PHIL 120 Final

Ockham's razor

"if we are choosing between two competing explanations of a phenomenon, and both equally explain the data, the simpler explanation - the explanation postulating fewer principles - is rationally preferable." AKA "the principle of simplicity". It requires that we "shave our explanatory hypothesis to a minimum of entities and a minimum of complexity."

Ad hominem fallacies (informal) definition

"to the man" or "against the person" "fallacies of personal attack". An attack against the person making the argument, not the argument itself. the standing of the person arguing does not have an effect on the truth or validity of the claim they make.

Tu Quoque ad hominem

"you too/also". One accuses a person of acting in a manner that contradicts some position that she supports and concludes that her view is worthless. "I can't believe you're trying to convince me to give more money to charity when you don't give nearly as much as I do." Another example: when using the vegan example saying killing animals for food is immoral, say the person who made that claim eats meat. Then her standing doesn't act consistently with her conclusion, therefore I reject her argument. However, Catherine might have an effective argument and just thinks it is immoral that she eats meat.

Predicate term

(designating the predicate class) appears last, and it names or designates a class or category of things. Always predicate of the conclusion (last).

Subject term

(designating the subject class) appears after the quantifier, and it designates or names a class or category of things (cats, mammals, etc.). always subject of conclusion

Ad hominem fallacy types (6)

1. Abusive ad hominem 2. Circumstantial ad hominem 3. Tu Quoque 4. Guilt by association 6. Ad feminam

3 types of begging the question

1. Question begging concerning an unsupported premise 2. Question begging in the colloquial sense 3. Circular reasoning a. By equivalency: one of the premises asserts a proposition equivalent to the argument's conclusion. b. By dependency: the conclusion and the premise are mutually dependent.

Mill's Joint method of agreement and difference

6 kids at lunch in a cafeteria and two become sick. Everyone who got sick at a taco. Eating a taco was thus the common antecedent factor. By the method of agreement, we infer that the tacos were likely a necessary condition for the sickness. By the method of difference the tacos were likely a sufficient condition for the sickness. These arguments together identify the likely necessary and sufficient conditions for the illness. This is the joint method.

Pseudoscience

A hypothesis is pseudoscience if its advocates claim that it is based on, and justified in terms of, the methods of science, when in reality it is not. Most pseudoscience can be identified by asking, "is the theory testable? Has it been tested? What were the results?" Most pseudoscience fails to count as real science because it violates the testability requirement in one or more of the following ways: 1. The hypothesis makes claims that are simply not (observationally) testable. 2. The hypothesis makes claims that are too vague to be tested. 3. The advocates of the hypothesis use ad hoc additions to defend their hypothesis

Necessary condition

A necessary condition for something X is a condition that is required; without the necessary condition, X will no obtain. o Ex: oxygen is necessary for a fire to burn.

Sufficient condition

A sufficient condition for something X is a condition that guarantees that X will obtain; the sufficient condition is all that is needed for the obtaining of X. o Ex: jumping into a lake is sufficient for being wet. Notice that although oxygen is necessary for a fire to burn, it is not sufficient; while jumping in a lake is sufficient for getting wet but it is not a necessary condition for getting wet.

Scientific theory

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Not guesses but reliable accounts of the real world.

Slippery slope

AKA the 'domino argument'. Occurs when someone objects to a position P on the grounds that P will set off a chain reaction leading to a bad result; however, no good reason is given for supporting the chain reaction leading to the bad result will occur. Ex: if you give a pig a pancake, if you give a moose a muffin, etc. they will just want more and more after giving them one thing, sliding down a slippery slope.

Aristotle's existential assumption

All categorical statements under consideration have existential import (are all about existing things). A statement is said to have existential import if its subject term refers to one or more actually existing things. A statement lacks existential import if its subject term does not refer to one or more actually existing things. Things like unicorns are called empty terms because the category it refers to does not contain any actually existing entities.

Straw man

An opponent's position is misrepresented to make it easier to critique. Happens when a position is presented in a way that resembles the original claim but is not the original claim. Person 1 states position X. Person 2 states position Y(resembles position X) and attacks it. Person 2 concludes that position X is false. The structure of the arguments in straw man fallacies can still be valid and hard to spot, especially if you don't know much about or understand the argument.

Ad feminam ad hominem

Attempt to discredit a claim on the grounds that a female person proposed it.

Appeal to Pity

Attempts to evoke the emotions of pity from the audience and then use that pity alone, rather than reason and evidence, to move the audience to a desired conclusion. Ex: an attorney's client is charged with armed robbery and the attorney plays up the clients unfortunate childhood in hopes that the jury will feel sorry for him and be lenient. This is a fallacy because it treats pity as the only relevant factor to take into account in reaching a conclusion, ignoring relevant logical considerations.

The fallacy of accident

Committed when a general rule or principle is applied in a particular situation, but the rule was not intended for the situation; the situation is a recognized exception to the rule. Ex: the rule is that you're not allowed to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre because someone could get trampled. There is a play in a theatre where one of the lines is "fire!", and if someone in the crowd says "hey, you're not supposed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre", he'd be committing the fallacy of accident, because the rule didn't apply in this situation.

Genetic fallacy

Committed when the origin of the view is attacked rather than the logical evidence for the view, and then this alone is offered as a reason to reject the view.

Boolean/hypothetical (modern) interpretation of universals

George Boole asked what if we drop Aristotle's assumption that all sentences refer to something real? He developed a new way to interpret universal categorical sentences with respect to existence: we can, without contradiction, drop the existential assumption. If we do not presuppose that the subject term denotes or refers to actually existing things when we interpret a universal sentence, we are taking the hypothetical viewpoint or the Boolean viewpoint.

Mill's Method of difference

If an effect E is present in one case and absent in a closely similar case, the difference (D) between the cases is probably the cause of E. D will be the circumstance or condition present when E occurs and absent when E doesn't occur - provided that the cases compared are otherwise alike in all, or nearly all, relevant respects. Unlike the method of agreement, the method of difference identifies a probable sufficient condition of an effect.

Hasty generalizations

Jumping to a conclusion too quickly

Special pleading

Occurs when an arguer applies a principle to someone else's case but makes an unjustified special exception for his or her own case. Ex: when a politician says "the other guy takes money from voters and uses it for personal things, so vote for me instead". What they don't share is that they do the same exact thing.

Red herring

Occurs when an arguer diverts attention from the point at hand by introducing an irrelevant issue into the discussion, thus throwing the argument off track. It is presented to avoid the conclusion of the argument.

Fallacy of suppressed evidence

Occurs when an arguer leaves out evidence that would count heavily against the conclusion of his or her argument. Ex: -Car salesman: this car was driven by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays. It's a great buy! (the rest of the story: her car was stolen and totaled twice in the past year).

False dilemma

Occurs when someone assumes that only two alternatives exist with respect to some matter, rules out one of the two, and then concludes in favor of the other alternative, when in fact more alternatives exist but they haven't been considered. Ex: "either we see the movie or we go home. You obviously don't want to stay home so let's see the movie."

Appeals to authority

Occurs when we base a conclusion on the testimony of an alleged expert on some subject, but the alleged authority is either not a credible expert on the subject, is not trustworthy, or is biased. Ex: "Jennifer Aniston says I should buy brand X cereal, therefore, brand X it is." Or, "Kobe Bryant says brand X cereal is healthy so I'm going to buy it." These famous people are not experts on cereal.

Quantifier

Quantity of a sentence: the "all", "none", or "some" are what quantifies the sentence.

There are four basic patterns or forms that a categorical sentence might follow:

State that ALL the members of one category BELONG TO a second category; for example, "all cats are mammals" State that NONE of one category BELONG TO a second category, for example, "no cats are fish" State that SOME members of one category BELONG TO a second category, for example, "some cats are pets" State that SOME members of one category DON'T BELONG TO a second category, for example, "some cats are not pets"

Hypothetico-deductive method

The method used to test an individual hypothesis in science is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method since it involves hypotheses and predictions deduced from them. This method is often presented in the following steps: o Step one: Scientists encounter a puzzling phenomenon that needs an explanation o Step two: Scientists propose a hypothesis that would, if true, explain the phenomenon o Step three: Scientists ask, if the hypothesis were true, what facts about the world can we expect to observe or otherwise detect with our senses? To answer this question, they derive observational predictions from the hypothesis. o Step four: Scientists test the hypothesis by observing the world to see if the phenomenon predicted will be observed. o Step five: Finally, they accept, reject, or revise the hypothesis on the basis of the test observations.

Major term

The predicate term of the conclusion in a categorical syllogism. animals is the major term in this argument, o All pets are animals. o Some snakes are pets. o So, necessarily, some snakes are animals.

Quality of a sentence:

The quality is affirmative if the copula affirms membership of the predicate. Its negative if it denies membership to the predicate.

Conclusion

The statement said to be supported by the premises in a declarative sentence.

Minor term

The term appearing as the subject of the conclusion in a categorical syllogism. snakes is the minor term in this argument, o All pets are animals. o Some snakes are pets. o So, necessarily, some snakes are animals.

Middle term

The term in a categorical syllogism that appears in both premises (and thus, not the conclusion). pets is the middle term in this argument, o All pets are animals. o Some snakes are pets. o So, necessarily, some snakes are animals.

Copula

The words "are" and "are not" are called the copula because they join or 'couples' the subject to the predicate. This appears after the subject term.

False cause fallacy

There are two types: post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) and non causa pro causa (not the cause for the cause).

Categorical Syllogism

This argument has all the following properties: o It is composed of exactly two premises and one conclusion - all categorical statements. o Each sentence in the argument contains exactly two terms- no more, no less. o The argument as a whole contains exactly three different terms, each appearing exactly twice in the argument. o No term appears twice in the same sentence. o EX: o All whales are swimmers. o All whales are mammals. o Therefore, some mammals are swimmers.

Mill's Method of concomitant variation

This method looks for changes in one phenomenon that vary with or correspond to (are concomitant with) changes in a second phenomenon. If the measured change in the one varies along with the measured change in the second, this is evidence that the two phenomena are probably causally related: one of the two probably causes the other, or some third factor causes both. This method is often used in everyday life and the lab. Ex: a community college discovers a correlation between changes in enrollment and changes in employment at the local steel mill. When employment goes down, enrollment goes up and vice versa. Officials conclude that employment at the mill is one of the causes of fluctuation in enrollment

Hypothesis

We normally call an explanation a hypothesis when it lacks sufficient confirming evidence. Once an explanation has been confirmed, it is called a theory.

Appeal to ignorance

When someone argues that a proposition is true simply on the grounds that it has not been shown to be false. Ex: "I believe in UFO's because nobody has proven there aren't any."

Irrelevant conclusions

When someone puts forward premises in support of a stated conclusion under discussion, but the premises actually support a different conclusion, but the presenter doesn't realize it. Ex: senate is debating a bill that would put laptops in all classrooms. Senator smith is supposed to present an argument for the bill. He says "our children are our most precious investment. The public schools help prepare the next generation for responsible adulthood. Only a scrooge would oppose children, therefore, we must pass the bill." This senator thinks he is arguing in favor of a bill that would give laptops to all schools but his premises are actually directed at conclusion saying that public schools are a good thing. His premises do nothing to show that schools will do a better job if each classroom has laptops. The senator is 'arguing beside the point'. This is an ignoratio elenchi.

Process of disconfirmation

When the predicted phenomenon is not observed, we say the test disconfirms the hypothesis. The logic of disconfirmation takes the following form: o 1. If the hypothesis is true, then P should be observed. o 2. P is not observed. o 3. Therefore, the hypothesis is probably not true

Process of confirmation

When the predicted phenomenon is observed, we say the test confirms the hypothesis. The logic of the process of confirmation takes the following form: o 1. If the hypothesis is true, then P should be observed. o 2. P is observed. 3. Therefore, the hypothesis is probably true

Guilt by association ad hominem

Whenever one tries to argue against a certain view by pointing out that some unsavory person is likely to have agreed with it. Ex: "chocolate chip cookies can't be any good. My philosophy professor loves them and she is the meanest teacher I've ever had". A claim can be true despite its being endorsed by someone we don't like.

sufficient conditions

a condition that guarantees that something will be, the sufficient condition is all that is needed for something to be.

Necessary conditions

a condition that is required for something to be.

Premise

a declarative statement presenting evidence for a conclusion

Cognitive bias

a psychological obstacle to critical thinking as an unconscious impulse or mechanism that can skew our perception of the world and distort our judgement.

Declarative sentence

a sentence that says something that is either true or false.

Sound argument:

a sound argument has two properties; it is deductively valid, and its premises are all true.

Substitution instance

a specific argument is a substitution instance of an argument form if it can be produced by replacing the variables in the form with the context of the argument

Rational explanation

a systematic explanation, based on observable evidence and unassisted reason, independent of unsubstantiated myth, unquestioned authority, or unexamined tradition.

Vague vs. ambiguous terms

a word is vague if we are not sure whether the word applies or does not apply. For example, the word 'wealthy' is vague. In other words, a word that has borderline cases. A word or phrase is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in two or more ways. For example, "the reverend smith married my brother" - you aren't sure who got married here.

Disjunctive syllogism

an always valid argument that goes like this: o P or Q. o It is false that P. o Therefore, certainly Q.

Hypothetical syllogism

an always valid argument that goes like this: o If P then Q. o If Q then R. o Therefore, if P then R.

Valid arguments

an argument is valid if it succeeds in its aim and shows that its conclusion must be true if its premises are true

Begging the question

an argument that assumes a proposition in need of proof; an argument that is inherently circular; raising the question. To accuse someone of begging the question is to suggest that they unjustly assumed the proposition in need of proof. Ex: -Joe: god exists. -Fred: why believe that? - Joe: because god exists. there are three types of this.

Invalid arguments

an argument that fails to succeed in its aim and thus does not show that its conclusion must be true if its premises are true

Inductive argument

an argument that is intended to show that its conclusion is probably true, but not certainly true, if all the premises are true.

Definition

an explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase.

Appeal to the people

an informal fallacy. It established the truth of some claim (P) on the basis that a lot of people believe P to be true. the example isn't sufficient to establish the truth of the conclusion. While popular opinion might give us a reason to believe something is true, it is rarely the reason that it is true.

Fallacy of division

an informal fallacy. It's a defect in reasoning that arises when we assume that what is true of the whole must be true of its parts. This also doesn't always lead to a false conclusion. Ex: "this hotel is huge! The rooms must be enormous!"

Psychological obstacle to critical thinking

an unconscious impulse or mechanism often called cognitive bias, which can skew our perception of the world and distort our judgement.

Circumstantial ad hominem

attempts to challenge a person's position by suggesting that she is advancing it merely to serve her own interests. Focus on the target's situation rather than personal characteristics. "I deserve a raise because..." EX: "P1: animals are sentient beings. P2: If a being is sentient, then killing it for food is immoral. C: killing animals for food is immoral. BUT the person who made the claim works for a vegan food company so her claim must be wrong/invalid.". although she works for a vegan company and may have a conflict of interest, she may also have a perfectly valid and sound argument supporting her conclusion that killing animals for food is immoral.

premise indicator words

because, since, given that, etc.

Definition by paradigm

explaining the meaning of a word by citing one or more clear and easily recognizable examples of the application of the word. For example," by moral principle, I mean a rule like stealing is wrong."

Ostensive (demonstrative) definition

explaining the meaning of a word by physically pointing at an example.

Enumerative definition

explaining the meaning of something by listing members of a category

Operational definition

explains the meaning of a word by specifying a step-by-step operation or test that determines whether the word applies in any given case.

Extensional definition

extensional definitions assign meaning to a word by giving examples of what the word denotes or applies to. There are four types of extensional definitions: an ostensive (also called a demonstrative) definition, an enumerative definition, an operational definition, and a definition by paradigm case.

Intensional definitions

gives the meaning of a word by stating the characteristics or properties the objects in a term's extension have in common and which lead us to apply the term to them

Fallacy of composition

happens when we assume that the whole has the same qualities as its parts. It's an informal fallacy. This fallacy doesn't always lead to false conclusions. Ex: "each member of the quartet is a good musician, so the quartet must be a good quartet."

Modus tollens

if P, then Q... Not Q. therefore, not P.. -- this is a model of denial and will be a valid argument.

Modus ponens

if P, then Q... P. therefore, Q -- this is a model of affirmation and will always be valid.

Weak inductive arguments

if an inductive argument does not succeed in showing that its conclusion is probably true if the premises are true, then it is weak.

Strong inductive arguments

if an inductive argument succeeds in its aims and shows that its conclusion is probably true if its premises are all true, then it is strong.

Confirming evidence

information that backs up something a person already believes

Disconfirming evidence

information that counts against something a person already believes.

Mill's Method of residues

it is common sense. It takes this form: A, B, and C are known to cause the set of effects X, Y, and Z. A is found to be the cause of X B is found to be the cause of Y So, C is likely the cause of the residue Ex: a store owner discovers that three employees A, B, and C have embezzled $1500. She verifies that A embezzled $500 and B embezzled $800 so it follows that C embezzled the residual $200.

the 3 features of an ad hoc addition to a hypothesis are?

o 1. It is not independently testable o 2. It is not supported by independent evidence o 3. The only reason for adding the ad hoc clause is to save the hypothesis from being disconfirmed. Ex: suppose I claim that the government is altering my mind by beaming microwave radiation into my house. You conduct a test and tell me that not microwave radiation is being beamed into my house. I reply that the test failed to find the radiation because the government is beaming a new kind of radiation at me - radiation that is not detectable by instruments. I just added an ad hoc clause to my hypothesis.

Equivocation

occurs when the same word is used to express different meanings in an argument, so that the premises are true on one interpretation of the word but not the other, while the conclusion follows only based on the other meaning. Ex: star (celebrity) vs star (space); Miley Cyrus is an exploding ball of gas.

Genetic fallacy ad hominem

occurs whenever an attempt is made to cast a claim into question by condemning its origin. Ex: "the founder of organization X served time in prison for embezzlement, so we can conclude that the organization must still be corrupt". Can also be used positively to support claims, not undermine them.

Argument

one or more statements called 'premises', offered as evidence or reason to believe that a further statement, called the 'conclusion', is true

Abusive ad hominem

presents personal characteristics of individuals as reasons to discount their ideas. Attacks person directly.

Mill's methods

procedures used when scientists track down the causes of things are often based on a set of principles formulated by John Stuart Mill. Procedures used for identifying probable causes. Most are common sense.

Categorical sentence

relates one category of things to another category of things by asserting that all, some, or none of one category of things either belongs to, or do not belong to, a second category of things. A categorical argument is a deductive argument composed of categorical sentences, in which a conclusion about one category of things is drawn on the basis of information about one or more other categories of things. Here is a categorical argument: All Greeks are human beings Some Greeks are Spartans Therefore, some human beings are Spartans

non causa pro causa (one type of false cause fallacy) example and form

someone claims that A is the cause of B, when in fact (a) A is not the cause of B, but (b) the mistake is not based merely on the fact that B comes after A. The fallacy of accidental correlation is an example of this. Someone concludes that A is the cause of B simply on the grounds that A and B are correlated. Ex: at ocean beaches there is a statistical correlation between ice cream sales and boating accidents. When ice cream sales are up, so are boating accidents. If someone argued that ice cream sales caused boating accidents, they would be committing this fallacy.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (one type of false cause fallacy) example and form

someone concludes that A caused B simply on the grounds that A happened before B. -- after this, therefore because of this.

Deductive argument

the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

Mill's Method of agreement

the probable cause of the effect (like a sickness) is to be found in the one antecedent condition common to each case where the effect is present (like E. Coli in meat from one restaurant)

conclusion indicator words

therefore, hence, so, thus, in conclusion, consequently, etc.

Principle of Faithfulness

this principle advises us to present the opposing view accurately

Principle of Charity

this principle advises us to treat the opposing view with respect when stating an objection to our argument. Present the opposing view in its best light and don't insult or ridicule the advocates of the opposing view.

Logically consistent

two statements are logically consistent if and only if it is possible that both premises are true.

Logically inconsistent

two statements are logically inconsistent if they cannot be true at the same time.

Proposition

what is being expressed by a declarative sentence

Analogical argument

when two things have a lot in common/ are similar, if one thing applies to one of them, it is likely that it will apply to the other one too. Ex: monkey and human hearts are similar. Drug X cures heart disease in monkeys. Therefore, drug X will likely cure heart disease in humans.

Formal fallacy

• Fallacy is a defect in reasoning. Formal fallacy is a defect in the form of the argument. Poor form of the argument. ("affirming the consequent" is an example - jane and the PB ex) "if x, then y. y. therefore, x." these will be invalid arguments.

Informal fallacy

• arises out of the content of the argument, not the form. It could be a valid argument at first. Then it is shown to be invalid. (ex: light vs light (weight vs color)). "all x are y. what is w cannot be z. therefore no x are z. (equivocation). Couldn't detect this fallacy if you only looked at the form of the argument. The premises don't support the conclusion.