Philosophy Final

2 cases in which one must use a nominal definition, though our ultimate goal is a real definition?

1) When you do not know whether something exists This can occur in a distant galaxy, theoretical physics, god 2) With impossible objects or contradictions Ex: round square

What is a nominal definition? Example

- concern how we use terms -etymology=word origin -uses when we don't know if something exists, or for impossible objects -ex: god, soul, an unknown planet, particles -ex: round squares

explain 2 differences between deductive and inductive arguments

-deductive arguments vs inductive arguments Deductive: have the possibility of being valid and or/ sound Guarantee the truth of the conclusions Formal arguments Has a set structure arrangement of terms and propositions (categorical compound syllogisms) Unpacking universal concepts or pre-established knowledge -inductive: cannot be valid or sound (but are either strong or weak) - informal arguments - no set structure -begin with individual observations and particular cases to ultimately make a general conclusion

What is a real definition? Example

-defintions that provides genuine knowledge of a thing, exists outside the mind, concerns the nature of form of a thing, not merely the term

What were three philosophy presentations other than your own that most interested you? Describe in detail the historical context and philosophical questions of these three presentations.

1)

Give your own example of two propositions that are contradictories, based on the square of opposition

AO: All students are present, so some students are not present. EI: no bats are birds, so some students are birds.

what is the problem of induction and why is it a problem for the empirical sciences

How do the premises of an inductive argument ever justify its conclusion? *especially in cases of incomplete enumerative induction -reminders: singular or particular cases —> general conclusions (observations or experiments)

Why is it important to avoid ad hominem arguments

In general, these arguments occur when one targets the character of one's opponent, rather than the substance of the opponents arguments. So it's important that people avoid these, and target the substance of the opponents arguments instead of the opponents character.

what is the difference between complete enumerative induction and incomplete enumerative induction to show how it leads to the problem of induction

Incomplete enumerative induction= Not all the relevant cases have been observed Most arguments in empirical sciences and everyday life Ex: surveys are incomplete because not everyone fills out the survey, political poll Complete enumerative induction = all the relevant cases for the conclusion are observed

what is the informal fallacy of equivocation

Occurs when a term is being used analogically or equivocally, rather than univocally and there is no clarification of the terms

why is it important to use univocal terms in arguments

One and the same sense "animal" Genuine communication Talking about the same thing Need univocal term for valid and sound arguments -truth

equivocal terms

Signify completely different concepts Ex: "bark" said of the outer covering of a tree and the sound a dog makes "Ball" said of what you kick in soccer and a dance

What is the principle of contradiction?

States that something cannot both be the case and not be the case at the same time and in the same respect -guides towards truth or what is possible Ex: it is a contradiction to say that my car is in the parking lot and my car is not in the parking lot.

analogical terms

Terms that signify concepts that are somewhat similar and somewhat different Ex: "rational" said of a person with the capacity of reason and said of a person using logic "Mouse" said of a rodent and of a cartoon character "Good" said of someone with good ethics and values and of an entertaining book

univocal terms

Terms that signify one and the same concept -no ambiguity -what we want in logic in general Ex: "animal" said of a bear and a deer, "blue" said of sky and of the water

Define logic

The science of correct reasoning and the art of making good arguments. The most general and foundational branch of philosophy

what is one way in which everyday people, scientitsts or philosophers grapple with the uncertainty arising from the problem of induction

Try to get more data

What is an ad hominem argument in general? state and define each of the three types of adhominem arguments.

in general ad hominem arguments is one that occurs when one targets the character of one's opponent, rather than the substance of the opponents arguments 1)Ad hominem circumstantial These take a persons circumstances (e.g., one's past, their nationality, age, gender, race, religion, physical traits, or political group/ affiliation) (someone's past)as a reason for dismissing their argument Tabitha is a convicted criminal, so she must be the person who stole your phone (past) Mary opposes affirmative action in all its forms, but since she is an african americana her position is untenable. (p.51 crews and anderson) 2)Abusive ad hominem Insult the intelligence or morality of a person as a way of disregarding their argument "Idiotic", "stupid", "immoral"... 3) Tu quo que ("you too") An argument that points out the hypocrisy of the person giving the argument and thus does not consider that persons advice E.g., their doctor annie smokes, so they don't believe her when she says they shouldn't smoke

explain how logic and ethics are normative sciences and liberal arts

logic and ethics are liberal arts because they are focused on learning for its own sake, instead of instrumental reasons and appreciating the subject matter. They are normative sciences in that they are focused on knowledge of what should be the case, not what is the case, and are based on standards or norms

why is the principle of contradiction a normative and dialectical principle

principle of contradiction is a dialectic method in that it is a logical assessment of ideas because it guides against contradictions and towards truth in a logical way. It is normative in that it's based on what should be the case, as principle of contradiction is what should be the case.