Chapter 12 Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning, Week #1, Week #2, Critical thinking Ch 6 Moore Parker, Chapter 7-Induction Fallacies, Chapter 11 Inductive Reasoning, PHL 320 Final Exam WOTD's!!!, PHL 320 Exam 1 -- ReStudy for Final!!!, PHL 320 Exam...
faulty analogy
A defective argument by analogy. Example: Love is like the measles. You only get it once.
Hasty Generalization (fallacy of the lonely fact)
A fallacy in which a faulty conclusion is reached because of inadequate evidence.
causes of an event
Arguments state evidence for a conclusion, while causal statements state the ______________________________________________.
Untestable Explanation
occurs when someone offers an explanation that could not be tested even in principle; when a claim's assertion cannot be tested Example: He has heart issues because of sins he has done in a previous life.
Fallacy of Small Sample
occurs when someone tries to derive a statement about all or most members of a population from a statement about a tiny sample of the population Example: People who live in Cincinnati have no idea where Akron is. I didn't when I lived in Cincinnati.
Irrelevant Conclusion
occurs when the arguments for a claim has no clear relationship to its conclusion Example: I don't think I missed too many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better lately.
Atypical Biased Sample
one that doesn't mirror or represent the overall population one in which an important variable is disproportionately present or absent Ex: the Kroger peaches you pick have been there for a few days. Sample is not representative of all Kroger peach population
Moral Imperative
prescribes an action not for the sake of some result, but because that action is our moral duty; follows the philosophy that when it comes to evaluating an action morally, what counts is not the result or the consequences of an action, but the intention from which it is done
Argument
presents considerations for accepting a claim
Issue
question
Moral Principles
refer to what should be done, not just in a single case, but in all similar case; to qualify as a moral principle, a moral value judgment must be general in scope, not specific Example: Stealing is wrong.
-->
represents a conditional or hypothetical claim Example: If P then Q. P --> Q.
&
represents a conjunction; can be substituted for "and", "but", ",", "as well as", etc.; always functions as "and"
v
represents a disjunction; can be substituted for "or" and "either...or"
Obedience to Authority
tendency to comply with instructions from an authority Ex: your doctor tells you to take a prescription that you do not want to take because you've heard of the negative side effects, but you do it anyway
Consequent
the part of a formal claim which happens after the condition is reached; affirms the antecedent
Conclusion
the point an argument is trying to make
Appeal to Precedent
the practice of using a case in legal reasoning that has already been decided as an authoritative guide in deciding a new case that is similar; assumes the consistency principle that is found in moral reasoning
Confidence Level
the probability that the random variation of a scientific sample proportion from random sample to random sample will fall within the error margin
True Proportion
the proportion in a scientific sample of a population that actually has the given attribute of interest
Ridicule
the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.
Bandwagon Effect
the tendency to align our beliefs with those of other people
Premise and Conclusion
the two parts of an argument
Legal Paternalism
the view that laws can be justified if they prevent a person from doing harm to himself or herself; forbid or make it impossible for someone to do an activity for their own good
scientism
the view that science is the only reliable way to acquire knowledge
Consequentialism
the view that the consequences of a decision, deed, or policy determine its moral value; if an action produces better consequences than the alternatives, then it is the better action
Used with inductive arguments. ________ = All premises are true and there are strong arguments. If it's _________, it's not guaranteed to be true, but the conclusion is likely to be true.
Cogent
Nirvana fallacy
Example: What's the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21? Kids still manage to get alcohol.
Four steps in assessing arguments:
Find the conclusion in the argument. Determine if it is deductive. Determine if it is inductive. If 1-3 don't work. - Check again - maybe you made a mistake - Is it nonsense? - It could be a weak inductive argument or invalid deductive argument.
Strong or weak =
INDUCTIVE NOTE: You can only be cogent in an strong inductive argument.
Because of the approach, if the premises are true, the conclusion is *likely or probably true*. These arguments are often found in the sciences. Are either strong or weak Strong if there is good logical support Weak if logical support is weak These -- strongness or weakness -- help determine validity
INDUCTIVE (slide 2 of 2)
Starts with a larger claim (a small group or individual) and works up to a larger group. It's a bottom-up approach, GENERALLY, but this is a rule of thumb and not a definite rule.
INDUCTIVE (slide 2 of 2)
Persuasion
the act of attempting to win other people to one's own point of view
Equivocation Fallacy
the argument moves from "desirable" in the sense of being sought after, to "desirable" in the sense being something that should be sought after (See Chapter 8)
Composition Fallacy
the argument moves from the fact that individual happiness is a good thing, to the conclusion that the collective happiness is a good thing (See Chapter 8)
Composition Fallacy
Inferring something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. "This building is built from rectangular bricks. Therefore, it must be rectangular." Explanation: Just because the building is composed of rectangular bricks doesn't mean the whole building is necessarily rectangular.
Denying the Antecedent
Inferring the inverse from the original statement. "If I pass this final, then I pass this course. I didn't pass the course, therefore I didn't pass this final." Explanation: Not necessarily true,
Rights -
Persons have specific rights that cannot be overridden.
PROBLEMS: Same problems as subjective relativism but at a larger scale. New problem: what is a culture? What is the group size? What about groups within groups within groups?
Problems with Social (or cultural) relativism
PROBLEMS: Creates contradiction. Doesn't really help us be accepting of differences of other people (at least in large, meaningful issues). Doesn't help with personal development...because we're never wrong. Self-defeating.
Problems with Subjective relativism
Loaded questions
Questions that depend on unwarranted assumptions.
Euphemism
Seek to mute the disagreeable aspects of something or to emphasize its agreeable aspects.
Examples of Unacceptable Premises
begging the question slippery slope hasty generalization faulty analogy false dilemma
Claim
belief (judgement or opinion) asserted in a declarative sentence
There is stuff to know, we just can't know about it (epistemic [about knowledge] claim). ^^ We don't need certainty...we just need certainty beyond reasonable doubt. ^^ ___________ says we can't know about anything at all.
Skepticism:
Social agreement Individuals can be right or wrong; societies are infallible cultural tolerance
Social (or cultural) relativism
hasty generalization
The fallacy of drawing a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate sample size.
appeal to the person (AD HOMINEM)
The fallacy of rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself. q. Therefore, p.
equivocation
The fallacy of using a word in two different senses in an argument. Ex: Fine (okay) for parking here vs. fine ($$) for parking here.
appeal to emotion
The fallacy of using emotions in place of relevant reasons as premises in an argument. Ex: Ted Kaczynski believes in global warming...do you?
Consistency Principle
The first principle of moral reasoning, which states that, if separate cases aren't different in any relevant way, they should not be different in any relevant way
True Proportion
The proportion of a population that actually has an attribute of interest
Error Margin
The range of random variation of a sample proportion across multiple random samples of a given size
replication
The repeating of an experiment by different groups of scientists, in order to weed out potential mistakes in the first/original experiment, to make the conclusion more cogent (right word I think). If the study is replicated by other scientists, and the study results hold up, then you be more confident that the results are solid.
Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation
a fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that random fluctuation is due to causation
overlooking a possible common cause
a fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer overlooks the possibility that two things may both be the effects of a third thing
Universalization
a feature that lets you judge whether something should work as a moral law, according to Kant
Denying the Antecedent
a formal fallacy in which the second premise of a claim denies the antecedent of the first premise Structure: If P, then Q. ~P. Therefore, ~Q. Example: If Sandy passed the final, then she passed the course. Sandy did not pass the final. Therefore, Sandy did not pass the course.
fallacy
a mistake in reasoning, an argument that does not really support or prove the contention it is supposed to support or prove.
Contradictories
a pair of claims that are exactly opposite to each other; they can never have the same truth value
Contraries
a pair of claims that cannot both be true but can both be false
Interested Party/Parties
a person or group of people who stand to gain from our acceptance of their claims
Sampling Frame
a precise definition of a sample or attribute that make it unambiguous whether any given thing is a member of the sample and has the attribute
Biased (skewed) Sample
a sample in which an important variable is disproportionately present or absent
Random Sample
a sample selected by a procedure that gives every member of a population an equal chance of being included
Consistency
a set of beliefs is consistent if it is possible for them to all be true at the same time
Generalization
an argument used to support a general statement
Circular Argument
argument that restates the argument rather than proving it "George Bush is a good. communicator because he speaks effectively"
slippery slope
argument that rests on an unsupported warning that is controversial and tendentious, to the effect that something will progress by degree to an undesirable outcome "We should not allow ... because if we do soon ... is going to happen"
Definition by Synonym
defining a term by giving a word or phrase that means the same thing Ex: Car: an automobile Actor: a thespian Vegetable: produce
rhetorical definition
definition that includes rhetorically charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something
Cognitive Bias
feature of human psychology that skews belief formation
CH 10 QUIZ!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter10/quiz/
CH 10 SELF-ASSESSMENT!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter10/sa_quiz/
CH 11 QUIZ!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter11/quiz/
CH 11 SELF-ASSESSMENT!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter11/sa_quiz/
CH 5 QUIZ!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter5/quiz/
CH 5 SELF-ASSESSMENT!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter5/sa_quiz/
CH 8 QUIZ!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter8/quiz/
CH 8 SELF-ASSESSMENT!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter8/sa_quiz/
CH 9 QUIZ!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter9/quiz/
Legal Moralism
idea that if something is immoral, it should be illegal
affirming the consequent
if p then q. q. Therefore, p. (invalid)
denying the antecedent
if p, then q. not p. therefore, not q. (invalid) if p, then q. not q. therefore not p. (valid)
vague
if we cannot say with certainty what a concept includes and what it excludes it is ...
loaded question
implies something without coming out and saying it
Valid Argument
impossible for premises all to be true and conclusion false
Categorical Logic
is based on the relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes; useful in clarifying and analyzing deductive arguments
Subject
is what or whom the sentence is about
euphemism
neutral or positive expression used in place of one that carries negative associations
Interlocutor
not an opponent, just someone you're having a conversation with about various ideas.
Religious Absolutism
view that the correct moral principles are those accepted by the "correct" religion But what is the correct religion???
We think critically when...
we evaluate reasoning used in coming to conclusions
The middle term and one of the other terms
Each of the premises in a syllogism state a relationship between _______________________________________________.
Be able to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions in everyday contexts.
Failing to feed a healthy goldfish for a few weeks is a sure way to kill it. So this deprivation is a sufficient condition for its death, as is removing the water from its fishbowl. But neither taking away the fish's food nor draining its bowl is a necessary condition for a goldfish's death because its death can be caused without resorting to either of these methods. On the other hand, necessary conditions for sustaining the fish's life include feeding it, providing it with water to live in, ensuring that the water is properly oxygenated, and so on. Again, in this instance, the whole set of the necessary conditions would constitute a sufficient condition for sustaining the fish's life.
Gambler's Fallacy
Failure to realize that independent events are really independent. "The last three coin flips have all been heads, so the next flip is more likely to come up tails." Explanation: It still has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads because each flip is independent.
right
For an act to be morally praiseworthy, it must be done not for the sake of an objective, but because it is __________________.
CONSISTENCY PRINCIPLE Moral Reasoning Principle #1
If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated in the same way and if separate cases are treated the same way, then they should not be different in any relevant way. Ex: If all students are entitled to an optional final, then if the young woman in the third row is a student, then she is entitled to an optional final.
Moral Reasoning Principle 2
If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show that he or she is in fact not violating the principle
the stronger the analogy
If there is MORE THAN ONE premise analogue, and the more NUMEROUS AND DIVERSIFIED the premise analogues, ______________________________________________.
the stronger the analogy
If there is MORE THAN ONE premise analogue, and there are FEWER CONTRARY analogues, ______________________________________________.
the weaker the analogy
If there is MORE THAN ONE premise analogue, and there are MORE CONTRARY analogues, ______________________________________________.
Universal
If there is no specific amount stated in a premise of a syllogism, it is assumed that the premise is _______________________.
Vague
If we cannot say with certainty what it includes and what it excludes
Unstated Premise
Premises that a deductive argument requires, but are not explicitly stated. Deductive arguments are popular and can be rationally persuasive, but people don't always state all of the premises that their deductive arguments require.
EXAMPLES: - Accepting a belief or proposition only because it fits with your interests. - Strong rush of emotion. - Leaving things out. - Conformity to groups. These are _____________ influences.
Psychological influences
There are two often overlapping impediments to critical thinking. ___________ factors - how we think. ___________ factors - what we think
Psychological, Belief-based
Generalizing from a Sample
Reasoning that all, most, or some percentage of the members of a population have an attribute because all, most, or some percentage of a sample of the population have that attribute
Principle of autonomy -
Recognize a person can make their own choices regarding their own body.
Religious Relativism
the belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious culture or society deems
Legal Moralism
the claim that the law should make illegal anything that is immoral
Claims made by experts with special knowledge in a subject are most reliable, but...
the claims must pertain to the area of expertise and must not conflict with claims made by other experts in the same area
Complementary Term
the complete opposite of the first term; usually preceded by a "non"
r = n^2
the formula for determining the number of rows in a truth table, in which r is the number of rows in the table, and n is the number of letters in the symbolization
Beyond a reasonable doubt
the highest standard of proof in common law; a lower standard of proof than deductive demonstration
Principle of Total Evidence
the idea that in estimating the probabilities of something, you must take into account all available relevant information
Moral Subjectivism
the idea that moral judgments are subjective
Moral Relativism
the idea that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by one's group or culture; hat is right and wrong may differ from group to group, society to society, or culture to culture
Moral Subjectivism
the idea that what is right and wrong is merely a matter of subjective opinion; thinking that something is right or wrong makes it either right or wrong for an individual
moral principle
See the MORAL PRINCIPLES ("Principle of...") Understand how moral premises can be supported or undermined by moral principles, moral theories, and considered moral judgments.
Dysphemism
Seek to emphasize the disagreeable aspects of something.
Weaselers
Seek to protect a claim by weakening it.
Downplayers
Seek to tone down the importance of something.
Forming and Confirming the Hypothesis
the two parts of causal reasoning
Duty Theory/Deontologism
the view that a person should perform an action because it is his or her moral duty to do so
Deontologism (duty theory) Kant
the view that a person should perform an action because it is his or her moral duty to perform it, not because of any consequences that might follow from it
Legal Paternalism
theory that a restriction on a person's freedom can sometimes be justified by showing that it is for that person's own benefit Ex: seat belts, helmets, drug laws
Claims lack credibility when...
they conflict with our observations, experience, background information, or come from sources that lack credibility
red herring
The fallacy of deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument. The basic pattern is to put forth a claim then couple it with additional claims that may seem to support it but in fact are mere *distractions.*
straw man
The fallacy of distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone's position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.
the weaker the analogy
The more numerous and diversified the DIFFERENCES between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, ______________________________________________.
the stronger the analogy
The more numerous and diversified the SIMILARITIES are between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, ______________________________________________.
Emotive Meaning
The positive or negative associations of an expression; an expression's rhetorical force
Rhetorical Force
The positive or negative associations of an expression; an expression's rhetorical force
Unacceptable Premises
The premises don't actually do the work they're supposed to be doing. Usually more relevant to the argument, but still the reasoning is flawed.
The two ways in which an enumerative induction can fail to be strong.
The sample can be too small (hasty generalization), &/or the sample can be non-representative of the target group.
the wider the range of random fluctuation
The smaller the random scientific sample, ______________________________________________.
Two negative premises
_____________________ make for an invalid argument.
Analogues
things that have similar attributes (Bill and Sam)
horse laugh
this device includes ridicule and vicious humor of all kinds
genetic fallacy
this fallacy is committed when someone argues that the origin of a contention in and of itself automatically renders false "The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army."
Obversion
a categorical relation in which a standard-form claim is changed from affirmative to negative (and vise verse), and then the predicate term is replaced with its complementary term Examples: A-claim All Presbyterians are Christians. No Presbyterians are non-Christians. O-claim Some contestants are not winners. Some contestants are not non-winners.
Contraposition
a categorical relation in which the places of the subject and predicate terms are switched, and the terms are replaced with their complementary terms Example: A-claim All Mongolians are Muslims. All non-Muslims are non-Mongolians. O-claim Some citizens are not voters. Some non-voters are non-citizens.
Conversion
a categorical relation in which the position of the subject and predicate terms in a standard-form claim are switched Example: E-claim No Norweigans are Slavs. No Slavs are Norweigan. I-claim Some state capitals are large cities. Some large cities are state capitals.
Causal Hypothesis
a causal statement offered for further investigation or testing
Truth
a claim is true if it is free from error
Subjective Claim
a claim whose truth is dependent of whether people think it is true or not
Objective Claim
a claim whose truth is independent of whether people think it is true or not
Overconfidence Effect
a cognitive bias that leads us to over-estimate what percentage of our answers on a subject are correct
ambiguous
a concept is ... when it has more than one meaning
Stereotypes
a cultural belief or idea about a social group's attributes, usually simplified or exaggerated; are unreliable characterizations of people Example: Southern Caucasian males are sometimes stereotyped as genteel or mannerly; other times as bigoted rednecks.
Dysphemism
a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one, Ex: such as "loony bin" for "mental hospital."
placebos
a dummy substance
Affirming the Consequent
a formal fallacy in which the second premise of the claim affirms the consequent of the first premise Structure: If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Example: If Jane is a member of a sorority, then Jane is a female. Jane is a female. Therefore, Jane is a member of a sorority.
Weaslers
help protect a claim or argument from criticism by water it down, weakening it, and giving its author a way out in case it is challenged; claims that don't guarantee anything Example: Statistic - 98% of American doctors believe that aspirin is a contributing cause of Reye's syndrome in children. 2% remain unconvinced. Saying, "SOME doctors are unconvinced that Aspirin is related to Reye's syndrome," is an example of a weasler.
Principle of benevolence -
help those who need it
Harm Principle
holds that only what harms others should be legally forbidden; states that the only ground for forbidding an activity is harm being done to others
CH 9 SELF-ASSESSMENT!
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195377927/student/chapter9/sa_quiz/
Connotation
non-direct meaning
Dysphemisms
using words that minimizes the positive associations a thing may have Example: Dismissing a legislative proposal as a "scheme". "Eating animal flesh" sounds worse than eating meat.
Sound Argument
valid argument whose premises are actually true
Deductive arguments can be compared as to...
validity and soundness
Moral Principle vs Value Judgement
value judgement that is general in nature Stealing is wrong = moral principle Stealing from Billy Bob is wrong = moral value judgement
Consequentialism
view that consequences of a decision, deed, or policy determine its moral value
Moral Relativism
view that what is morally right and wrong depends on and is determined by ones group or culture What *is* right and wrong may vary from group to group, society to society, or culture to culture.
Gambler's Fallacy
a probability miscalculation that occurs when the speaker fails to realize that the fact that one thing has occurred once or a couple of times is completely independent of the probability of it occurring again; past history has no effect Example: The last three coin flips have all been heads, so the next flip is more likely to come up tails.
Issue
a question posed by a person
initial plausibility
a rough assessment of how credible a claim seems to us
Biased or Skewed Sample
a scientific sample in which variables that may be linked to the attribute of interest are not present in the same proportion as the population of interest
Random Sample
a scientific sample selected by a procedure that gives every member of a population an equal chance of being included; are still subject to random fluctuation
Relevance Fallacy
aka Red Herring any fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to support or prove a point by bringing up an irrelevant consideration Includes: Ad Hominem Straw Man Appeal to Emotion
Definition by Example
aka ostensive definition defining a term by pointing to, naming, or describing one or more examples of something to which the term applies Ex: bunny
self-selecting sample
allowing survey subjects to choose themselves.
Innuendo
an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.
Semantic Ambiguity
an ambiguous claim whose ambiguity is due to the ambiguity of a word or phrase in the claim Example: Aunt Delia never used glasses. The word "glasses" could mean a cup made of glass material which we use to drink water, or a pair of lenses that we can use to see better.
When the pressure comes from what groups of people do or how they behave, it's called an appeal to....
an appeal to Common practice.
Modus Ponens
an argument consisting of a conditional claim as the second premise, which affirms the antecedent of the first premise, and a conclusion which affirms the consequent of the conditional claim Structure: If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.
Modus Tollens
an argument consisting of a conditional claim as the second premise, which denies the consequent of the conditional claim, and a conclusion which denies the antecedent of the first premise Structure: If P, then Q. ~Q. Therefore, ~P.
Argument from Analogy
an argument that something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute Ex: Sam likes hunting. Therefore, his brother Bill likes hunting. Ex: Rats live longer if on a calorie restricted diet. Therefore, humans will live longer if put on a calorie restricted diet.
Argument from Analogy
an argument that something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute Example: Bill likes hunting. Therefore, his brother, Sam, likes hunting, too.
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)
an argument whose conclusion explains the cause of something; can be treated as inductive reasoning since it is used to support a conclusion
PASTICHE
an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period.
Randomized Controlled Experiments
an experiment used in confirming causal hypotheses in which subjects are randomly assigned either to an experimental group or a control group, which differ from one another in only one aspect: subjects in the experimental group are subjected to the suspected cause Example: Eighteen of the subjects who had not been treated with Zicam had colds, and only 10 of the subjects who had been treated had colds, a difference that is statistically significant at the 0.5 level.
Hyperbole
an extravagant overstatement or exaggeration; used not only to express how strongly one feels about something, but also to persuade listeners of a lesser claim Example: The Democrats want everyone to be on welfare. Using "everyone" in the claim is an exaggeration and is not a real argument for believing the claim.
hyperole
an extravagant overstatement, or exxageration
Conclusion Analogue (target analogue)
analogue referred to in the conclusion of an argument from analogy (Bill)
Weak Analogy
are weak arguments based on debatable or unimportant similarities between two or more things Example: My mom is just like Adolf Hitler. I doubt she will let me go out with you guys.
Induction Fallacies
arguments that are supposed to raise the probability of their conclusion, but are so weak as to fail almost entirely to do so
fallacies of induction
arguments that are supposed to raise the probability of their conclusions, but are so weak as to fail almost entirely to do so
Relevance Fallacies
arguments that may seem relevant to their conclusion but are logically not; also called "red herrings"
Generalising from exceptional cases
arriving at a general statement or rule by citing an atypical supporting case
generalizing from exceptional cases
arriving at a general statement or rule by citing an atypical supporting case animals will live longer if they are on a calorie-restricted diet. This has been shown in experiments with rats. fallacy of biased sample (almost everyone in a large survey of tea party members think the president should be impeached. THerefore most Americans think the president should be impeached
hasty generalization
arriving at a general statement or rule by citing too few supporting cases ex. The food in LA is lousy, judging from this meal the police stopped me for driving five miles over the speed limit. Around here they will stop you for anything. Argument by Anecdote. Fallacy of Small Sample
Value Judgement
assesses merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness of someone or something Moral: It was wrong for the president to withhold information Non-moral: Paris Hilton sucks at acting
Availability Heuristics
assigning a probability to an event based on how easily or frequently it is thought of
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
assumes that the fact that two events happen at about the same time establishes that one caused the other
Fallacies Related to Cause and Effect
assumes that the timing of two variables relative to each other, in and of itself, is sufficient enough to establish that one is the cause and the other is the effect
False Consensus Effect
assuming our opinions and those held by people around us are shared by society at large
False Consensus Effect
assuming our opinions and those held by people around us are shared by society at large Ex: believing that all people feel that saving the environment is important because you feel that way Ex: believing that all your married friends want to have children, because you believe one of the major points of marriage is procreation Ex: believing all your friends think beer tastes better than wine because you think it does
Repetition
assuming that making the same point over and over (usually wrong) makes a claim more believable when it is actually the opposite
Aesthetic Principle #6
objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to produce special nonemotional experiences, such as a feeling of autonomy the willing suspension of disbelief Ex: Coleridge-one of arts values is its ability to stimulate our power to exercise our imaginations and consequently free ourselves from narrow thinking
Jeremy Bentham
devised a hedonistic calculus in which he assigned numerical values to pleasures and pains based on their intensity, certainty, duration, and so forth
Ethical Altruism
discounts one's own happiness as being of lesser value than the happiness of others
Ethical Altruism
discounts one's own happiness as of a lesser value than the happiness of others
ad hominem
dismissing someone's idea, proposal, claim, argument by dismissing him or her
The Square of Opposition
displays contradiction, contrariety, and sub-contrariety among corresponding standard-form claims
Aesthetic Principle #4
objects are aesthetically valuable if they have to capacity to produce pleasure in those who experience or appreciate them Ex: German philosopher Nietzsche identifies one kind of aesthetic value with the capacity to create a feeling of ecstatic bonding in audiencces.
Aesthetic Principle #7
objects are aesthetically valuable if they possess a special aesthetic property or exhibit a special aesthetic form "beauty" Ex: Clive Bell-good art is beautiful for its own sake, not because it fulfills any function
Major Term
occurs as the predicate term of the syllogism's conclusion
Minor Term
occurs as the subject term of the syllogism's conclusion
Middle Term
occurs in both the syllogism's premises but not at all in the conclusion
Division
occurs when a feature of a whole is erroneously attributed to its smaller, individual parts Example: During the recent recovery, my financial portfolio gained considerably in value. Therefore, Microsoft stock, which is in my portfolio, gained considerably in value.
Compositions
occurs when a feature of the parts of a thing is erroneously attributed to the whole Example: The public thinks highly of the individual members of the Congress. Therefore, the public thinks highly of Congress as a whole.
Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence
occurs when a speaker assumes that a coincidental temporal juxtaposition of two events together is causation Example: After Susan threw out the chain letter, she was in an automobile accident. Therefore, throwing out the chain letter caused her to get in an automobile accident
fallacy of biased sample
occurs when someone incautiously bases a generalisation about a large population on an atypical or skewed sample
Overlooking the Possibility of Reversed Causation
occurs when the speaker overlooks the possibility that the stated cause may actually be the effect and vice versa Example: Successful businesspeople often drive expensive cars. Therefore, driving an expensive car will help make you a successful person.
Confusing Explanations with Excuses
occurs when the speaker presumes that when someone explains how or why something happened, he or she is either excusing or justifying what happened Example: I heard on the History Channel about how weak the German economy after WWI contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Why would the History Channel try to excuse the Germans?
Overlooking False Positives
occurs when the speaker puts more weight on the negative, even when it is smaller in percentage compared to the positives Example: Ten percent of the people in living in Hayfork have come down with a stomach ailment, and most of those people ate vegetables from Olsen's stand in the public market. It seems wise to steer clear of Olsen's stand.
Confusing Contradictories and Contraries
occurs when the speaker takes two contrary claims as contradictories, or two contradictory claims as contraries Example: The instructions for the scavenger hunt said to bring back something dead, so I brought this rock. Now, you're telling me that it doesn't count? Do you think maybe it's alive?
Fallacious Appeal to Common Practice
occurs when the speaker tries to justify a practice on the grounds that it is traditional or commonly practiced Example: This is the right way; it's the way it has always been done.
Bandwagon Fallacy
occurs when the speaker tries to play on the natural human tendency to want to be a part of things or to be part of a group Example: Rand Paul has earned your support. Everyone is endorsing him.
Misplacing the Burden of Proof
occurs when the speaker tries to transfer his or her responsibility of providing proof for the claim to the audience Example: Guns should be outlawed. I bet you can't think of a single good reason they shouldn't.
Truth-functionally Equivalent
occurs when two claims have exactly the same truth table; when the Ts and Fs in the column under one claim are in the same arrangement as those in the column under the other
SARTORIAL
of or relating to tailoring, clothes, or style of dress.: "sartorial elegance".
relevance fallacy (red herring)
premise is not relevant to the issue in question
"If" and "Only if"
produces both antecedent and consequent (P --> Q) & (Q --> P)
Cognitive Bias
skew our apprehension of reality and interfere with our ability to think clearly, process information accurately, and reason objectively
proof surrogate
suggests there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority
Proof Surrogate
suggests there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority Example: There is every reason to believe that U.S. voters are just as fed up with the social engineering that lumps people together as groups rather than treating them as individuals. The claim does not state the "every reason" for believing that U.S. voters are fed up with the social engineering that lumps people together than treating them as individuals.
Truth Tables
tables that represent the truth value of claims;
Inference
take an argument from premise to conclusion
Predicate
tells something about the subject
Hypothetical Imperative
tells us what we ought to do or not to do in order to achieve such and such
Fundamental Attribution Error
tendency for people to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics (personality) to explain someone else's behavior in a given situation rather than considering the situation's external factors Ex: When someone else fails at something, it is because they are inferior or less capable, but when you fail it is due to external or outside factors, rather than your own faults
Bandwagon Effect
tendency to align our beliefs with those of other people aka herd mentality Ex: people might buy a new electronic item because of its popularity, regardless of whether they need it, can afford it, or even really want it. *iPhone!* Ex: In politics, the bandwagon effect might cause citizens to vote for the person who appears to have more popular support because they want to belong to the majority.
Confirmation Bias
tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors Ex: you believe left-handed people are more creative, every time you meet someone left handed and creative, you place greater importance on this "evidence" and pay less attention to non-supporting evidence. Also, you will seek out information to confirm your belief.
P v (or) Q - P . Q ^^ Or opposite (- Q, Conclusion: P). ^^ Either the Butler did it, or the maid did it. WITH -OR- in logic, it can also mean BOTH. The Olive Garden rule. *ALWAYS going to be DEDUCTIVELY VALID.*
Disjunctive Syllogism (aka Butler-Maid Rule)
Principle of honesty/integrity -
Do not deceive
Principle of harm -
Do not harm
Principle of lawfulness -
Do not violate the law.
Semantic Ambiguity
"Collins, the running back, always lines up on the right sight" - unclear whether right as apposed to left or correct side
Stare Decisis
"Letting the decision stand." Going by precedent
Confusing Explanations with Excuses
"The History Channel played a documentary saying how the weak German economy gave rise to Adolf Hitler. How could they excuse the germans like that?" Explanation: They aren't excusing the Germans, they're providing an explanation for the turn of events.
Confusing Contraries with Contradictories
"The instructions for the scavenger hunt said to bring back something dead. I brought back this rock but they said it doesn't count. Does that mean you think it's alive?" Explanation: A rock can't be alive, so the idea of a dead rock isn't contradictory to a live rock. Contradictories are two statements that are opposite.
Cum Hoc
"With this, therefore because of it" Ex: John had a heart attack while he was saying a prayer. Therefore, the prayer caused the heart attack. Ex: Children with long hair are better spellers than children with short hair. Therefore, having long hair makes a child a better speller.
The Line-drawing Fallacy
(False Dilemma)
The Perfectionist Fallacy
(False Dilemma)
Fallacy of Biased Sample
(GEC)
Self-Selection Fallacy
(GEC)
Argument by Anecdote
(Hasty generalization)
Fallacy of the lonely fact
(Hasty generalization)
Population/ Fallacy of Small Sample
(Hasty generalization)
Denial
(Irrelevant Conclusion)
Two wrongs make a right
(Irrelevant Conclusion)
categorical imperative
(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances -- it's a principle to guide actions -- and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose/motive. Says *all actions should be universalizable without creating contradiction.* -- It can't lead to a logical contradiction (more important than #2 below) Ex: lying leads to a logical contradiction -- It can't lead to a state of affairs that no one would rationally will
relevant property
(or property in question) In enumerative induction, a property, or characteristic, that is of interest in the target group.
____________ is to make the strongest possible argument. It is possible to do this, and yet have no one be _________.
*Reasoning*, persuaded
fallacies of language
.
Modus Ponens
1) P --> Q. 2) P. 3) Q.
Affirming the Consequent
1) P --> Q. 2) Q. 3) P. Invalid = Fallacy
Guidelines for Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
1. The more numerous and diversified the *similarities* are between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, the *stronger* the argument. 2. The more numerous and diversified the *differences* between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, the *weaker* the argument. 3. If there is *more than one* premise analogue, the more numerous and diversified the premise analogues are, the stronger the argument. 4. If there is more than one premise, the fewer the contrary premise analogues, the stronger the argument, and the more contrary premise-analogues the weaker the argument. Ex: (#1) If Sam and Bill are twins and grew up in the same household then it is more likely that they both like hunting. Ex: (#2) Sam and Bill are different ages, live in different parts of the country. If Bill likes fishing and poker and Sam doesn't, also makes it more unlikely. Ex: (#3) Bill, his sister Sarah, his uncle, his Dad, his Mom like hunting. Therefore, Sam likes hunting. (Strong)
Conservatism
A criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A ___________ theory is one that fits with our established beliefs.
Stereotypes
A cultural belief about a social group's attributes, usually simplified or exaggerated.
Value Judgement
A claim that assesses the merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness of someone or something. Also called normative or a prescriptive statement
Conditional Claim
A claim that state-of-affairs A cannot hold without state-of-affairs B holding as well "If A, then B." The A-part of the claim is called the antecedent, the B-part is called the consequent
analogy
A comparison of two or more things alike in specific respects.
Conjunction
A compound claim made from two simpler claims. A conjunction is true if and only if both of the simpler claims that compose it are true
Disjunction
A compound claim made up of two simpler claims. A disjunction is false and only if both of the simpler claims that make it up are false
sufficient conditions
A condition for the occurrence of an event that guarantees that the event occurs. If the sufficient condition occurs, it guarantees the event. Ex: If I have a canary (sufficient condition), then I have a bird.
necessary conditions
A condition for the occurrence of an event without which the event cannot occur. Something that has to happen in order for an event.
Fruitfulness
A criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. *A __________ theory is one that makes novel predictions.* *SEE HER ADDITIONAL NOTES ON FRUITFULNESS IF NEEDED.*
Scope
A criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. *A theory with ______ is one that explains or predicts phenomena other than that which it was introduced to explain.* The amount of diverse phenomena explained. *SEE HER ADDITIONAL NOTES ON SCOPE IF NEEDED.*
Simplicity
A criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A ______ theory is one that makes minimal assumptions Ockham's Razor).
Testability
A criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A ________ theory is one in which there is some way to determine whether the theory is true or false--that is, *it predicts something other than what it was introduced to explain.*
Ad Hominem Fallacy
A fallacy that attempts to dismiss someone's position by dismissing the person (rather than attacking the persons position) Ex: You are telling me not to drive and text b/c it is dangerous. Not only have I seen you drive and text, but last week you were saying it wasn't dangerous to do so. Ex: What do I think about the Presidents proposal for immigration reform? It's ridiculous. He just wants Latino votes. Ex: You can forget what Father Hennessy said about the dangers of abortion. He is a priest, and priests are required to hold such views.
Overlooking the Possibility of Regression
A fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that a change in the value of a variable from more atypical to less on subsequent measurements is due to causation.
Inference to the Best Explanation
A form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs:
inference to the best explanation
A form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs: Phenomenon Q. E provides the best explanation for Q. Therefore, it is probable that E is true. *how it differs from other kinds of induction???*
TEST Formula
A four-step procedure for evaluating the worth of a theory: Step 1. State the Theory and check for consistency. / Step 2. Assess the Evidence for the theory. / Step 3. Scrutinize alternative theories. / Step 4. Test the theories with the criteria of adequacy. *Needs further clarification???*
Claim Variable
A letter that stands for a claim
Fallacy
A mistake in reasoning.
Significant Mention
A passing over with brief mention so as to emphasize the suggestiveness of what is omitted
Interested Party
A person who stands to gain from our belief in a claim
Understand what a worldview is and why having a coherent worldview is so important. Understand how a worldview can fail to be coherent.
A philosophy of life; a set of fundamental ideas that helps us make sense of a wide range of important issues in life. A worldview defines for us what exists, what should be, and what we can know. why is having a coherent worldview so important??? Understand how a worldview can fail to be coherent...???
Sampling Frame
A precise definition of a sample or attribute that makes it unambiguous whether any given thing is a member of the sample and has the attribute
Contrary Analogue
A premise-analogue that weakens an argument from analogy; a disanalogy
Rhetorical Definition
A pseudo definition given to express our feelings or influence someone else's
Loaded Question
A question that rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions
Horse Laugh
A rhetorical technique whereby a speaker or writer seeks to discredit someone by mocking him or her, or to rebut his or her position by making fun of it
Atypical Sample
A sample in which an important variable is disproportionately present or absent
Biased (skewed) Sample
A sample in which an important variable is disproportionately present or absent
Dysphemism
A word of phrase used to produce a negative effect on a reader's or listener's attitude about something or to minimize the positive associations the thing may have
Premise-analogue
An argument from analogy is an argument that something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute (the similar thing is the premise-analogue
Principle of justice -
Acknowledge fairness in rights.
DEFINITION: A collection of *two or more propositions*, all but one of which are the premises supposed to provide inferential support—either deductive or inductive—for the truth of the remaining one, the conclusion. Uses inductive or deductive reasoning to *demonstrate not only that something is the case, but why it is the case*. This is an _______.
An Argument.
*Analogical Induction* (argument by analogy)
An argument making use of analogy, reasoning that because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in some further respect. Thing A has properties P1, P2, P3 plus the property P4' Thing B has properties P1, P2, and P3. Therefore, thing B probably has property P4. The greater the degree of similarity between the two things being compared, the more probable the conclusion is. This reasons from some (one or more) individuals to one further individual, whereas enumerative induction argues from some members of a group to the group as a whole. Often used in moral reasoning. We argue that since an action is relevantly similar to another action, and the former action is clearly right (or wrong), then we should regard the latter action in the same way. Diversity amongst cases = stronger argument Diversity has to do with the THINGS, similarities or dissimilarities has to do with the PROPERTIES.
Argument from Analogy
An argument that something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute
Expertise
An unusual knowledge or ability in a given subject, most often due to specialized experience or education
Rhetorical analogy
Analogies used to express or influence attitudes or affect behavior by invoking images with emotional associations.
Examples (conclusions highlighted): - Professors are responsible for giving accurate explanations. Chris is a professor, so she should give accurate explanations. - Since the traffic was beyond my control, you should excuse my tardiness. - Socrates is mortal because he is a human, and all humans are mortal - If all organisms with wings can fly, and penguins and ostriches have wings, then penguins and ostriches can fly. - I know that Hillary Clinton used only her private email when she was Secretary of State because I heard it on the radio. These are examples of __________________ .
Arguments.
Ethos
Aristotle's first mode of persuasion which involves persuasion by a speaker's personal attributes, such as his or her background, reputation, accomplishments, expertise, etc.
Logos
Aristotle's third mode of persuasion which involves persuasion by logic, information, and rational arguments
*OFTEN when we see words like _______ or __, it indicates an argument...but not always. Explanations can also use these words.
Because or so
Know how and why the criterion of internal consistency is applied to worldviews.
Because our worldviews can be internally inconsistent. Our moral theory can conflict with our view of human freedom. Our theory about the existence of God can conflict with our scientific theory about the nature of the universe. Our theory about the mind can be in conflict with theories of personal survival after death.
*[CAN / CAN'T] always look at a statement and know if it is a premise or conclusion.
CAN'T
*A statement [CAN / CANNOT] often act as a premise or conclusion, [EVEN IN / BUT NOT FOR] the same argument.
CAN, BUT NOT FOR
Know the three moral criteria of adequacy & how to apply to moral theories.
Consistency with *Considered Moral Judgments* (those moral judgments that we accept after we reason about them carefully). Example: We would not think it right to falsely accuse and punish an innocent person just because doing so would make a whole town of people happy, but act-utilitarianism would seem to say it is right. Consistency with our *Experience of the Moral Life* (According to this theory, are moral judgments possible? Can we have moral disagreements? Can we ever act immorally?) *Workability in Real-Life Situations*. Example: some say act-utilitarianism is unworkable because how do you accurately calculate happiness?
confusing contraries & contradictories
Contradictory claims are claims that cannot have the same truth value. Contrary claims are claims that cannot both be true but can both be false. Example: VISITOR: I understand that all the fish in this pond are carp. CURATOR: No, quite the opposite, in fact. VISITOR: What? No carp?
Ways in which people can make errors in causal reasoning.
Correlation but not causation. Events are actually identical. Mis-identify relevant factors (often from ignorance). Assuming one action is the cause instead of perhaps multiple causes, or vice versa. Coincidence (very common). Confusing cause with temporal order. -- EX: Leaving food out caused maggots (brought them into existence). Mixing up cause and effect (a post hoc fallacy).
*"The governor has a funny hat." What kind of statement is this??
DESCRIPTIVE STATEMENT. What something is like -- describes a thing or scenario.
EXAMPLES: - This sheet has lots of different definitions on it. - Hillary Clinton used her private email when she was Secretary of State - To make tea, steep the leaves in hot water and then pour through a filter These are examples of _________ _________s .
DESCRIPTIVE STATEMENTs.
*A particular type of descriptive claim* -- beyond merely describing, also seeks to provide non-normative reason for why something happens. May be only a single clause or statement
Explanation
Examples: - Chris made this sheet because she wanted to provide better explanation - I was late for class because there was a lot of traffic - Hillary Clinton used her private email when she was Secretary of State because she thought it would be easier - When you make tea, you use a filter to keep from swallowing tea leaves These are examples of __________________ .
Explanations
Hyperbole
Extravagant overstatement
Repetition
Hearing or reading a claim over and over can sometimes mistakenly encourage the belief that it is true.
Helpful video: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/critical-thinking/v/normative-and-descriptive-claims
Helpful video: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/critical-thinking/v/normative-and-descriptive-claims
Formal Fallacy of __________ __________: P → Q P → R Q → R
Hypothetical Syllogism
P1 P → Q P2 Q → R C P → R P1 If [I have a canary, (P)] then [I have a bird. (Q)] P2 If I have a bird (Q), then I have a dinosaur-descendent (R). C If I have a canary (P), then I have a dinosaur descendent ® *ALWAYS going to be DEDUCTIVELY VALID.*
Hypothetical syllogism
___________________ are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.
Idols of the Cave
Basic explanations of all 4 idols:
Idols of the tribe: Concerned with human senses/nature Idols of the cave: Biases/experiences that individuals have that after perceptions. Idols of the marketplace: Language - vagueness Idols of the theater: Dogmatically held beliefs
Moral Reasoning Principle #2
If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of truth is on that person to show that he or she is in fact not violating the principle. Ex: Parker says "Blue eyed students can take the test with their books open." Parker needs to show he is not violating consistency principle by showing there is something about having blue eyes that should entitle such individuals to take the test with their books open. Note: If Carol treats black customers and white customers differently and cannot identify for us some relevant difference between the two, then we are justified in regarding her as inconsistent.
typical
In a generalization, if the sample is likely to be HOMOGENOUS, an undiversified sample may be a ______________________________________________ one.
Representative sample
In enumerative induction, a sample that resembles the target group in all relevant ways.
sample (or sample member)
In enumerative induction, the observed members of the target group.
target group/population
In enumerative induction, the whole collection of individuals under study.
Consequentialism
In moral reasoning, the view that the consequences of a decision, deed, or policy determine its moral value
The Universals
In proving that a syllogism is valid through a Venn diagram, we ALWAYS start with _______________________.
confidence level
In statistical theory, the probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error.
The Weakest Argument
In syllogisms with mixed-form claims, the conclusion always takes the form of _______________________.
JUST REVIEW A COUPLE TIMES: P1: All philosophers are absent-minded. P → Q P2: All philosophers are teachers. P → R C: All absent-minded people are teachers. Q → R ^^ Invalid. Fallacy. Valid: P1: All philosophers are absent-minded. P → Q P2: All absent-minded people are teachers P → R C: All philosophers are teachers Q → R
JUST REVIEW A COUPLE TIMES: P1: All philosophers are absent-minded. P → Q P2: All philosophers are teachers. P → R C: All absent-minded people are teachers. Q → R ^^ Invalid. Fallacy. Valid: P1: All philosophers are absent-minded. P → Q P2: All absent-minded people are teachers P → R C: All philosophers are teachers Q → R
Hypotherical Imperative
Kant's term for an imperative that tells us how we must act to reach a specific objective
Hypothetical Imperative
Kant's term for an imperative that tells us how we must act to reach a specific objective For an act to be morally praiseworthy, it must be done not for some sake of some objective, but *simply because it is right.* Our action of keeping our promise is morally praiseworthy only if we do it simply because it is right to keep our promises
Theory of Moral Necessity
Kant's theory of never treating other people as mere tools; can be used to support the idea that people have rights and that treatment of others must always involve fair play
Has an If/Then structure The If is always followed by a sufficient condition (also called an antecedent), and then followed by the Then, which is followed by the "consequent". Ex: IF I have a canary (sufficient condition or antecedent), THEN I have a bird (consequent). ^^ C → B, P → Q. *Allows us to evaluate validity without getting caught up in Truth or Falseness of argument*
Material conditional
Critical Thinking
Meaning: Thinking about how you think, analyzing why you think the way you do, looking at all sides of an argument or issue Importance: -*As nurses, we will need to use critical thinking every day, all throughout the day, to make decisions that ultimately, could lead to life or death for our patients.* -Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career. -Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyse the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities. -Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. -The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.
Mill's (creator of utilitarianism) methods for evaluation of causal arguments.
Method of Agreement -- if two or more occurrences of a phenomenon have only one relevant factor in common, that factor must be the cause. Method of Difference -- the relevant factor present when a phenomenon occurs, and absent when the phenomenon does not occur, must be the cause. Method of Concomitant Variation -- when two events are correlated-when one varies in close connection with the other they are probably causally related. Must be careful to always take into account pertinent aspects of the situation
Joint Occurrence of Independent Events
Method of Calculating Probabilities: The probability of an outcome can be calculated by simple division P = probabilities O = number of outcomes interested in L = likely number of outcomes Formula: P = O/L
Expectation Value
Method of Calculating Probabilities: The result of how much you expect to gain combined with the likelihood of gaining it can be calculated by EV = expectation value P = probabilities G = gain L = loss Formula: EV = (P x G) - (P x L)
_____ _______ (affirming the antecedent) -- if it's modus ponens, it is deductive, but inductive can also use If/Then P1 → Q If [I have a canary, (antecedent)] Then [I have a bird] P2 . I have a canary (is important to confirm P1) ...Q I have a bird _____ _______ proves validity, not necessarily soundness. _____ _______ often feels redundant because of P2, but P2 is important for confirmation of P1. *ALWAYS going to be DEDUCTIVELY VALID.*
Modus Ponens
_____ _______ (denying the consequent) -- Always deductive. P → Q - Q . - P P1 If I have a canary, then I have a bird. P2 I do NOT have a bird . C I do not have a canary. *ALWAYS going to be DEDUCTIVELY VALID.*
Modus Tollens
Something that has to happen in order for an event to occur.
Necessary condition:
Can normative or descriptive claims be arguments in themselves?
Neither of these are arguments, but both of them might be used to develop an argument.
double-blind
Neither the subjects nor the experimenters know who receives the real treatment and who the inactive one.
There is nothing to know (metaphysical [about the stuff that actually exists] claim).
Nihilism:
Ockham's Razor
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.
Aesthetic Principle #8
No reasoned argument can conclude that objects are aesthetically valuable or valueless "Tastes cannot be disputed"
Scare Tactics
Occurs when a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion. Includes direct threats, which are sometimes called "arguments from force". Ex: Jerry Brown would make a terrible governor. Do you seriously think I could be interested in being your girlfriend if you voted for him? Ex: You really should get a Prudential life insurance policy. What would happen to your spouse and children if you die? Remember, you are their main source of income. Would they be forced to move? Ex: Obviously the federal government must cut spending. You agree with the rest of us on that, I assume. (*Peer Pressure Fallacy*-playing on our fear of becoming an outcast)
Independent events
One independent event cannot affect the outcome of another independent event. To calculate the probability that independent events both occur, we multiply their individual probabilities.
Idols of the cave:
One of Bacon's Idols. An individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion.
Idols of the tribe:
One of Bacon's Idols. Deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. Concerned with senses.
Idols of the marketplace:
One of Bacon's Idols. Errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words. Thinking you won an argument because you have out-talked your opponent.
Idols of the theater:
One of Bacon's Idols. When a belief is so dogmatically held & defended by a group that it is then accepted without question by the masses
Understand why eyewitness testimony is often unreliable
Peoples' beliefs and expectations can affect their testimony, causing it to be inaccurate. Memories of eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Emotions or substance use can skew the testimony. It's reasonable to accept eyewitness evidence only if there's no good reason to doubt it.
Initial Plausibility
One's rough assessment of how credible a claim seems
Hyperbole
Overdone exaggeration.
Be able to use the TEST formula to evaluate extraordinary theories.
Step 1. State the THEORY and check for internal and external consistency. Step 2. Assess the EVIDENCE for the theory. Step 3. SCRUTINIZE alternative theories (need to look at alternative theories & use inference to best explanation). Step 4. TEST each of the theories with the *criteria of adequacy*. *See slide 365 for a good example.*
Deontology
Study of duty & obligation (Kantian ethics is the most common form & a very strict form)
everyone has their own "truth"; something can be true for one person, without being true for another. Allows us all to be "right," to feel good about ourselves, to have explanations for our experiences. Might allow disagreements without saying someone is wrong.
Subjective relativism
if this occurs, it guarantees the necessary condition as well "A sufficient condition guarantees that the event occurs." [book]
Sufficient condition:
Proof surrogate
Suggest there is evidence or authority for a claim with out actually saying what the evidence or authority is.
Expectation Values (EV)
THe likelihood of a result combined with the possible effects of that result
T or F: Any argument that is SOUND is also VALID.
TRUE. Example: P1 | Socrates is a human P2 | + All humans are mortal Socrates is a mortal ^^This argument is both valid and sound.
examples
Ted: Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact. Edwin: That is ridiculous! How can you possibly be absolutely certain that we evolved from pond scum! Ted: Actually, that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we evolved from pond scum. Unlike math and logic, science is based on empirical evidence and, therefore, a scientific fact is something that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that biological evolution does occur falls into this category.
Conclusion-analogue
That analogue referred to in the conclusion of an argument from analogy (sometimes called target analogue)
Background Information
The body of justified beliefs that consists of facts we learn from our own direct observations and facts we learn from others
the weaker the generalization
The less diversified the sample in a generalization, ______________________________________________.
Ethical Altruism
The moral doctrine that discounts one's own happiness as being lesser value than the happiness of others
Ethical Egoism
The moral doctrine that the rightness of an act is determined by the happiness it produces for oneself
Utilitarianism
The moral position that if an act will produce more happiness than its alternatives, that act is the right thing to do, and if the act will produce less happiness than its alternative, it would be wrong to do it in place of an alternative that would produce more happiness
Virtue Ethics
The moral position unified around the basic idea that each of us should try to perfect a virtuous character that we exhibit in all actions
Criteria of Adequacy
The standards used to judge the worth of explanatory theories. They include testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism.
CRITICAL THINKING:
The systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards.
Legal Paternalism
The theory that a restriction on a person's freedom can sometimes be justified by showing that it is for that person's own beenfit
Legal Moralism
The theory that, if an activity is immoral, it should also be illegal
INFORMAL FALLACIES --
There are two types of these, which are: Unacceptable Premises & Irrelevant Premises. These are more about mistakes in reasoning than logic. The logic could be shown to be flawed too, but we're focusing on reasoning in _______ ___________.
Know how to use the counterexample method to evaluate moral premises.
Thinking of instances in which the principle of a moral premise would not hold. For example, what about the use of antibiotics to treat infections to counter premise 2 below? (1) The medical cloning of humans is unnatural because it is something that would not occur without human intervention. (2) All actions that are unnatural and that are not done for religious reasons should not be done. (3) The medical cloning of humans is never done for religious reasons. (4) Therefore, cloning humans should not be done.
An argument is...
an argument is a group of statements in which some of them (the premises) are intended to support another of them (the conclusion).
Contraries
are claims that cannot both be true, but can both be false
Precedence
Using ____________ = using analogous inductive to compare two cases. Judges often do this.
Innuendo
Using the power of suggestion to disparage someone or something.
*P1 | All organisms with wings can fly FALSE P2 | + Penguins and osterichs have wings TRUE Therefore, P & O can fly FALSE
VALID, BUT NOT SOUND.
*the logic works out, conclusion follows from premises. Assumes that all premises are true.
Valid
moral arguments
This type of argument, like any other kind of argument, has premises and a conclusion. The premises (and sometimes the conclusion) may be implied, not stated, and they may be simple or complex -- just as in other arguments. Moral arguments, however, differ from nonmoral ones in that their conclusions are moral statements. Good example: (1) It is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on a child. (2) Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child. (3) Therefore, spanking is wrong.
*P1 | Socrates is a human P2 | + All humans are mortal Socrates is a mortal Valid and/or sound?
Valid & Sound
"guaranteed"
Valid arguments will always have the conclusion ________________ by its premises.
Mistakes in combining probabilities
We cannot calculate the final probability by combining the two events that are independent
examples
We either eliminate Social Security or the country will go bankrupt. Therefore we must eliminate Social Security Look, either we clean out the garage, or this junk will run us out of house and home
Confounding Variable
a variable in an investigation of causation which may be causally linked with an effect of interest or cause of interest, but is not the subject of the investigation; can make confirmations for arguments weaker
Rhetorical
asking a question for which you don't expect or require an answer
Harm Principle
claim that the only way to justify a restriction on a person's freedom is to show that the restriction prevents harm to other people
external consistency
consistent with the data it's supposed to explain
Precising Definition
definition that limits the applicability of a term whose usual meaning is too vague for the use in question Ex: a *dictionary* may define the term "student" as "1. anyone attending an educational institution of any type, or 2. anyone who studies something." However, a *movie theater* may propose a precising definition for the word "student" of "any person under the age of 18 enrolled in a local school" in order to determine who is eligible to receive discounted tickets. legal definitions, company policy, real estate definitions
Analytical Definition
definition that specifies 1. the *type of thing* the defined term applies to 2. the *difference between that thing and other things* of the same type Ex: A Vegetable: A *plant* or part of a plant *used for food*. A Car: an *internally powered, four-wheeled vehicle* used to *transport individuals* over roads.
Denotation
direct meaning
JOCULAR
fond of or characterized by joking; humorous or playful.
internal consistency
free of contradictions
Rhetorical Analogy
likens two or more things to make one of them appear better or worse than another to evoke emotions that would stand as bases for believing unreasonable claims Example: Social Security likened to a Ponzi scheme might make people suspicious of Social Security. Barack Obama being likened to Abraham Lincoln might encourage more people to vote for him in the elections.
Religious Absolutism
maintains that the correct moral principles are those accepted by the "correct" religion
Conditio sine qua non
means "a condition without which nothing"; the latin expression for the phrase "but for which"
"Factual Claim"
objective claim; factual does not mean true
Aesthetic Principle #1
objects are aesthetically valuable if they are meaningful or teach us truth Ex: Aristotle says that tragic plays teach us general truths about the human condition in a dramatic way that cannot be matched by real-life experience.
Aesthetic Principle #3
objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to bring about social or political change Ex: Abraham Lincoln commented that Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin contributed to the antislavery movement.
Aesthetic Principle #2
objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to convey values or beliefs that are central to the cultures or traditions in which they originate or that are important to the artist who made them Ex: John Milton's poem, Paradise Lost expresses the 17th century Puritan view of the relationship between human beings and God.
Aesthetic Principle #5
objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to produce certain emotions we value, at least when the emotion is brought about by art rather than life Ex: Aristotle-when we welcome the feelings of fear brought on by frightening dramas, but in real life we avoid such emotion
INVEIGH
speak or write about (something) with great hostility.
A _______ is an assertion that something is or is not the case
statement
Offense Principle
states that laws forbidding an action can be justifiable if the action causes great offense to others
Inductive arguments can be compared as to...
strength and weakness
Deductive Demonstration
the highest standard of proof in reasoning; corresponds to "beyond any possible doubt"
Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence (post hoc/cum hoc)
when a speaker or writer overlooks that a temporal juxtaposition of two events is due to causation Ex: After Susan threw out the chain letter, she was in a car accident. Therefore, throwing out the chain letter caused her to get in a car accident.
fallacy of composition
when speaker assumes that what is true taken individually must also be true of the same things taken collectively. what is true of the parts of a thing must be true of the thing itself distinguish from hasty generalization Example: 1. This building is made from rectangular bricks. Therefore, it must be rectangular. 2. A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, the total amount of food eaten by tigers, as a group, is greater than the total amount of food eaten by humans, as a group.
Fallacious Appeal to Authority
when speaker or writer tries to support a contention by offering as evidence the opinion of a non authoritative source Ex: My father thinks the president lied. Therefore, the president lied. Ex: My doctor thinks my car has leaking valves. Therefore, my car has leaking valves.
poisoning the well
when speaker/writers want us to dismiss what someone is going to say by talking about the person's consistency, character or circumstances
biased sample
A sample that does not properly represent the target group.
random sampling
A sample that is selected randomly from a target group in such a way as to ensure that the sample is representative. In a simple random selection, every member of the target group has an equal chance of being selected for the sample.
Amphiboly
A situation where a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure. "If you want to take the motor out of the car, I'll sell it to you for cheap." Explanation: Are you selling the car or the motor? What's "it"?
*Causal Claims*
A statement about the cause of things.
moral statements
A statement asserting that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that something (such as a person or motive) is good or bad.
Ambiguous
A statement or phrase in which it is not clear to what or to whom a pronoun is suppose to refer
Casual Statement
A statement that sets forth the cause of an event
Statistical Syllogism
A syllogism having this form: Such-and-such proportion of X's are Y's. This is an X. Therefore this is a Y.
Casual Hypothesis
A tentative casual statement offered for further investigation or testing
Theoretical explanation
A theory, or hypothesis, that tries to explain why something is the way it is, why something is the case, or why something happened.
Rhetorical Device
Are used to influence beliefs or attitudes through the associations, connotations, and implications of words, sentence, and more extended passages. May be used to enhance the persuasive force of arguments
*Are conclusions referred to as true or false?
NO. Only *premises* / propositions / statements [synonyms] are referred to as true or false, not conclusions.
*"Smoking can cause cancer." What kind of statement is this??
NOT a normative statement, NOT an argument...Because it has no "WHY". This is a descriptive statement.
Can arguments contain just a single proposition?
No. Arguments must contain more than a single proposition. They can sometimes be combined into a single sentence, but they are always more than one clause.
The Line-Drawing Fallacy
Occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal clear line can be drawn between two things, or they cannot really be differentiated Ex: Poverty isn't a problem in this country; after all, when is a person really poor? You can't say exactly.
Begging the question
Occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to "support" or "demonstrate" a contention by offering as "evidence" or "proof" what amounts to repackaging of the very contention in question Ex: Obviously the President told the truth about Benghazi. He wouldn't lie to us about it. Ex: That God exists is proven by scripture, because scripture is the word of God and thus cannot be false.
Disinterested Party
People who have no stake in our belief one way or another
technology
Technology applies knowledge acquired through science to practical problems that science generally doesn't care about, such as the creation of electronic gadgets
begging the question
The fallacy of attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise. Also called arguing in a circle. Example: My boyfriend doesn't lie to me. I know this because he's honest.
the weaker the generalization
The more atypical the sample in a generalization, ______________________________________________.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
"After this, therefore because of it" Ex: After I took Zicam, my cold went away fast. Therefore, taking Zicam made my cold go away fast. *NO BETTER THAN:* Ex: After I played poker, my cold went away fast. Therefore, playing poker made my cold go away fast. Ex: Every day the sun comes up right after the rooster crows; therefore, the rooster causes the sun to come up. Ex: After you drove my car it was hard to start. Therefore, it was something you did to my car that made it hard to start. *Correlation does not equal causation!*
Overlooking Prior Probabilities
"Bill is the best football player in our high school, and Hal is the best hockey player in our high school. So it appears that Bill's chances of becoming a professional football player and Hal's chances of becoming a professional hockey player are equally good." Explanation: The chances of becoming a professional football player are statistically greater originally, so Bill has the higher chance
Incorrectly Combining the Probability of Independent Events
"Bill's chances of becoming a professional football player are about 1 in 1,000 and Hal's chances of becoming a professional hockey player are about 1 in 5,000. So the chance of both of them becoming professionals in their respective sports is about 1 in 6,000." Explanation: That's not how you would combine statistics.
Irrelevant Conclusion
"I don't think I missed too many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better lately."
syntactic ambiguity
"Wou will need a birth certificate or a driver's licence and other photo ID" claim is open to two or more interpretations because of the structure
True Scotsman
"You can't be part of our group because you don't do it this way." Sort of the opposite of stereotyping. Person A: "No __________ puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Person A: "Ah yes, but no _____ __________ puts sugar on his porridge."
Conjunction
"and"; represented by an "&" or "^"; a compound claim made from two simple claims, called "conjuncts"; is true if and only if both of the simpler claims that make it up are true
Disjunction
"either...or"; is another compound claim made up of two simpler claims, called "disjuncts"; is false if and only both of its disjuncts are false
Conditional
"if....then"; is made up of two simpler claims in which one claim cannot stand on its own without the other; made up of an antecedent and a consequent; is false if and only if its antecedent (P) is true and its consequent false (Q)
grouping ambiguity
"secretaries make more money than physicians do" does the phrase refers to them collectively or individually?
Apple Polishing
"supporting" argument by trying to flatter us
Appeal to Envy
"supporting" argument by trying to make us envious
Guilt Tripping
"supporting" argument by trying to make us feel guilty
Appeal to Jealousy
"supporting" argument by trying to make us jealous
Genetic Fallacy
(Ad hominem)
Guilt by Association
(Ad hominem)
Poisoning the well
(Ad hominem)
Appeal to Envy
(Appeal to Emotion)
Appeal to Jealousy
(Appeal to Emotion)
Appeal to Pity
(Appeal to Emotion)
Apple Polishing
(Appeal to Emotion)
Argument from Outrage
(Appeal to Emotion)
Guilt Tripping
(Appeal to Emotion)
Peer Pressure Fallacy
(Appeal to Emotion)
Scare Tactics
(Appeal to Emotion)
Wishful Thinking
(Irrelevant Conclusion)
Appeal to Ignorance
(MBP)
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy
(after that, therefore because of that). The fallacy of reasoning that just because B followed A, A must have caused B.
Doubts about sources generally fall into two categories...
* doubts about the source's knowledge or expertise * doubts about the source's veracity, objectivity, and accuracy
Ad Hominem vs Moral Reasoning
*James and Howard perform the same in class, but James gets and A and Howard gets a C* *Ad Hom:* James does not deserve a C because you gave Howard an A. *Moral Reas:* You are being inconsistent. You have misgraded one of these students. (this is logical)
________________ is about the person listening to/reading/etc the argument. They may not be convinced to believe because the argument wasn't reasoned well. They also may not be convinced to believe because they have some kind of psychological barriers in the way. Often times, people try to __________ using things like emotions, charismatic speaking, etc. Hitler's arguments ____________ .
*Persuading*
Understand how to apply the criteria of adequacy to the theories of evolution and creationism and why the text says that evolution is the better theory.
*Testability*, BOTH are. EVOLUTION: Yes, "Bacteria develop resistance, humans similar to primates, emergence of new infectious diseases." CREATIONISM: Yes, "Earth's geology changed in worldwide flood, universe only a few thousand years old, all species were created at the same time." *Fruitfulness*, EVOLUTION: "that new species should still be evolving today, fossil record should show a movement from older, simpler organisms to younger, more complex ones; that proteins and chromosomes of related species should be similar; and that organisms shouldadapt to changing environments." CREATIONISM: "has made some novel claims, as we saw earlier, but none of these have been supported by good evidence. Not fruitful." *Scope*, EVOLUTION: "Probably more telling than any of the others. Biological evolution explains a vast array of phenomena in many fields of science. In fact, a great deal of the content of numerous scientific fields -- genetics, physiology, biochemistry, neurobiology, and more -- would be deeply perplexing without the theory of evolution. As the eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'" CREATIONISM: "Creationism, however, can explain none of this. And it provokes, not solves, innumerable mysteries. So many questions are an indication of diminished scope and decreased understanding." *Simplicity*, EVOLUTION: "Both theories make assumptions, but creationism assumes much more." CREATIONISM: "Both theories make assumptions, but creationism assumes much more." *Conservatism*, EVOLUTION: "would cause us to expect to see systematic change in the fossil record from simple to more complex more recently --> matches with our established data." CREATIONISM: "the scientific evidence shows that Earth is not six thousand to ten thousand years old"
If we think there is something wrong with the conclusion, the conclusion is likely not the place to look for the problem. Probably a problem with...
-- the premises. -- Or you could be missing information. -- Or you might try rewording / tweaking the premises and conclusion. -- If there is no problem with the premises, and the conclusion is sound but it doesn't sit well with you, after all this you could be dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Denying the Antecedent
1) P --> Q. 2) ~P. 3) ~Q. Invalid = Fallacy
Modus Tollens
1) P --> Q. 2) ~Q. 3) ~P.
Five steps of the scientific method
1. Identify the problem or pose a questioh. 2. Devise a hypothesis to explain the event or phenomenon. 3. Derive a test implication or prediction. 4. Perform the test. 5. Accept or reject the hypothesis.
two wrongs make a right
Arguing that your doing something morally wrong is justified because someone else has done the same (or similar) thing.
Stereotype
A cultural belief or idea about a social group's attributes, usually simplified or exaggerated. It can be positive or negative
Deduction (general)
A deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. A deductively valid argument is such that if its premises lead logically to the conclusion and are true, its conclusion absolutely must be true (aka sound). Validity - Premises lead logically to the conclusion. Soundness - Valid + the premises are true.
Random Sample
A sample selected by a procedure that gives every member of a population an equal chance of being included
ad hoc hypothesis
A hypothesis, or theory, that cannot be verified independently of the phenomenon it's supposed to explain. Ad hoc hypotheses always make a theory less simple--and therefore less credible. Ad hoc adds something to the end of a theory to help the theory seem to hold up better, but does no independent work itself. Example: Before our current view of the solar system, it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. Had to explain, using ad hoc, the orbits of other planets, which seem weird if they're supposedly orbiting the earth.
Grouping Ambiguity
A kind of semantic ambiguity in which it is unclear whether a claim refers to a group of things taken individually or collectively
examples
A lawyer attacking a defendant's character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case Responding in any debate with an attack on one's personal beliefs.
Slanter
A linguistic device used to affect opinions, attitudes or behavior without argumentation. Rely heavily on the suggestive power of words and phrases to convey and evoke favorable and unfavorable images
*"Because the governor has a funny hat, we shouldn't trust his sartorial tastes." What kind of statement is this??
Argument (very dumb one)
A formal fallacy (invalid version) of Modus Ponens, called _________ ___ __________. P → Q If I have a canary, then I have a bird Q . I have a bird. P Therefore, I have a canary (obviously this can be false) ^^ If I had a NOT in front of each of these, I would have valid Modus Tollens.
Affirming the Consequent:
Butler did it or Maid did it Maid did it . Butler did NOT do it Not necessarily. They BOTH could have done it.
Affirming the Disjunct (the v, OR):
Euphemism
An agreeable or inoffensive expression that is substituted for an expression that may be found unpleasant or offensive by a listener or reader
Semantic Ambiguity
An ambiguous claim whose ambiguity is due to the ambiguity of a word or phrase in the claim
Syntactic Ambiguity
An ambiguous claim whose ambiguity is due to the structure of the claim
False Dilemma (Ignoring other Alternatives)
All shades of grey are ignored; attempts to establish a point by suggesting it is the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable or implausible. (given two examples, one is extreme) Ex: We either eliminate Social Security or the country will go bankrupt. Therefore, we should eliminate Social Security. Ex: Either we clean up the garage, or this junk will run us out of house and home.
Rhetorical Analogy
An analogy used to express or influence attitudes or affect behavior; such analogies often invoke images with positive or negative emotional associations
Fallacy
An argument form that is both common and defective; a recurring mistake in reasoning..
Attacking the Analogy
An attempt to rebut an argument from analogy by calling attention to important dissimilarities between the analogue
Rhetorical Explanations
An explanation intended to influence attitudes or affect behavior; such explanations often make use of images with positive or negative emotional associations
Downplayer
An expression used to play down or diminish the importance of something
Weaseler
An expression used to protect a claim from criticism by weakening or qualifying it
Proof Surrogate
An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually saying what it is
Premise Analogue (sample analogue)
similar thing in Argument from Analogue In premise (Sam)
Induction (general)
An inductive argument is intended to provide probable-not conclusive~support for its conclusion. An inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable-but not unconditional--logical support for its conclusion is said to be strong; if not, it is weak. An inductively strong argument is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion is probably true. Strong - succeed in logical support Weak - if logical support is weak. Cogent = Strong argument + All the premises are true. *Cogent = Conclusion is likely to be true
Know what *Enumerative Induction* is and how it's used.
An inductive argument pattern in which we reason from premises about individual members of a group to conclusions about the group as a whole. Ex: I saw 100 swans, they were all white, therefore all swans must be white. X percent of the observed members of group A have property P. Therefore, X percent of all members of group A probably have property P. Enumerate: - To count off or name one by one; list: A spokesperson enumerated the strikers' demands. - To determine the number of; count. Argues from some members of a group to the group as a whole, whereas analogical induction reasons from some (one or more) individuals to one further individual.
Faulty Inductive Conversion
An inductive argument that switches the subject and predicate terms. "Most professional football players are men. Therefore, most men are professional football players."
*Causal Arguments*
An inductive argument whose conclusion contains a causal claim.
Innuendo
An insinuation of something derogatory (say something bad about someone or something)
repetition
simply making the same point over and over
Pathos
Aristotle's second mode of persuasion which involves connecting to others on a personal level and by arousing and appealing to other people's emotions by the skillful use of rhetoric
decision point fallacy
At which point did I stop having a heap of sand? Fallacy is thinking there was a particular point when I stopped having a heap. Another example: When does an embryo become a fetus? When does abortion become abortion of a baby?
innuendo
uses the power of suggestion to disparage (say something bad about)
arriving at causal hypotheses
Common sense and background knowledge of what and how things work must be used when ______________________________________________.
Valid or invalid =
DEDUCTIVE NOTE: You can only be sound if you are valid (always deductive). Something can only be invalid if it is deductive.
Starts with a larger claim (about a universal or group) and works down to an individual. It's a top-down approach. *Because of this approach, if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.* These arguments are often found in philosophy.
Deductive
Example: All humans are mortal (large group) Socrates is a human (small group or individual) Therefore Socrates is mortal (MUST be true) ^^ If this is valid & sound, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. ^^ Test for validity: does the logic work out? ^^ Test for soundness: are the premises true? This is a ___________ _____________ __________ .
Deductive argument example
Rhetorical definitions/explanations
Definitions and explanations used to express or influence attitudes or affect behavior by invoking images with emotional association.
Subjective relativism -
Everyone has their own "truth" Something can be true for one person and not another.
Example 2: P1 If [Elvis' name is spelled wrong on his tombstone, (antecedent P)] Then [there is a conspiracy (consequent Q)]. P2 Elvis' name is spelled wrong. Q There is a conspiracy *ALWAYS going to be DEDUCTIVELY VALID.*
Example of Modus Ponens
P1 If Elvis' name is spelled wrong (P antecedent), then there is a conspiracy (consequent). P2 There is no conspiracy. C Elvis' name is NOT spelled wrong. ^^ If my conclusion was - Q, it would be a fallacy and would be entirely different. *ALWAYS going to be DEDUCTIVELY VALID.*
Example of Modus Tollens
Example: Don't need evidence that an alien visited me last night. It is either true or false that I was visited by an alien last night.
Example of Objective truth
Arguments [CAN / CANNOT] be built up with just a series of explanations..
Explanations are claims/statements, but are not arguments. Arguments can be built up with explanations, but a series of explanations alone will not make an argument. We also often need normative claims.
Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence
I got cancer when I lived under a high-voltage power line. Therefore the high-voltage power line caused my cancer
___________________ are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.
Idols of the Marketplace
___________________ are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.
Idols of the Theater
________________ are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."
Idols of the Tribe
Valid
If both major and minor term a properly connected through the second premise by a middle term, the syllogism is said to be _________________.
Invalid
If both premises of a syllogism are particulars, the argument is _______________________.
Social or Cultural relativism
Individuals can be right or wrong, but not the culture as a whole
Affirming the Consequent
Inferring the converse from the original statement. "If Bob is in this fraternity, he must guy. Bob is a guy, therefore he must be in a fraternity."
Division Fallacy
Involves someone taking an attribute of a whole or a class and assuming that it must be necessarily true of each part or member. "My overall GPA went up. Therefore my Critical Reasoning grade went up." Explanation: It could have gone up from good grades in other classes.
"The governor should not grant clemency." What kind of statement is this??
It is a NORMATIVE STATEMENT. It is not an argument, just a statement, Because it has no "WHY".
Two wrongs make a right
Johnny stole my lunch money, so I can still Kyle's.
Generality
Lack of detail or specificity
Role of Language/Writing in Critical Thinking
Language is very important to how well we accomplish critical thinking. Language is how we convey our opinions, expressions and how we make our ideas known to others.
Stare Decisis
Latin for the principle of appeal to the precedent, which means "to stand by the decision"
Three major errors that people often make when they are trying to assess extraordinary experiences and theories:
Leaping to the weirdest theory (can't think of a natural reason, so must be supernatural). Something seems real, so it must be real. Logical possibility vs. logical impossibility. Physical possibility vs. physical impossibility.
Logic
Logic is the study of good reasoning, or inference, and the rules that govern it.
Alternative Occurrences
Method of Calculating Probabilities: To figure out the probability of two possible outcomes happening, we simply add the probabilities of each individual outcome O1 = probability of outcome 1 O2 = probability of outcome 2 AO = alternative occurrence Formula: AO = O1+O2
True completely regardless of individuals Doesn't say that it's not okay to be wrong, but there is clearly right and wrong. We get to be fallible → make progress Not self-defeating Does not require evidence; something is just TRUE or not.
Objective truth (slide 1 of 2)
***ALLOWS us to make arguments / to prove things. This is the way of proving truth that the most philosophers think is the right way. To come up with _____________ (example: morality), we make arguments -- often lots of arguments -- to prove the validity and soundness.
Objective truth (slide 2 of 2)
Aesthetic Principle 1
Objects are aesthetically valuable if they are meaningful or teach us truths
Aesthetic Principle 2
Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to convey values or beliefs that are central to the cultures or traditions in which they originate or that are important to the artists who made them
Aesthetic Principle 3
Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to help bring about social or political change
Appeal to Emotion
Occurs when a speaker or writer "supports" a contention by playing on our emotions rather than producing a real argument
Appeal to Pity
Occurs when a speaker or writer "supports" a contention by playing on our sympathy rather than providing a real argument Ex: Jane is the best qualified candidate b/c she is out of work and desperately needs a job.
Appeal to Ignorance
Occurs when a speaker or writer argues that we should believe a claim because no one has proved it false Ex: Nobody has proved ghosts don't exist; therefore they do. (proof requires more than an absence of disproof)
Straw Man Fallacy
Occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misrepresenting it Ex: What do I think about outlawing large ammunition clips? I think the idea of disarming everyone is ridiculous and dangerous. Ex: *You:* Medical marijuana should be legal. *Your Friend:* Maybe you think everyone should go around stoned, but I think that is absurd.
Poisoning the Well
Occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to dismiss what someone is *going* to say by talking about the person's character, or circumstances or consistency. Ex: You can forget about what Father Hennessy will say this evening about abortion, because he is a priest and priests are required to think that abortion is a mortal sin.
Misplacing the Burden of Proof
Occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to support or prove a point by trying to make us disprove it Ex: Obviously the President's birth certificate is a forgery. Can you prove it isn't? Ex: Guns should be outlawed. I bet you can't think of a single good reason they shouldn't.
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Occurs when a speaker or writer thinks that the wrongfulness of a deed is erased by it being a response to another wrongful deed. Ex: Why should I tell them they undercharged me? You think they would tell me if they overcharged me?
Guilt by Association
Occurs when a speaker or writer tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we don't like holds that belief Ex: You think waterboarding is torture? That sounds like something these left-wing professors would say.
Denial
Occurs when we forget that wanting something to be false is irrelevant to whether it is false Ex: I really really hope I did not miss class as much as the professor said I did. Therefore, I am sure I didn't miss class that many times.
Wishful Thinking
Occurs when we forget that wanting something to be true is irrelevant to whether it is true Ex: I really really hope I will be the next American Idol. Therefore I will be.
*a statement that supports a conclusion
Premises
PROBLEMS: Can be difficult for people to accept, because if there is objective truth, people tend to think that it will cut people off and not allow acceptance of others. Also, it can be difficult for people to accept that we -- as individuals or a culture -- can be or are wrong.
PROBLEMs with Objective truth
the undistributed middle
Pattern 1: x is a z. y is a z. Therefore, x is a y. Pattern 2: if p is true, q is true. if r is true, then q is true. therefore if p is true, r, is true.
Irrelevant Premises
Premises offered are irrelevant.
Occasionalism
Says "Not only is there a 3rd common cause, but the third common cause is constantly occurring, and makes it looks like A causes B or vice versa." EX: Someone is pushing a button, and it seems to cause a bell sound each time, when reality there is a 3rd cause, which is that someone is watching via camera, and THEY cause the bell each time they see this person push the button.
science
Science seeks to acquire knowledge and understanding of reality, and it does so through the formulation, testing, and evaluation of theories.
P and Q
Since ____________ are either true or false, therefore, they must both be true, false, or have two opposite truth values
*Valid & all premises are true = ?
Sound
analytical definition
Specifying the features that a thing must possess in order for the term being defined to apply to it.
composition
The fallacy of arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The error is thinking that the characteristics of the parts are somehow transferred to the whole, something that is not always the case. *Parts are broken, therefore the whole must be broken.*
division
The fallacy of arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. The error is thinking that characteristics of the whole must transfer to the parts, or that traits of the group must be the same as traits of individuals in the group.
slippery slope
The fallacy of arguing, without good reasons, that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to further, undesirable steps. Ex: If I give you a discount (for example), I will have to give everyone a discount. Expresses causation (wrongly), not just correlation. Note: leaving out premises is different than the slippery slope.
false dilemma
The fallacy of asserting that there are only two alternatives to consider when there are actually more than two.
Attribute of Interest
The attribute ascribed to a thing or things in the conclusion of an inductive generalization, inductive Argument from Analogy
Religious Relativism
The belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious culture or society deems it to be
Appeal to Precendent
The claim (in law) that a current case is sufficiently similar to a previous case that it should be settled in the same way
Offense Principle
The claim that an action or activity can justifiably be made illegal if it is sufficiently offensive
Harm Principle
The claim that the only way to justify a restriction on a person's freedom is to show that the restriction prevents harm to other people
genetic fallacy
The fallacy of arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin.
appeal to tradition
The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true just because it's part of a tradition.
appeal to popularity
The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.
appeal to ignorance
The fallacy of arguing that a lack of evidence proves something. In one type of this fallacy, the problem arises by thinking that a claim must be true because it hasn't been shown to be false. In another type, the breakdown in logic comes when you argue that a claim must be false because it hasn't been proved to be true. Proving a negative -- have to check every instance to make sure something is NOT there; very hard to do. Burden of proof -- If I am making the claim, I am expected to be the one that supports it. It is up to me to prove that there ARE unicorns if that is my claim, not the interlocutor or my opponent.
A-, E-, I-, and O-claims.
The four types of categorical claims include ___________________________________.
Experimental group
The group in a study that is actually given treatments.
control groups
The group in a study that is not given active treatments. Often given a placebo.
Moral Subjectivism
The idea that what is right and wrong is merely a matter of subjective opinion, that thinking something is right or wrong makes it right or wrong for that individual
margin of error
The variation between the values derived from a sample and the true values of the whole target group.
Duty Theory (Deontologism)
The view that a person should perform an action because it is his or her moral duty to perform it, not because of any consequences that might follow from it
Religious Absolutism
The view that the correct moral principles are those accepted by the "correct" religion
Moral Relativism
The view that what is morally right and wrong depends on and is determined by one's group or culture
burden of proof
The weight of evidence or argument required by one side in a debate or disagreement.
"if"; "only if"
The word ____________ introduces a sufficient condition, and the phrase ____________ introduces a necessary condition
What is an explanation (including theoretical explanation) and how does it differ from an argument?
Theoretical explanation: theories, or hypotheses, that try to explain why something is the way it is, why something is the case, why something happened. In this category we must include all explanations intended to explain the cause of events-the causal explanations that are so important to both science and daily life. Theoretical explanations, of course, are claims. They assert that something is or is not the case. Now, even though an explanation is not an argument, an explanation can be part of an argument (inference to the best explanation). *Needs more explanation?*
Skepticism/Nihilism -
There is nothing to know (metaphysical claim) There is truth but we can't know it.
Nonmoral statements
These do not assert that something is right or wrong, good or bad. They simply describe a state of affairs without giving it a value one way or the other. Example: Serena did not keep her promise to you.
Understand the basics of opinion polls
They are enumerative *induction*, used to arrive to generalizations about anything & everything. To be strong, requires: representative of target group (random sampling), good sample size (1000+ at least), good questions phrasing, good questions ordering, non-restrictive possible answers, margin of error, confidence level.
Be able to explain why evaluating weird claims might be worthwhile.
They are widely believed & hard to ignore. They can often dramatically affect human lives for better or worse. Sometimes they can turn out to be true.
Understand why it can be so easy to err when trying to evaluate weird theories.
They might not be given real, honest consideration because there is often bias against them from the start. Weird claims and experiences have a way of provoking strong emotions, preconceived attitudes, and long-held biases. In this realm, people are often prone to errors like: resisting contrary evidence, looking for confirming evidence, and preferring available evidence.
Analogues
Things that have similar attributes
Deriving an ought from an is Fallacy
deriving what people ought to do from what they actually do arguments of this nature assume a general moral principle
Logo ads
ads that emphasise information about a product
Fostering Xenophobia
using the fear or dislike of what is foreign and strange to get audiences to believe a claim
Personal benefit -
Who will be benefitted given a particular situation
Ridicule and sarcasm
Widely used to put something in a bad light.
T or F: Arguments should not be referred to as "true", and premises should not be referred to as "valid"?
True
scare tactics
Try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences
3rd common cause
Two things have one original point of origin/cause
The Two Types of Informal Fallacies
Unacceptable Premises + Irrelevant Premises = ?
moral premise
Understand how moral premises can be supported or undermined by moral principles, moral theories, and considered moral judgments.
moral theories
Understand how moral premises can be supported or undermined by moral principles, moral theories, and considered moral judgments. Recognize that everyone has a moral theory and that it's important to ensure that your moral theory is coherent. Whether we articulate it ~ not, we all have some kind of view of what makes actions right or persons goocl. Even the notion that there is no such thing as right or wrong is a moral th Even the idea that all moral theories are worthless or that all moral judgrn are subjective, objective, relative, or meaningless is a moral theory. Understand the similarities between moral theories and scientific theories.
persuasive or rhetorical definitions
Used to persuade or slant someones attitude or point of view toward whatever the "defined" term refers to
Intention
What makes an action "good" to Kant is having the right __________ . Doing something that brings unhappiness, but was done with the right __________, would be approved of by Kant, and disapproved by a utilitarian.
Ambiguity; invalid
When X goes on a line in a Venn diagram, it is said to represent _______________, and is therefore, _______________.
Equivocation
When a key word or prhase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. "All rivers have banks. I keep my money in a bank. Therefore, I keep my money by the river." Explanation: Double meaning of "bank"
The Undistributed Middle
When the middle term in a syllogism is not distributed in either the minor premise nor the major premise. "All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all cats are dogs." Explanation: Wrong connection.
Understand the logic of scientific testing.
When we derive a test implication, we know that if the hypothesis to be tested (H) is true, then there is a specific predicted consequence (C). If the consequence turns out to be false (it does not obtain as predicted), then the hypothesis is probably false, and we can reject it. If H, then C. Not C, Therefore, not H. (^^ modus tollens [valid]) HOWEVER, if C is true, it doesn't necessarily PROVE H.
The Undistributed Middle
a formal fallacy in which the speaker assumes that two things related to a third thing are otherwise related to each other Structure: All X's are Y's. An F is a Y. Therefore, F is an X. Example: All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all cats are dogs. Other Structure: If P is true, then Q is true. If R is true, then Q is true. Therefore, if P is true, then R is also true. Example: If Stewie kills Lois, he can dominate the world. If Stewie becomes filthy rich, then he can dominate the world. Therefore, if Stewie kills Lois, then he can become filthy rich.
Definition by Synonym
a kind of definition in which a word or phrase is given that means the same thing as the term being defined
Analytical Definition
a kind of definition that specifies the features that a thing must possess in order for the term being defined to apply to it
Definition by Example/Ostensive Definition
a kind of definition which points to, names, or identifies one or more examples of the sort of thing to which the term applies
Inference
a likely conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning
Retrospective Observational Studies
a method of confirming a causal hypothesis in which a significant difference in the frequency of a suspected causal agent in the comparison groups is evidence of causal linkage between it and the phenomenon; In one comparison group, the phenomenon is universally present; in another, it is universally absent. Example: Students at San Diego University were surveyed about their study habits. It was found that 100 of them were on academic probation and 60% of them identified as party-goers. By contrast, only 20% of students not on academic probation identified themselves as party-goers. Therefore, attending weekend parties probably adversely affects a student's academic performance.
Prospective Observational Studies
a method of confirming a causal hypothesis in which two groups are compared as to the frequency of something Example: The academic performance of 100 students who identified was compared with another batch of 100 students who said they rarely attended weekend parties. It was found that 60% of the party-goers and only 30% of non-party-goers had GPAs below the mean average for all San Diego State University students. Therefore, attending weekend parties probably adversely affects a student's academic performance.
Euphemism
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing. Ex: ""downsizing" as a euphemism for cuts".
Consistency Principle
a principle in moral reasoning which states that if separate cases aren't different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way
Common Variable Principle
a principle used to arrive at causal hypotheses in which a variable common to multiple occurrences of something may be related to it causally Example: Some years, the azaleas bloomed well; in other years, they didn't bloom at all. In the years they didn't bloom, I fertilized heavily, but I didn't do that in the years they bloomed well. Therefore, perhaps heavy fertilizing caused them not to bloom.
Weighing Evidence
a principle used to arrive at causal hypotheses in which evidence must be weighed carefully and compared to background knowledge or information before coming to a causal hypothesis
Paired Unusual Events Principle
a principle used to arrive at causal hypotheses in which if something unusual happens, the tester looks for something else unusual that has happened and considers whether or not it may be the cause; can only be used to SUSPECT causation, not establish causation Example: As soon as my throat got scratchy, I took Zicam. My sore throat went away and I never caught a cold. Therefore, maybe Zicam prevents colds.
Co-variation Principle
a principle used to arrive at causal hypotheses in which variation in one phenomenon is accompanied by a variation in another phenomenon, there is a co-variation or a correlation between the two Example: When meat consumption in Holland went up after WWII, so did the rate of prostate cancer in that country. Therefore, perhaps eating meat causes prostate cancer.
Overlooking Prior Probabilities
a probability miscalculation that occurs when a speaker fails to take underlying differences into account, and then concluding that every single event or thing has an equal probability with other events or things Examples: Bill is the best football player in our high school, while Hal is the best hockey player in our high school. Therefore, Bill's and Hal's chances of becoming professional players in their respective sports must be equally good.
Better-than-average Illusion
a self-deceptive cognitive bias that leads us to over-estimate our abilities relative to those of others; the tendency to think of oneself as better than the average person
In-group Bias
a set of cognitive biases that makes us view people who belong to our group differently (usually in a better light) from people who don't
Sufficient condition
a state that is already in reach that makes something qualified to obtain another thing or to occur; are expressed as the antecedents of conditional claims
Necessary Condition
a state that must be reached for something to be obtained or to occur; denotes the consequent of a conditional claim
Explanation
a statement (or statements) asserting why or how something is the case
Intermediate Conclusion
a statement that can be a premise in the main argument and a conclusion in a sub-argument Example: This brand is fairly-traded; your money will be better spent. So you should buy this brand. The phrase "your money will be better spent" serves as the conclusion for the sub-argument "this brand is fairly-traded", while also functions as the second premise for the main argument "so you should buy this brand".
Truth-Functional Logic
a system of logic that specifies the logical relationships among truth-functional claims; also know as propositional logic or sentential logic; "Logic of Sentences"
Confirmation Bias
a tendency to attach more weight to considerations that support our views
Obedience to Authority
a tendency to comply with instructions from authority without question
Distribution
a term is distributed only when the category it names is referred to its entirety
Syllogisms
a two-premise deductive argument
Guilt by Association
a type of ad hominem in which a speaker dismisses a belief by stating that someone we don't like has that belief Example: You think water-boarding is torture? That sounds like something these left-wing college professors would say.
Poisoning the Well
a type of ad hominem in which a speaker dismisses what someone is going to say by talking about the person's consistency or character or circumstances Example: You can forget what Father Hennessey will say this evening about abortion because he is a priest, and priests are required to think that abortion is a mortal sin.
Genetic Fallacy
a type of ad hominem in which the speaker argues that the origin of a contention in and of itself automatically renders it false Example: God is just an idea people came up with way back before they had Science.
Argument from Outrage
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker attempts to convince the audience of an assumption by making them angry Example: Apple products can't be any good because it hires 12-year old children to make its electronics, pays them slave wages, and has them work in buildings that have no heat or air conditioning.
Appeal to Jealousy
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker plays on someone's jealousy
Apple Polishing
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker plays on the audience's pride
Appeal to Envy
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker tries to arouse the audience's envy
Appeal to Pity
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker tries to convince the audience of something by arousing their pity rather than provide a relevant argument Example: Jane is the best qualified candidate because she is out of work and desperately needs a job.
Guilt Tripping
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker tries to make the audience feel guilty
Scare Tactics
a type of emotional appeal in which the speaker tries to scare the audience into accepting an irrelevant conclusion Example: You don't know what will happen to your spouse or children when you die. You are also their main source of income. Therefore, you should get a Prudential life insurance policy.
Line-Drawing Fallacy
a type of false dilemma in which the speaker assumes that either a clear line be drawn between two things or there is no difference between them at all Example: You can't say exactly when a video game is too violent; therefore, no video game is too violent.
Perfectionist Fallacy
a type of false dilemma in which the speaker ignores all the options between perfection or nothing Example: A single English course won't make anyone a great writer, so I don't see why I have to take one.
Generalizing from Exceptional Cases
a type of generalization in which the speaker arrives at a general statement or rule by citing an exceptional circumstance to support the case Example: The police aren't required to get a search warrant if they arrest a suspect while a robbery is in progress and search him for a weapon. Therefore, they shouldn't be required to get a search warrant for any kind of search.
Hasty Generalization
a type of generalization in which the speaker arrives at a general statement or rule by citing too few supporting cases; also called the Fallacy of the Lonely Fact Example: The police stopped me for driving five miles over the speed limit. Around here, they will stop you for anything.
Accident Fallacy
a type of generalization in which the speaker assumes that a general statement automatically applies to a specific situation; the opposite of a hasty generalization Example: It is illegal to use a cell phone while driving; therefore, that police officer committed a crime when he used his phone when he was driving.
Generality
a type of imprecision claim is overly general when it lacks sufficient detail to restrict its application to the immediate subject Ex: Manuel was outside all afternoon. *missing important info* --Manuel worked in the yard all afternoon. --Manuel spent the afternoon planting salvia along his sidewalk.
Two Wrongs Make a Right
a type of irrelevant conclusion that occurs when a speaker's argument only supports the negative appraisal of the opposition's ethics, and not a positive appraisal of his or hers Example: I should not tell the store they undercharged me since they would most likely not say anything if they overcharged me.
Denial
a type of irrelevant conclusion that occurs when people forget that wanting something to be false is irrelevant to whether it is false or not
Wishful Thinking
a type of irrelevant conclusion that occurs when people forget that wanting something to be true is irrelevant to whether it is true or not Example: I really really hope I will be the next American Idol. Therefore, I'm sure I will be.
Value Judgements
a type of moral reasoning which assesses the merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness of someone or something
Overlooking the Possibility of Regression
a type of post hoc fallacy in which the speaker assumes that a change in value of a variable from a more atypical to a less atypical on a subsequent measurement is due to causation; "Y changed characteristics because X happened" Example: The girls shot well below their average on Monday, so I made them do 50 push-ups. Guess what? Their average was much better on Tuesday. Push-ups did the trick.
Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation
a type of post hoc fallacy that occurs when the speaker ignores the fact that the values of variables fluctuate randomly Example: In our tests, we asked randomly selected men to drive a golf ball as far as they could. We then had them wear our magnetic bracelet and try again. On the second occasion, the men hit the ball an average ten feet further. Therefore, our bracelet can lengthen your drive as well.
Peer Pressure Fallacy
a type of scare tactic in which the speaker tries to make the audience fear being made an outcast Example: Obviously, the federal government must cut spending. You agree with us, I assume.
Appeal to Ignorance
a version of misplacing the burden of proof in which the speaker asserts that an audience should believe a claim because nobody has proved it false Example: Nobody has proved ghosts don't exist, therefore, they do.
Weak Analogy (or False Analogy)
a weak argument based on debatable
weak analogy
a weak argument based on debatable or unimportant similarities between two or more things
Pathos ads
ads that are primarily intended to arouse emotions in us
Ethos ads
ads that display a product as being used or endorsed by people we admire or identify with or feel like we can trust
Abduction
another term for inference to the best explanation; reasoning that shows what the cause of something is
Fact
another term for objective claims
Opinion
another term for subjective claims
Irrelevant Conclusion
any relevance fallacy that does not fit comfortably into the categories already mentioned Ex: I don't think I missed to many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better lately.
Pathos
appeal to emotion a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response Ex: "If we don't move soon, we're all going to die! Can't you see how dangerous it would be to stay?" Ex: "I'm not just invested in this community - I love every building, every business, every hard-working member of this town." Ex: "There's no price that can be placed on peace of mind. Our advanced security systems will protect the well-being of your family so that you can sleep soundly at night."
Bandwagon Fallacy
appeal to emotion fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer "supports" a contention not by producing a real argument, but by playing on our desire to be in step with popular opinion Ex: Rand Paul has earned your support. Everyone is endorsing him. Ex: You shouldn't shop at Walmart. None of us does that.
Ethos
appeal to ethics means of convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader Ex: "He is a forensics and ballistics expert for the federal government - if anyone's qualified to determine the murder weapon, it's him." Ex: "As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results."
Logos
appeal to logic a way of persuading an audience by reason Ex: "The data is perfectly clear: this investment has consistently turned a profit year-over-year, even in spite of market declines in other areas." Ex: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: we have not only the fingerprints, the lack of an alibi, a clear motive, and an expressed desire to commit the robbery... We also have video of the suspect breaking in. The case could not be more open and shut."
Argument from Outrage
appeal-to-emotion fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer "supports" a contention by trying to make us angry rather than producing an argument Ex: Do you think Apple doesn't know it hires 12 year old children to make its electronics? You think it isn't aware it pays them slave wages and has them work in buildings without heat or air conditioning? It knows. Apple products can't be any good.
Statistical Syllogism
applies a general statement to a specific case Structure: Most Xs are Ys. This is an X. Therefore, this is a Y. Example: Most teachers are Democrats. York is a teacher. Therefore, York is a Democrat.
Fallacy of Accident
applying a general statement to an exceptional case Ex: It is illegal to use a cell phone while driving; therefore, that police officer committed a crime when he used his cell while he was driving. Ex: Everyone should have access to a college education. Therefore, anyone who applies should be admitted to Cal Poly. Ex: Costco sells for less. Therefore, lawn fertilizer will cost less at Costco. (not necessarily, raises probability though) Ex: This *city* has a very high crime rate. Therefore, it will be dangerous to shop in this *neighborhood*.
Subcontraries
are claims that can both be true, but cannot both be false
Truth-Functional Claims
are claims whose truth values solely depend upon the truth values of their simplest component parts
The subject or minor term
are distributed by the A-claim
Both terms
are distributed by the E-claim
None of the terms
are distributed by the I-claim
The predicate or major terms
are distributed by the O-claims.
Formal Fallacies
are fallacies that result from strict logical error or failure of form
Scientific Generalizing from a Sample
are procedures that help minimize bias in samples
Persuaders
are rhetorical used to undermine your opponent or interlocutor. DIFFERENT than fallacies (where you are always trying to specifically make an argument): in these, you may or may not be trying to make an argument.
Claim Variable
are uppercase letters that stand for claims in truth-functional logic
Negativity Bias
attaching more weight to negative info than to positive info Ex: When buying a coffee maker, you read 4/326 bad reviews and even though the vast majority were positive, you take the negative as more prominent
Negativity Bias
attaching more weight to negative information than to positive information
argumentum ad hominem
attacks the person or some aspect of the person making the argument "Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence."
Downplayers
attempt to make someone or something look less important or less significant
Attacking the Analogy
attempt to rebut an argument from analogy by calling attention to important dissimilarities between the analogues
Argumentum Ad Hominem
attempting to dismiss a source's position by discussing the source rather than the position Example: The president is just using his proposal for immigration reform to gain Latino votes.
Downplayers
attempting to make someone or something look less important or less significant Example: The woman who made the diagnosis is a "so-called medical professional". The words "so-called medical professional" downplays the woman's credentials.
Mistaken Appeal to Authority
attempting to support a claim by citing a source that is not really an authority
Attribute of Interest
attribute ascribed to a thing or things in the conclsion of an inductive generalization, inductive Argument from Analogy or a statistical syllogism (liking hunting)
Loss Aversion
being more strongly motivated to avoid a loss than to accrue a gain
Loss Aversion
being more strongly motivated to avoid a loss than to accrue a gain Ex: You'd rather not lose $20 than gamble to win $40
Religious Relativism
belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious culture or society deems it to be
Conclusions are...
beliefs expressed using true-or-false declarative sentences
Q
can function on its own in a conditional
Subjective Claim
cannot be proved right or wrong by generally accepted criteria
Appeal to Precedent (stare decisis)
claim (in law) that if a current case is sufficiently similar to a previous case, then it should be settled in the same way *also involves consistency principle-cases that aren't relatively different should be treated in the same way stare decisis-don't change settled decisions
Offense Principle
claim that an action or activity can justifiably be made illegal if it is sufficiently offensive Ex: public urination, flag burning
Ambiguous Claim (Syntactical)
claim that could be interpreted in more than one way and whose meaning is not made clear by the context *structure of sentence* or multiple meanings of words can cause ambiguity Ex: Rex is the name of a good dog. Ex: My sister saw Joe win a tennis match and she married the loser. Ex: Women who eat often interest me. Ex: My mother called my wife and then she called me.
Ambiguous Claim (Semantic)
claim that could be interpreted in more than one way and whose meaning is not made clear by the context structure of sentence (syntactical) or *multiple meanings of words (semantic)* can cause ambiguity Ex: Most people choose to park in the right space. (Right=correct or Right=right vs left) Ex: Katy Perry is a poor singer. (Poor=no money or Poor=terrible voice) Stemming from Grouping (Semantic) *Ex: Teachers make more money than NBA centers. (there are about 60 NBA centers and 7 million teachers, so collectively, yes, but as individuals, no)* Ex: More people die in car accidents than in motorcycle accidents.
Vague Claim
claim that lacks sufficient precision to convey the info appropriate to its use Can't say with certainty what is or is not included Ex: There are too many old people with driver's licenses. (How old is "old"?) (How many is "too many"?) Ex: Experienced students fare better on the NCLEX. (Experienced in what? The exam? Or practice in the hospital?) Ex: I climbed Mt. Everest. (What counts as Everest? What counts as climbing?)
Negative Claims
claims that EXCLUDE one class or part of one class from another; the E-claims and the O-claims
Affirmative Claims
claims that INCLUDE one class or part of one class within another; the A-claims and the I-claims
We can form reasonably reliable judgments about a person's knowledge by...
considering his or her education, experience, accomplishments, reputation, and position
Moral Reasoning
consists mainly of trying to establish moral value judgments
Argument
consists of 2 parts: premise & conclusion (one part provides reason for accepting second part)
Emotive Meaning/Rhetorical Force
consists of the positive or negative meanings of a word based on how they are used in a sentence or argument; used to appeal to emotions
Stipulative Definition
definition used to introduce an unfamiliar term or to assign a new meaning to a familiar term Ex: Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person. Take "human" to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens. For the purposes of argument, we will define a "student" to be "a person under 18 enrolled in a local school."
lexical definitions
definitions like those we find in dictionaries: they tell us what a word ordinarily means
precising or stipulative definitions
definitions that are designed to make a term more precise or to stipulate a new or different meaning from the ordinary one
Persuasive Definition
definitions that are used to persuade
Deductive Argument
either valid or intended by author to be so
Rhetorical Definitions
employ rhetorically-charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something Example: Affirmative action used stand for equal opportunity; now it means preferences and quotas. The people behind affirmative action aren't for equal rights anymore; they're for handouts. The claim is trying to evoke anger in the audience through a negative explanation.
One uses an argument to...
establish a position on an issue
Belief Bias
evaluating reasoning by how believable its conclusion is tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they support that conclusion
Belief Bias
evaluating reasoning by how believable the conclusion is
significant mention
examples of innuendo; when someone states a claim that ordinarily would not need making
E-claim
exclusive of everything in the class mentioned Structure: No __ are __.
O-claim
exclusive of some specific things in the class mentioned Structure: Some __ are not __.
rhetorical explanation
explanation that use the language of standard explanations to disguise their real purpose which is to express or elicit an attitude
Fallacy of Biased Sample (gen from ex. cases)
fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer generalizes about a large or heterogeneous population on the basis of an atypical sample Ex: Almost everyone in a large survey of Tea Party members thinks the President should be impeached. Therefore, most Americans think the President should be impeached. (problem isn't small sample, but atypical + biased)
Fallacy of Small Sample (version of Hasty Generalization)
fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer generalizes about a large or heterogeneous population on the basis of too small a sample Ex: People living in Cincinnati have no idea where Akron is. I didn't when I lived there. Ex: Things cost less at Costco. I bought lawn fertilizer there for a ridiculously low price.
Self-Selection Fallacy (gen from ex. cases)
fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer generalizes incautiously from a self-selected sample Ex: Most Americans have a favorable view of the president as a person, judging from an online survey conducted by CNN. (sample under represents people who do not respond to survey for lack of inclination, time, or means)
The first thing to do when evaluating an argument is...
find out what the conclusion is
Virtue Ethics
focuses not on what to do, but on how to be
Immanuel Kant
found utilitarianism deficient because of its neglect of moral duty; acknowledged that our lives are full of imperatives based on our own situations and objectives
Generalizing from Exceptional Cases
generalizing from cases that are exceptional or from samples that are biased (skewed) Ex: Animals will live longer on a calorie-restricted diet. This has been shown in experiments with rats.
Hasty Generalization aka Generalizing from too few cases aka Fallacy of the Lonely Fact
generalizing from too few cases or from samples that are too small Ex: The food in LA is lousy, judging from this meal. Ex: The police stopped me for driving five miles over the speed limit. They will stop you for anything around here.
Examples of Irrelevant Premises
genetic fallacy, composition, division, equivocation, red herring, straw man appeal to the person, appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition, appeal to ignorance, appeal to emotion, Two wrongs make a right
Moral Value Judgement Words
good, bad, right, wrong, ought, should, proper, justified, fair
mistaken appeal to popularity
happens when a speaker or writer treats an issue that cannot be settled by public opinion as if it can
self-selection fallacy
happens when someone generalises incautiously from a self-selected sample
false dilemma
happens when someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable or implausible
wishful thinking
happens when we forget that wanting something to be true is irrelevant to whether it is true
Knowledge
having beliefs that are beyond a reasonable doubt and have no reason for mistake
Fundamental Attribution Error
having one understanding of the behavior of people in the in-group and another for people not in the in-group; the tendency not to appreciate others' behavior
Moral Subjectivisim
idea that all judgement and claims that ascribe a moral property to something are subjective "There is noting either good or bad, but that thinking makes it so."
Moral Subjectivism
idea that what is right and wrong is merely a matter of subjective opinion, that thinking something is right or wrong, makes it right or wrong for that individual there is a mistake in thinking that all value judgements are subjective
Ethical Egoism
if an act produces more happiness for oneself than will the alternatives, then it is the right thing to do; if an act produces less happiness for oneself than will the alternatives, then it is the wrong thing to do; act so as to best promote your own
Utilitarianism (version of consequentialism)
if an act will produce more happiness than its alternatives, that act is the right thing to do, and if it produces less happiness than the alternatives, it would be wrong to do it in place of an alternative that would produce more happiness *Act so as to produce the most happiness*
Utilitarianism
if an action will produce more happiness than will alternatives, it is the right thing to do; if it will produce less happiness, it would be wrong to do it in place of an alternative that would produce more happiness
post hoc ergo propter hoc
improperly assuming that a sequence in time implies a cause and effect
A-claim
inclusive of everything in the class mentioned Structure: All __ are __.
I-claim
inclusive of some specific things in the class mentioned Structure: Some __ are __.
Particular Claims
inclusive or exclusive of CERTAIN things in a given class; includes I-claims and O-claims
Universal Claims
inclusive or exclusive of EVERYTHING in a given class; includes A-claims and E-claims
Virtue Ethics
moral position unified around the basic idea that each of us should try to perfect a virtuous character that we exhibit in all actions Ex: Boy Scout Pledge - to *be* trustworthy, loyal, helpful
Fallacies based on inconsistencies
inconsistent if he/she says two things that can't both be true. Example: Senator Smith: "I think taxes should not be raised." Senator Smith: [One year later]: "I think taxes should be raised." The fact that an individual has been inconsistent doesn't mean that his/her present belief is false. To think otherwise is to commit a fallacy.
The Gambler's fallacy
independent events do not affect one another's outcome. Heads & tails
_________ ______: words that frequently accompany arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion is present
indicator words
Demonizing
inducing a loathing of someone or something by portraying the person or thing as evil; is often used with otherizing
Weak Arguments
inductive arguments in which the premise provides lesser support to its conclusion
Strong Arguments
inductive arguments in which the premise provides more support to its conclusion
This process of reasoning from a premise or premises to a conclusion based on those premises is called
inference.
"only"
introduces the predicate of an A-claim
"the only"
introduces the subject of an A-claim
Inductive Argument
invalid argument whose premises are intended to provide support, but less than conclusive support, for the conclusion ...conclusion is not necessarily true
Atypical Sample
is a sample that does not mirror or represent the overall population; is a sample in which an important variable is disproportionately present or absent; also called a "biased sample"
P
is dependent on Q in a conditional
An argument supports a conclusion if...
it increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true
An deductive argument is sound if...
it is valid and its premise or premises are true
An argument is valid if...
it isn't possible for its premise or premises to be true and its conclusion false; they have to be both true
generality
lack of specificity
Overconfidence Effect
leads us to overestimate what percentage of our answers on a subject are correct Ex: When asked how well you did on an exam, you will overestimate the number you got right significantly
rhetorical analogy
likens two or more things to make one of them appear better or worse than another
Slippery Slope
making a claim or warning about a controversial issue without supporting arguments, where it is predicted to be the cause of an undesirable outcome; does not explain how the claim will cause the outcome either Example: We should not require gun owners to carry liability insurance because if we do, before long, they will repeal the Second Amendment.
"wherever"
means places or locations
"whenever"
means times or occasions
Availability Heuristic
mental shortcut assigning probability to an event based on how easily or frequently it is thought of what is easier to imagine comes to mind more quickly Ex: You are more likely to die from falling off of your couch than by being attacked by a dog, but we are more afraid of dogs than our couch.
straw man
misinterpretation of the opponent's position - address only a weak and distorted version
fallacy of equivocation
mistake based on a semantic ambiguity, using an ambiguous term/phrase in 2 diff ways within the same argument Example: All banks are alongside rivers, and the place where I keep my money is a bank. Therefore, the place where I keep my money is alongside a river.
Fallacy
mistake in reasoning argument that doesn't really support or prove the contention it is supposed to
fallacy of amphiboly
mistake in reasoning based on a syntactic ambiguity in one of the premises Example: A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.
confusing explanations & excuses
mistake of assuming that b/c someone is explaining why something happened that he/she is attempting to justify that event
considered moral judgment
moral judgments that we accept after we reason about them carefully. Any plausible moral theory must be consistent with those considered moral judgments. If it isn't consistent with them-if, for example, it approves of obviously immoral acts (such as inflicting pain on innocent children for no good reason or treating equals unequally)-the theory must be rejected. Understand how moral premises can be supported or undermined by moral principles, moral theories, and considered moral judgments.
Miscalculating Probabilities
occurs when a speaker assumes that one independent event can affect the outcome of another, and that one changes the probability of the other; incorrectly combining probabilites Example: Bill's chances of becoming a professional football player are about 1,000, while Hal's chances of becoming a professional hockey player are about 1 in 5,000. So the chance of both of them becoming professionals in their respected sports is 1 in 6,000.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
occurs when a speaker assumes that the fact that one event came after another establishes that it was caused by the other; correlation does not prove causation Example: After you drove my car, it was hard to start. Therefore, it was something you did that made my car hard to start.
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
occurs when a speaker assumes that the fact that two events happen at about the same time establishes that one caused the other; "with this, therefore, because of it" Example: John had a heart attack while he was saying prayer. Therefore, prayer caused the heart attack.
Begging the Question
occurs when a speaker attempts to "support" a contention by offering as "evidence" what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question Example: Obviously the president told the truth about Benghazi. He wouldn't lie to us about it.
Equivocation
occurs when a speaker attempts to demonstrate or support a point by playing on the ambiguity of a word Example: All banks are alongside rivers, an the place where I keep my money is a bank. Therefore, the place where I keep my money is alongside a river.
Amphiboly
occurs when a speaker attempts to demonstrate or support a point by playing on the ambiguity of an expression's syntax Example: You must show a birth certificate and a driver's license or a passport if you want to apply to a program.
Straw Man
occurs when a speaker attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misinterpreting it Example: I think outlawing large ammunition clips is ridiculous. Disarming everyone would just be dangerous.
Fallacy of Biased Sample
occurs when a speaker incautiously bases a generalization on a skewed sample Example: Almost everyone in a large survey of Tea Party members thinks the president should be impeached. Therefore, most Americans think the president should be impeached.
Genetic Fallacy
occurs when a speaker or writer argues that the origin of a contention in and of itself render it false Ex: That idea is absurd. It's just something that the Tea Party put out there. Ex: Where on earth did you hear that? Talk Radio? Ex: God is just an idea people came up with way back before they had science.
accident
occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that a general statement applies to a specific case that is exceptional
Line-Drawing Fallacy
occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal clear line can be drawn between two things, or else there is no difference between them.
The Perfectionist Fallacy
occurs when a speaker or writer ignores options between perfection and nothing Ex: A single English course won't make anyone a great writer, so I don't see why we have to take one.
perfectionist fallacy
occurs when a speaker or writer ignores options between perfection and nothing Ex: A single English course won't make anyone a great writer, so I don't see why we have to take one.
Overlooking a Possible Common Cause
occurs when a speaker overlooks the possibility that two things may both be the effects of a third thing Example: I left the lights on when I went to bed. Next morning, I woke up with a headache. Therefore, leaving the lights on caused my headache.
False Dilemma
occurs when a speaker tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible; often referred to as the "black and white" or "either or" fallacy Example: We either eliminate Social Security or the country will go bankrupt. Therefore, we must eliminate Social Security.
Appeal to Emotion
occurs when a speaker tries to support a claim by playing on the audience's emotions rather than producing a real argument for the claim
Fallacious Appeal to Authority
occurs when a speaker tries to support a contention by offering as evidence the opinion of a non-authoritative source Example: My doctor thinks my car has leaking valves. Therefore, my car has leaking valves.
Argument by Anecdote
occurs when a speaker tries to support a general claim by offering a story as evidence Example: Did you read where John Travolta flew his plan into LAX and parked it on the tarmac--right out there in everyone's way? That's the trouble with these Hollywood Actors. They don't care about anyone but themselves.
Fallacious Appeal to Popularity
occurs when a speaker tries to treat an issue that cannot be settled by public opinion as if it can; also called "Fallacious Appeal to Common Belief" Example: Almost everyone knows that plastic is contaminating the oceans. Therefore, plastic is contaminating the oceans.
Inconsistency Fallacy
occurs when a speaker uses an inconsistency or a self-contradictory statement as proof for an argument Example: It is raining on my window as I write this, but it is also not raining on my window as I write this.
straw man fallacy
occurs when a speaker/writer attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misrepresenting it. Person 1 makes claim Y. Person 2 restates person 1's claim (in a distorted way). Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim. Therefore, claim Y is false.
guilt by association
occurs when a speaker/writer tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we don't like has that belief
Ambiguous pronoun reference
occurs when it is not clear to what or whom a pronoun is supposed to refer
Self-selection Fallacy
occurs when someone generalizes incautiously from a self-selected sample Example: Most Americans have a favorable view of the president as a person, judging from an online survey conducted by the CNN.
Premise
part of an argument which is intended to provide reason for accepting a conclusion
two types of false dilemma arguments: 1. perfectionist fallacy 2. the line-drawing fallacy
perfectionist fallacy is when a speaker/writer ignores options between perfection & nothing line=drawing: either a crystal-clear line can be drawn between two things or there is no diff between them.: You can't say exactly when a video game is too violent; therefore no video game is too violent.
Otherizing
pervasive demagoguery which divides people into two groups--"them" and "us"---usually portraying "them" as suspicious, dangerous, or repulsive; "them" includes all ideological opponents and other social groups who can be blamed for societal problems
Loaded Question
questions that are used to imply something without actually coming out and saying it; rests on unwarranted assumptions; occurs when there is no reason to think that an assumption about something is true Example: Why does the president hate rich people? The question implies that the president hates rich people, although there are no real reasons to think that the implication is true.
Generalizing from a Sample
reasoning that all, most, or some percentage of the members of a population have an attribute, because all, most, or some percentage of a sample of the population has that attribute Example: So far, I've liked every one of Professor Stooler's lectures. Therefore, I will like all of his lectures.
Aristotle
regarded virtue as a trait that we acquire when we use our capacity to reason to moderate our impulses and appetites, such as being wise, being just, or being courageous; emphasized that virtue is a matter of habit--that it is a trait or a way of living
Criteria to evaluate arguments by analogy:
relevant similarities, relevant dissimilarities, the number of instances compared, diversity among cases.
Euphemisms
replacing words with a negative connotation to a word that is more neutral or positive in meaning Example: Detainee is a better word for "prisoner". "Career enhancement opportunity" is a nicer way of being told you are fired.
~
represents negation; can be substituted for "not", "no", "im-", "um-", "a-", "counter-", "anti-", etc.
Balance of Consideration Reasoning
requires weighing considerations for and against thinking and doing something; often contains deductive and inductive elements
Ridicule/Sarcasm
sarcasm is used by people who expect to get a good laugh at the expense of somebody else who is usually on the opposing side, without actually raising an objection to the opposition; ridicule attacks the opposing party; both divert attention from the actual topic of debate to something else that is completely irrelevant Example: Everything about the Left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything is 'Wag the Dog'. Everything is a structured deception. ~Rush Limbaugh It is a ridicule because it attacks the opposing party, which is the left side of the political spectrum, without giving real arguments for believing the claim.
Conditional claim
says what will be the case given a certain condition; a single claim of truth that leads to another claim of truth
Rhetoric
seeks to persuade through the rhetorical force of language and other devices; has no logical force or probative value, although it exerts a profound psychological influence
In __________ _________, we notice certain things and ignore others-usually without being aware that we're doing it.
selective attention
Better-Than-Average Illusion
self-deception cognitive bias that leads us to overestimate our own abilities relative to those of others Ex: When a class of 40 students is asked how many of them think they did better than half the class, 80% will raise their hand. (which is impossible)
In-Group Bias
set of cognitive biases that make us view people who belong to our group differently from people who don't Ex: You're religious sect is superior to all others and all people outside your sect are inferior
Sampling Frame
set of criteria used in scientific generalizing from a sample that make it clear for any specific thing, whether or not it is a member of the population and whether or not it has the attribute of interest
Causal Statements
sets forth the cause of an event Example: The floor is wet because the toilet is leaking.
Attacking the Analogy
showing that the premise analogues are not as similar to the conclusion analogues as stated; showing that there are fewer similarities between the premise analogues and the conclusion analogues; calling attention to a single glaring dissimilarity between the analogues that undermine the argument
Less Initial Plausibility Claim
the more extraordinary the claim seems, and the less it fits with our background information, the more suspicious we should be
Strong vs Weak Argument
the more likely the premise of an inductive argument makes the conclusion, the stronger the argument, and the less likely it makes the conclusion, the weaker the argument
Antecedent
the part of a formal claim which precedes the condition of the claim
Premise Analogue
the part of an argument from analogy from which the analogy is derived from or based on; sometimes called the sample analogue Example: Bill likes hunting.
Conclusion Analogue
the part of an argument from analogy that receives the analogy of the premise analogue; sometimes called the target analogue Example: Therefore, Bill's brother, Sam, likes hunting, too.
Error Margin
the range of random variation of a scientific sample proportion across multiple random samples of a given size
Ethical Egoism (consequentialsim)
the rightness of an act is determined by the happiness it produces for oneself
naturalistic fallacy
to infer that goodness and pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them. Example: Opposition to GMOs because they're unnatural.
Negation
to know the truth values of ~P, one must know the truth values of P first
Objective Claim
true or false regardless of whether people think it is or not
Objective truth -
true regardless of individuals we get to be fallible make progress Not self defeating allows us to make arguments/to prove things.
Confirming Causal Hypotheses
trying to show that the hypothesized cause is the condition "but for which" the effect in question would not happen Example: We dried the floor, turned off the toilet, and waited. The floor stayed dry. Then we turned the toilet back on and watched. Now there is a puddle on the floor. Therefore, the leaking toilet caused the puddle.
argument by anecdote
trying to support a cause-and effect claim by telling a story
Lexical Definition
used to define what a word or term ordinarily means based on the dictionary
Deductive Argument
used to demonstrate or prove a conclusion
Stipulative Definition/Precising Definition
used to make a term more precise or stipulate new or different meanings
dysphemism
used to produce a negative effect on someone's attitude about something, or to tone down the positive associations it may have
Inductive Argument
used to support rather than demonstrate a conclusion
bandwagon appeal (ad populum)
uses 'group perspective' to persuade "If you were truly dutch ..."
Innuendo
uses the power of implication to disparage or something; relies on neutral phrasing to insinuate something derogatory; uses hidden meanings without stating what is truly meant in a statement Example: Ladies and gentlemen, I am proof that at least one candidate in this race doesn't make stuff up. The author is implying that the opposing party is a liar or "makes stuff up".
Weak Analogy
weak argument based on debatable or unimportant similarities between 2 or more things Ex: My mom is just like Adolf Hitler. I doubt she will let me go out with you guys. Ex: The federal government is just like a private household. If it doesn't balance its budget, it will go bankrupt. Ex: In the wild, wolves eat nothing but raw meet. Therefore, we should feed our dogs nothing but raw meat.
Contrary Premise Analogue
weakens an argument from analogy (disanalogy) Ex: Bill, his sister Sarah and both parents like hunting. But his brother Peter does not. Therefore, Sam likes hunting. Weaker bc is contains contrary premise analogue-Peter
fallacy of division
what is true of a group of things taken collectively must also be true of those same things taken individually Example: 1. The ball is blue. Therefore the atoms that make it up are also blue. 2. Americans use much more electricity than Africans do. So Bill, who lives in a primitive cabin in Maine, uses more electricity than Nelson, who lives in a modern house in South Africa.
Claim/Statement/Assertion
when a belief (judgment or opinion) is asserted in a declarative sentence
Overlooking the Possibility of Regression (post hoc-ovlk poss of rand var)
when a speaker or writer assumes that a change in the value of a variable from more atypical to less on subsequent measurement is due to causation Ex: We measured the IQs of a group of students and found the average to be relatively low. Then we had them take a course in critical thinking, after which we measured their IQs again. There IQs were higher. Therefore, the course in critical thinking raised their IQs.
Accident
when a speaker or writer assumes that a general statement automatically applies to a specific case that is (or could well be ) exceptional It is illegal to use a cell phone wwhile driving; therefore that police officer committed a crime when he used his cell when he was driving.
Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation (post hoc)
when a speaker or writer assumes that random fluctuation is due to causation Ex: In our tests, we randomly selected men to drive a golf bar as far as they could. We then had them wear our magnetic bracelet and try again. On the second occasion, the men hit the ball an average of ten feet further. Our bracelet can lengthen your drive as well.
Argument by Anecdote (version of Hasty Generalization)
when a speaker or writer attempts to support a general claim by offering a story a story is just a single incident Ex: Did you hear about how John Travolta flew his plane and parked it on the tarmac-right out there in everyone's way? That's the trouble with these Hollywood actors. They don't care about anyone but themselves.
Overlooking the Possibility of Reversed Causation (cum hoc)
when a speaker or writer overlooks the fact that the stated cause may actually be the effect, and stated effect may be the cause Ex: People who walk long distances enjoy good health. Therefore, walking long distances will make you healthy. Ex: Successful business people often drive expensive cars. Therefore, driving an expensive car will help make you a successful businessperson.
Overlooking a Possible Common Cause (post hoc/cum hoc)
when a speaker or writer overlooks the possibility that two things may both be the effects of a third thing Ex: I left the lights on when I went to bed. Next morning, I woke up with a headache. Therefore, leaving the lights on caused the headache. *overlooked that leaving the lights on and waking up with a headache may each be the effects of a common cause, such as going to bed unusually tired or intoxicated.
Slippery Slope
when a speaker or writer rests a conclusion on an unsupported warning that is controversial and tendentious, to the effect that something will progress by degrees to an undesirable outcome Ex: We should not require gun owners to carry liability insurance, because if we do that, before long they will repeal the Second Amendment. Ex: No, I don't think we should tip servers 20%. Next thing you know we'll be tipping them 25%, then 30%, then who knows what. We'll be spending our entire paycheck every time we eat out.
Fallacious Appeal to Popularity (fallacious appeal to common belief)
when a speaker or writer treats an issue that cannot be settled by public opinion as if it can Ex: The Iranians have weapons. Everyone knows that. Ex: Almost everyone knows that plastic is contaminating the oceans. Therefore, plastic is contaminating the oceans. Ex: Hondas get great gas mileage. Everyone knows that.
Fallacious Appeal to Common Practice (variant of fall app to pop)
when a speaker or writer tries to justify a practice on the grounds that it is traditional or common practice Ex: This is the right way; It is the way it has always been done.
begging the question
when a speaker/writer tries to "support" a contention by offering "evidence" what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question "Obviously the governor told the truth about the budget. He wouldn't lie to us about it."
Ambiguity
when a word, phrase, or sentence has more than one meaning
Vagueness
when a word, phrase, or sentence is uncertain on what it includes and what it does not include
Overlooking prior probabilities
when failing to take into consideration the likelihood of an event apart from any outside influences.
begging the question (assuming what you are trying to prove)
when he/she tries to "support" a contention by offering as "evidence" what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question.
weaselers
when inserted into a claim ... help protect it from criticism by watering it down somewhat, weakening it
Ambiguous Pronoun References
when it is not clear what or whom a pronoun is supposed to refer to Example: The boys chased the girls and they giggled a lot. It is unclear whether the pronoun "they" refers to the girls or the boys.
Group Ambiguity
when it is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to the members of the group individually Example: Secretaries make more than physicians do. It is unclear whether the statement applies to secretaries as collective--in which case, would be true because there are more secretaries than physicians--or to individual secretaries--in which case, would be false, since secretaries, individually, make less money than physicians.
Generalize from a Sample
when one reasons that all, most, or some percentage of the members of a population have an attribute bc all, most, or some percentage of a population sample have that attribute Ex: So far, I have liked all of Dr. Kosak's lectures. Therefore, I will like all of his lectures. *The more atypical the sample, the weaker the generalization. *The less diversified the sample, the weaker the generalization. *Generalizations based on samples to small to accurately mirror the overall population are relatively weak. (population of "tastes" from a pot of soup, however are likely to be typical)
misplacing the burden of proof
when people try to support or prove their position by misplacing the burden of proof obviously, the president's birth certificate is a forgery. Can you prove it isn't? Guns should be outlawed. I'll bet you can't think of a single good reason they shouldn't
Misplacing the Burden of Proof
when people try to support or prove their position by misplacing the burden of proof "I believe our former president's birth certificate was a forgery. Can you prove it isn't?"
Appeal to ignorance
when someone asserts that we should believe a claim because nobody has proved it false
false dilemma
when someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it s the only alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
mistaken appeal to common practice
when someone tries to justify a practice on the grounds that it is traditional or is commonly practiced
Generality
when something is not specific
relevance fallacy(red herring)
when the premise is not relevant to the issue in question
Equivalent Claims
when two different claims are both true in all and exactly the same circumstances
ad hominem vs straw man fallacy
whereas ad hominem attempts to dismiss a claim on the basis of irrelevant considerations about the person making it, the straw man fallacy attempts to dismiss a claim by misrepresenting iㅅ.
tu quoque
you're another) A type of ad hominem fallacy that argues that a claim must be true (or false) just because the claimant is hypocritical.
