realism/critical realism (representationalism), idealism

Criteria for Inference to the Best Explanation

explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, accord with accepted beliefs, comparative superiority

Three primary laws of logic

law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of exclude middle (all laws reinforce each other, however the law of non-contradiction helps to understand all)

Four major sub-disciplines of philosophy

logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics

Five Valid Arguments

modus Ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma

Sufficient conditions

something is all that is required for another thing to occur

Necessary conditions

something is not all that is required for another thing to occur

Less ad hoc

the best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge that its rival hypotheses

Comparative superiority

the best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (5) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesisexceeding it in fulfilling those conditions

Accord with accepted beliefs

the best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods that its rival hypotheses.

The central philosophical interest regarding Truth

to discover the nature of truth

argument from authority

trusting a person without good reason to do so

valid deductive argument

valid, but not true ex. All humans are male. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is a male.