PYSC 101 Exam #3

Information associated with ALL of the different Errors of Perspective (including examples)

+ Poverty of Aspect - "tunnel vision" - The different academic disciplines that have been introduced over the course of history - he plethora of knowledge that has taken place in every discipline + Unwarranted Assumptions - taking too much for granted - implied rather than being expressed directly ** important to read between the lines for unexpressed ideas - People's senses are always trustworthy - Familiar ideas - Majority view is the correct one - Change is always for better + The Either/Or Outlook - total affirmation or total rejection. - most reasonable view may be both/and ex: either love or hate coffee + Mindless Conformity ** behaving in accordance with group norms. - we are too lazy - fearful to think for ourselves - Normative social influence: wanting to be liked or approved ** especially if person is important to us - Informative social influence: wanting to be right ** asch's experiment (1951) **con conform to: religion, peers, authority + Absolutism - Belief that there must be rules but no exceptions - - Expect the truth about issues to be clear-cut, certain, and simple ** susceptible to oversimplification & hasty conclusions + Relativism - existence of exceptions proves there can be no rules - "truth is created and not discovered" **relativist cannot challenge the correctness of other people's views w/out contradicting themselves + Bias For or Against Change

Information associated with the different Errors of Procedure (including examples) More specifically information associated with: Overgeneralization and Post Hoc Fallacy

- Biased Consideration of Evidence: Seeking only evidence that confirms your bias - hasty conclusion: Premature judgment: one that is made without enough evidence - Double Standard Using one standard of judgment for our ideas ** common in issues of free speech - Overgeneralization: - Drawing broad conclusions from particular experiences. ** natural and necessary for learning but needs to be done reasonably - stereotyping: common types; ethnic & religious - oversimplificationL instead of being informative, misleads them - post hoc fallacy - Reasoning that when one thing occurs after another, it must be the result of the other ** broke leg after got vaccinated, vaccines caused broken leg

Decision making and all the information associated with it

- Evaluating all the alternatives and then making an informed choice + Loss aversion: the tendency to strongly prefer to avoid losses compared to an attempt to acquire gains. Example: it's better to not lose the $5 than randomly find a 10 dollar bill on the ground + Endowment Effect-people ascribe greater value to things they already own compared to objects owed by someone else ex: The "mug" study + Sunk Cost Fallacy: people are reluctant to give up on a venture because of past investment. ex: changing your major ***

The different criteria of adequacy in depth

- How well a hypothesis systemizes and unifies our knowledge and increases our understanding + SCOPE: The best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope Explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena + SIMPLICITY: The best hypothesis is the simplest one The simpler it is, the fewer ways for it to go wrong // *should assume no more than is required to explain the phenomonon in question + Conservatism: fits best with established beliefs. difficult to introduce a new hypothesis. // The hypothesis may have to conflict with some of our previous beliefs; BUT THE FEWER CONFLICTS, THE BETTER

Disjunctive Syllogism (valid) (DEDUCTIVE)

- Nonconditional valid form of argument (no conditions) - A statement in the p-or-q format of premise is called a Disjunction - Each statement in a disjunction (p or q) is called a Disjunct. **Either one of the disjuncts can be denied, and the conclusion is that the undenied disjunct must be true ex: either at home or school = not at home therefore must be at school either soup or salad = not choose soup therefore salad

Information associated with parapsychology (ESP)-the different types with definitions and examples as provided in the class

- Parapsychology: the study of extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis. - ESP: perception that is not mediated by an organism's recognized sensory organs. + Telepathy-perception of another's thoughts without the use of the senses + Precognition-perception of future events (i.e., visions) without the use of the senses ex: vision in dream -> train wreck -> next were to happen + Clairvoyance- perception of distant objects / situations w/out the use of the senses (knowledge @ a distance) - Psychokinesis-the ability to affect physical objects without the use of the body, by simply thinking about them

Enumerative Induction (INDUCTIVE)

- Reasoning used to arrive at a generalization about a group of things after observing only some members of that group. - Premise: % of the observed members of a group that have a particular property - Conclusion: % of the members of the whole group that have that property ex: All U.S. presidents I have studied about are male. Therefore, All presidents in U.S. history have probably been male.

The different ways to express judgments effectively

- Strive for a balanced view - Deal with probability ** judgement " suggests " rather than judgement "proves" - Make your subject appropriately specific - Make your predicate exact - Include all appropriate qualifications - Avoid exaggeration ** when uncertain, go for a modest interpretation (the less extreme conclusion) *** benefits of asking questions; helps us to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the argument

Information regarding validity (including examples provided in the lecture)

- VALIDITY IS NOT THE SAME AS "TRUE" - logical structure - conclusion follows from the premises Valid arguments can have: - False premises and a false conclusion - False premises and a true conclusion - True premises and a true conclusion (sound argument) **CANNOT have: true premises and a false conclusion

PREVIEW - DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

- Valid Deductive Arguments + Affirming the Antecedent (statement following IF) + Denying the Consequent (statement after THEN) + Hypothetical Syllogism + Disjunctive Syllogism - Invalid Deductive + Arguments Denying the Antecedent + Affirming the Consequent

Inductive argument

- bottom-up logic. - Intended to provide probable (More than 50%) support for their conclusions. - allow for the conclusions to be false even if the premises are true cogent: strong argument w/ true premises cogent argument: provides good reasons for accepting the conclusion

The different types of insufficient premises (information and examples as provided in the class)

- do not establish a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt + Faulty Analogy: things that resemble one another in certain respects resemble one another in further aspects. ex: "People who cannot go without their coffee every morning are no better than alcoholics". + False Cause: two events are causally connected when they are not. - Also called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"-after this, therefore because of this - Just because two events are constantly conjoined, it doesn't follow that they are causally related. Example: Ever since my cousin moved in with me, my grades have started to decline + Slippery Slope: performing a specific action will lead to an additional bad action (or actions), you should not perform that first action. ex: diet example, eat cookie tonight result in you eating more and gaining weight lost

Principles of Science

- explanatory and predictive - knowing how something works - But before scientific investigation can take place, the world is understood to be publicly understandable: - withstand public scrutiny ** world has a specific structure ** we can know this structure ** the knowledge is available to everyone

The different types of irrelevant premises (information and examples as provided in the class)

- if premises are logically unrelated to the conclusion, they provide no reason to accept it + Equivocation - Using the same word in two different sense in an argument. - Switching the meaning invalidates the argument ex: philosophy helps you argue better: but do we really need to encourage people to argue? + Appeal to the Person (ad hominem-to the man): - rebutting an argument by criticizing or denigrating its presenter rather than by dealing with the argument itself. ex: "You can't believe Dr. Jones' claim that there is no evidence for life after death. After all, he's an atheist" + Appeal to Tradition: - claim that something must be true because it is a part of an established tradition. ex: mothers have always used chicken soup to fight colds, so it must be good for you + Appeal to Fear: - Use the threat of harm to advance one's position ex: if you do not convict this criminal, one of you maybe her next victim + Straw Man: misrepresent someone's claim to make it easier to dismiss or reject. ex: Caroline says that she thinks her friends should not be so rude to the new girl. Jenna says that she cannot believe that Caroline is choosing to be better friends with the new girl than the girls who have always known her.

The different types of unacceptable premises (with information and examples)

- premises are as dubious as the claim they are supposed to support + Begging the Question - circling reasoning - using conclusion as a premise Ex: paranormal activity = real b/c can only be described as PA // smoking cigarettes kill b/c deadly + False Dilemma - 2 alternatives exist - fallacy: dismisses other options out there that could be better or possible ex: buy me this book or you think reading is not important // support Hillary or don't believe in women's right

making important distinctions

1. Between the person and the idea ex: males on womens issues (abortion) 2. Between what is said and how it is said 3. Between the individual and the group or class 4. Between matters of preference and matters of judgment *** preferences concern taste ; judgements concern interpretation of fact & theory 5. Between familiarity and correctness

deductive arguments

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - Intended to provide conclusive support for their conclusions. + When successful, argument is valid. + When unsuccessful, argument is invalid. - Valid deductive argument: + If premises are true, its conclusion MUST be true. + Impossible to have true premises and a false conclusion. **Also known as top-down logic

Affirming the Antecedent (valid) (DEDUCTIVE)

Modus Ponens ("the way that affirms by affirming") Any argument in this form is always valid ex: if you play with fire, you will get burned -> you played with fire therefore you got burned

Denying the Consequent (valid) (DEDUCTIVE)

Modus Tollens ("the way that denies by denying") Any argument in this form is always valid ex: if god had wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings -> he has not given us wings -> therefore he did not want us to fly

Analogical Induction (INDUCTIVE)

Object A has properties F, G, H as well as the property Z. Object B has properties F, G, H Therefore, Object B probably has property Z. ex: Earth has air, water, and life. Mars is like the Earth in that it has air and water. Therefore, it's probable that Mars has life. *** the fewer similarities, the less probable the conclusion

problems vs. dilemmas

Problems: situations involving a question that calls for a correct answer Examples: Math (algebraic equations) or an engineering mistake. *** problems need to be solved VS. Dilemmas: Situations that require choices between competing or conflicting values that cannot be simultaneously or fully resolved Examples: telling the truth or hurting someone's feelings; choosing between family and career *** dilemmas need to be negotiated or navigated, not solved

examples regarding validity

VALID ARGUMENTS CAN HAVE: - False premises and a false conclusion-(UNSOUND) + The president of the United States must be younger than 35.George Clooney is president of the United States.So, George Clooney must be younger than 35. - False premises and a true conclusion (even if one of the premises is true, it is still considered a false premise)-(UNSOUND) + The president of the United States must be 35 years of age or older.George Clooney is president of the United States.So, George Clooney must be 35 years of age or older. - True premises and a true conclusion-(SOUND) + All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The president of the United States must be 35 years of age or older.Donald Trump is president of the United States.Therefore, Donald Trump must be 35 years of age or older CANNOT HAVE: - True premises and a false conclusion + All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Therefore, Socrates is not mortal The president of the United States must be 35 years of age or older.George Clooney must be 35 years of age or older.So, George Clooney is president of the United States.

Hypothetical Syllogism (valid) (DEDUCTIVE)

deductive argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion. ***every statement is conditional ex: If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid

Affirming the Consequent (invalid) (DEDUCTIVE)

ex: If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu.

Denying the Antecedent (invalid) (DEDUCTIVE)

ex: If my car is out of gas, it will stop running My car is not out of gas Therefore, it will not stop running

hypothetical induction (inductive)

*** also referred to as "abduction" many explanations can be found

Information associated with the different Errors of Reaction (particularly information in red)

+ Automatic Rejection - need to put emotional distance between ideas and ego + Changing the Subject - Abruptly turning the discussion in a different direction + Shifting the Burden of Proof - demanding others to disapprove our assertions + Straw Man - To put false words in someone else's mouth and then expose their falsity, even though the other person never said them. + Attacking the Critic - problem b/c ideas and people are not synonymous