Critical Thinking Chapters 8, 10, & 11
modus ponens
affirming the antecedent: premise: if A, then B premise: A conclusion: therefore, B
causal reasoning
an event is claimed to be the result of an occurrence of another event
metaphor
an implied comparison between basically dissimilar things for the purpose of illuminating an understanding of the things being compared
red herring
committed by introducing an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from the original issue being discussed
analogy
comparison between things that are basically dissimilar, for the purpose of illuminating an understanding of the things being compared
modus tollens
denying the consequent: premise: if A, then B premise: not B conclusion: therefore, not A
appeal to flattery
designed to influence the thinking of others by appealing itself to their vanity as a substitute for providing relevant evidence to support your point of view
interactive pattern
different factors can relate to one another through reciprocal influences that flow back and forth from one to the other
sweeping generalization
focuses on difficulties in the process of interpreting
process relationship
focuses on relating and organizing the steps in the growth or development of an event or object
predictive power
hypothesis should allow you to make various predictions to test its accuracy
explanatory power
hypothesis should effectively explain the event you're investigating
economy
hypothesis should not be unnecessarily complex
invalid argument
if the reasons don't support the conclusion
appeal to personal attack
ignoring the issues of the argument and focusing instead on the personal qualities of the person making the argument
word claim
provides a visual representation of the frequency at which keywords and concepts occur in a variety of contexts and is used for organizing and categorizing various types of textual information
post hoc ergo propter hoc
refers to situations in which, because two things occur close together in time, we assume that one caused the other
analogical modes of thinking
relates things in different categories in terms of their similarities
comparative modes of thinking
relates things in the same general category in terms of their similarities and differences
bandwagon
relies on uncritical acceptance of others opinions because "everyone believes it"
begging the question
the premises of the argument assume or include the claim that the conclusion is true
appeal to pity
the reasons offered to believed and support the conclusions may indeed be true; the reasons are designed to make us feel sorry for the person involved and therefore agree with the conclusion out of sympathy
dialogue
the systematic exchange of ideas
reasoning
the type of thinking that uses arguments
inferring
thinking process you use to reason based on what you already know in order to form new knowledge or beliefs
narrative
way of thinking and communicating in which someone tells a story about experiences he or she has had
misidentification of the cause
what is the cause and what is the effect
sound argument
when an argument includes both valid structure and true reasons
unsound argument
when an argument is invalid
questionable cause
when someone presents a casual relationship for which no real evidence exists (ex. mirror breaks, seven years of bad luck)
valid argument
when the reasons support the conclusion so that the conclusion follows from the reasons being offered
scientific method
works on the assumption that the world is constructed in a complex web of casual relationships that can be discovered through systematic investigation
hasty generalization
a general conclusion has been reached based on a very small sample; as a result, the samples provide very weak support for the conclusions that are being developed
empirical generalization
a major type of inductive reasoning that is defined as reasoning from a limited sample to a general conclusion based on the sample
appeal to tradition
argues that a practice to way of thinking is "better" or "right" simply because it is older, or it has "always been done that way"
deductive reasoning
argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises
inductive reasoning
argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that is supported by the premises but does not follow logically from them
fallacies
arguments that are not sound because of various errors in reasoning
incomplete comparisons
arises when we focus on too few points of comparison
straw man
attacking someones point of view by creating an exaggerated straw man version of the position, and then you knock down the straw man you just created
two wrongs make a right
attempts to justify a morally questionable action by arguing that it is a response to another wrong action, either real or imagined-in effect, that two wrongs make a right
causal relationships
causal patterns of thinking involve relating events in terms of the influence or effect they have on one another
interactive causes
causal relationships rarely operate in isolation, but instead often influence other factors
contributory causes
causes can act simultaneously to produce an effect
appeal to fear
conclusions being suggested are supported by fear, not by reasons that provide evidence for the conclusions
appeal to authorities
insisting a claim is true simply because a valid authority on the issue said it was true
cue words
key words that signal a reason is being offered in support of a conclusion or that a conclusion is being asserted
special pleading
occurs when someone makes him or herself a special exception, without sound justification, to the reasonable application of standards, principles, or expectations
false dilemma
occurs when we are asked to choose between two extreme alternatives without being able to consider additional options
selective comparisons
occurs when you take one-sided view of a comparative situation-when you concentrate on the points favoring one side of the things being compared but overlook the points favoring the other side
causal chain
one thing leads to another, which then leads to another, and so on
slippery slope
one undesirable actions will inevitably lead to a worse actions, which will necessarily lead to a worse one still
process mode of thinking
organizes an activity into a series of steps
chronological pattern of thinking
organizes something into a series of events in the sequence in which they occurred
reasons/premises
the main ideas that make up an argument
appeal to ignorance
the person offering the conclusion is asking his or her opponent to disprove the conclusion
evaluating arguments
to construct effective arguments you'll need to ask yourself two questions: 1) assuming that the reasons/premises are true, would they actually demonstrate that the conclusion is true? 2) how true are the reasons being offered to support the conclusion?
process analysis
trying to achieve one or both of two goals; giving step-by-step instruction in how to perform an activity and giving information about a process