Phil 101: Midterm Study Guide

What is an argument? What are the main parts of an argument?

A set of claims/statements in which one or more of those statements, called premises, are used to support the conclusion. The parts include premises and a conclusion.

Explain what Peter Van Inwagen takes to be the double standard when it comes to philosophical writings about the relation of religious belief to evidence and argument.

He says the writings only include the insufficient evidence argument (Clifford's Writings) is only mentioned when arguing against religious belief, however, most moral/political/scientific beliefs wouldn't pass Clifford's principle.

What is the strawman fallacy?

Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

What is philosophy? Use the definition given in our textbook.

the attempt to think carefully and critically about some of life's most important questions, and the attempt to live out the answers to those questions.

Be able to give at least two of W.K. Clifford's reasons for thinking that "it is wrong always, everywhere, for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence".

1. One person's decisions an profoundly impact other's lives (ship owner example). 2. We are biased toward strongly held beliefs that can blind us of the insufficiency of evidence.

According to Robin Collins, 1. which three features of the universe point to a transcendent, intelligent designer? 2. Why?

1. The fine-tuning of laws, constants, and initial conditions. Beauty and elegance of laws. Intelligibility and discover-ability of laws. 2. The odds of the world coincidentally being suitable for life is very low, which suggests it was fine-tuned to perfectly support life. Mathematics makes no sense to work out without being made to work perfectly as it does, it is also the fundamental of most theories/science. It seems like the laws of physics and math were designed for us to be able to discover them, our intelligence is elevated enough to do so unlike other species. Using a relatively general, known fact to support a claim when there exists a more specific known

State at least two of Patricia Churchland's reasons for thinking that we should not view consciousness as a uniquely hard problem to solve.

1. There is no evidence that consciousness is anymore difficult explaining than anything else about the mind tat we currently don't understand.2. We don't know how the nervous system performs many of its functions, that is a fact about us and our sciences not the NS itself.

Why doesn't Thomas Nagel think that we could give a reductionist explanation for the first-person perspective? What would an objective, third-person account of consciousness leave out?

1. We can't know what the first-person perspective of a bat is since we don't know what it's like to be a bat. 2.By using 3rd person, it leaves out what needs to be explained, namely, the subjective nature of consciousness.

Be able to present two pieces of data that J.P. Moreland thinks are best explained by the existence of a spiritual soul.

1. When someone loses a limb, maybe a veteran, we don't look at them as any less of a person. Simply having all the parts of your body are not what we think of as being a person.2. Our thoughts, feelings, and sensations are all connected to one mind. We only have one mind in our head, we know which mind is ours.

Be able to explain each of the following in your own words: - 1. The location problem / the problem of phenomenal consciousness - 2. The intentionality problem - 3. The problem of mental causation

1. When we think of something, such as recalling a certain flavor, we're able to do so. Recall the taste of bubble gum. Your mind is able to do it, but where is that recall coming from? 2. Think about the weather. How can your mental state be about the weather? It's that your mind can represent, be about, something. Without actually changing in any way. 3. How are you able to think about something sad, then let that thought cause your body to express sadness (crying, frowning, that sad feeling in your chest?)

Be able to state correctly and in your own words the Kalam cosmological argument for belief in God.

3 premises: 1. Everything that exists is caused by something. 2. The universe does exist. 3. So the universe must have been caused by something.

What is the genetic fallacy?

A claim that a person, product, or or idea should not be trusted because it came from a certain racial,ethical, or geographic origin. Ex: That product shouldn't be trusted because it was made in China.

Be able to correctly distinguish between the five types of argument discussed in class (cosmological, design, ontological, moral, noological)

Cosmological: Says everything is caused by something, so God must be what created the earth. Design: Says God is the best explanation for why certain elements of the Earth appear to be designed. Ontological: Reflection on the nature of existence itself, indicates that god exists. Ex: Something can exist in the mind and in reality, or both. It's more powerful to exist in both. Moral: Since moral law exists, there must be a moral law-giver. Noological: God is the best explanation for certain facts about the human mind. Ex: Beliefs don't define what your mind is about, you can believe in unicorns but that's not all your mind is. The mental state is more than just a brain.

What is the difference between a defense and a theodicy? Explain.

Defense: Aims to show that atheological arguments from evil don't adequately support atheism. Theodicy: Aims to provide reasons why God would allow evil.

Be able to state in your own words William Rowe's central argument for atheism.

Evil exists in our world that God could have prevented without losing any greater good. God would prevent this if he were able to, unless he wasn't all powerful or perfectly good.

How does Peter Van Inwagen support his belief that, in some cases, it would be morally permissible for God to permit an evil that could have been prevented, despite the fact that no good is achieved by doing so?

He mentions the Standard Freewill Defense: God made the world good, part of that goodness is allowing free will. An omnipotent God wouldn't control our freedom. God foresaw people abusing freewill.He also says humans used to avoid evils when they had a relationship with God (Adam and Eve), by breaking that relationship they caused moral and intellectual ruining. Happens by chance to everyone. We wouldn't be motivated to turn to god if there were no evil. He can remove evil, but where he deems the line is arbitrary.

What is the main difference between deductive reasoning and either inductive or abductive reasoning?

IR: Reasoning induced by generalizations that make it likely to believe a conclusion. Ex: There is a 70% chance of rain for tomorrow, it is likely it will rain. So you bring an umbrella to work tomorrow. AR: Concluding the best explanation based on arguments. (testing hypotheses with evidence) DR: Taking a general fact and applying it to a specific thing. Ex: All men are mortal. John is a man. So John must be immortal.

What is the main difference between inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning?

IR: Reasoning induced by generalizations, making you believe it. AR: Uses science to conclude the best explanation.

Be able to distinguish between the psychological, logical and evidential problems of evil.

Logical: It is possible that God and evil can exist at the same time. Psychological: The sense of confusion/outrage exists ("How/why did God let this happen!?"). Certain evils have the potential to be life-ruining (being disabled/uncured) Evidential: Does the existence of evil provide good evidence for atheism?

Explain Frank Jackson's "knowledge argument" (either the Fred example or the Mary example). What is it supposed to show?

Mary is a scientist. She has only been allowed to see black/white/grey scale (she was locked in an all grey room). She knows all about the science that goes into vision and being able to see. She knows it all.Let's say she leaves that room and sees colors for the first time.Does she learn anything by seeing color for the first time? Obviously she does, according to Jackson. She used to have all the physical information we can learn through science, but not what colors look like. What she has learned is NOT physical information,something that cannot be learned through science. So there must be something more to the human mind than its material properties. So property dualism is true.

What is the "absent qualia" objection to functionalism? Be able to express Lycan's "tiny person" response to the absent qualia problem (page 83R, bottom, and 84L).

Other things can imitate the input/output relations that the mind performs. Like a computer. It doesn't mean the computer has consciousness. A person could be reduced to the size of a large molecule and put inside a brain. That person wouldn't know that they help produce consciousness, but they do.

What do each of the following views say about the nature of the mind? - Substance dualism - Epiphenomenalism - Functionalism - Reductionism / identity theory - Eliminativism / Eliminative Materialism

SD: Says that the body/brain and the mind/soul are separate. E: Mental events, like sadness, are caused by physical events in the brains (neurons ) but can't cause any physical changes to the body. That crying would be the cause of other microscopic neurons and muscles and stuff. F: The mind is whatever the brain does/ the mind is whatever the neurons are doing. R/IT: Mental activity is the same as brain activity. E/EM: Mental events don't exist, only brain events.

What is the "fallacy of understated evidence"? Why does Paul Draper think that Robin Collins has committed the fallacy of understated evidence? (What fact does Draper think that Collins is overlooking?)

The fallacy of Understated Evidence: Using a general, known fact to support a claim when there exists a more specific known fact that fails to support that claim. Draper believes Collins is overlooking that fine-tuning is more plausible for naturalism than theism.

In your answer, be able to explain Collins's "likelihood principle" in your own words (p. 246L).

The likelihood principle basically says that if something happens that is more likely to support hypothesis 1 if it is more probably to happen under that hypothesis. Ex: Ink blot images looking like shapes rather than random splotches supports that those blots were designed rather than not, since they are more probable to happen when designed.

Be able to state in your own words the view that William Lycan calls "homuncular functionalism."

The mind is the result of a bunch of sub parts working together. Those sub parts are made of even smaller parts and so on.

What is the red herring fallacy?

The use of irrelevant material to divert attention, starting with one topic then supporting the conclusion with an an entirely different topic.

Be able to correctly define the following terms: theism, deism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism.

Theism: Belief in a caring, personal God. Deism: Belief in a god who is uncaring towards creation/humanity. Atheism: Belief that God doesn't exist. Agnosticism: Belief that nothing can be known about whether God exists. Pantheism: Belief that God is immanent and transcendent (beyond human range)

When is an argument valid? When is it sound?

Valid: when it is impossible for premises to be true but the conclusion is false. (Beagles are dogs, Snoopy is a dog. So Lassie must be a dog) Sound: A valid argument with all true premises. (Beagles are dogs, Snoopy is a beagle. So snoopy must be a dog)

Be able to state J.P. Moreland's master argument for dualism.

We are indivisible from our spirit. Any physical body is divisible by having parts. If A and B are identical, anything true of A will be true of B. So we are not identical with our bodies.