5. Short answers
What distinguishes the criteria of "validity" and "probability" from that of truth?
A premise is true when it is error-proof, without dispute, beyond doubts... Truth really refers to the content of an argument. Validity, on the other hand, is what we can call the internal consistency of an argument. If the logic follows (passes the S-test, for instance) it's valid. A valid argument, however, is not necessarily true. An argument can be formulated by premises that are independently false but still sound logic. Similarly, an argument can be formulated that "likely" is true but depends on some outside chance. When this is the case, it can be logical to say that something is true to a degree. Otherwise, a conclusion/premise should be either 100% true or false. A truth in a scientific argument is a conclusion that follows a valid logic.
Why is academic writing not the way to go?
According to Mills, the desire for status is one reason why academic men lose intelligibility." He referred to the "serious crisis in literacy" among social scientists and their unnecessary reliance on "socspeak." Socspeak is the incomprehensible language sociologists often use in their writing. To communicate with the masses, social scientists first need to overcome the academic pose" if they are ever to "overcome the academic prose. The fact that scientists want to sound more intellectual hinders the intelligibility of a text. The problem with socspeak is that it is exclusive instead of inclusive. In order for sociologists to reach their potential, they need to demonstrate to non-sociologists. That needs to happen in an intelligible, more understandable way. The general public needs to understand that it is highly beneficial to their lives if they see and think of the world through a sociological lens. Sociologists have many important stories to be told and these stories must be shared with as many people as possible. And the one way of doing this is to use the language of the 'commoner' and not niche language that only few understand.
What is an angle? Why do we use it?
An angle is the controlling idea in your essay. One could write a story/essay using straight facts (who, what, why, when, where, how). But stories differ when approached from different angles, the same story can be told twice but sound completely different. To find the right angle for you, one could look at the way the topic relates to her/him/whateverself. It is often an unexpected and interesting way of approaching your topic. And it provides a strong starting point (creates readers interest). You introduce your writers into the setting and the characters. It functions as a base to the audience to understand the story (organizing the information in the writing). What is wanted while writing a scientific piece is to have the audience understand from the start (indicates the type of information). Once you have your angle, it is easier to find an entry point into your essay. You also base your problem statement and thesis statement around this.
What distinguishes opinion from belief? More specifically, what is the relation of fact to opinion?
An opinion is a judgement based on facts and arguable on the basis of facts. People can disagree with opinions and argue about them in a reasonable way. They are changeable: with more facts, a writers' opinion can change. A fact can either be a statement that can be proven true or it can be a conclusion from statements that have been proven to be true. The thesis statement of an effective argument is an opinion. The backbone of an argument consists of specific claims that support that thesis statement. That thesis statement can be an opinion or it might state a fact. But opinions do not make arguments by themselves. You can't just state something and expect everyone to agree with you. The evidence for the opinion needs to be specified, and the assumptions linking claims and evidence are well thought-through and believable. A fact on its own does not work as the thesis for an argument. That is because they are not fundamentally arguable because they can be verified → no discussion needed :) But they do play a big role in an argument. They provide crucial evidence for other claims. So, mostly the thesis statement of a scientific argument is an opinion. The backbone of an argument consists of specific claims that support that thesis statement. And those claims need to be based upon (scientific) facts to make sense or to be legit. It is hard to believe a scientific statement that is an opinion if it does not have the right scientific evidence (facts) to prove that it is true.
What is the difference between deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning? How do they contribute to building a scientific argument? Which mode is the foundation of modern scientific method?
Inductive reasoning is reasoning where the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion is the hypothesis. Inductive reasoning is also referred to as 'cause and effect reasoning' or 'bottom-up reasoning' because it seeks to prove a conclusion first. This is usually derived from specific instances to develop a general conclusion. An inductive reasoning is strong when the premises are true. It is weak when the logic of the argument isn't logical. Deductive reasoning starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning holds a theory and based on that makes a prediction of its consequences. It goes from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations. We decide whether a deductive statement is true by assessing the strength of the link between the premises and the conclusion. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. An analogical argument cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists. In scientific method, induction is used the most. We use statistics first to research if there is a connection, an argument.
What do logos, pathos and ethos mean?
Logos, pathos and ethos are commonly used rhetoric to convince someone of an argument. They appeal to an audience and make an argument more persuasive, believable and valid. Logos appeals to the persuasiveness via logical and good arguments, using facts and figures Pathos appeals to the persuasiveness via emotions, using language that evokes empathy/sympathy Ethos contributes to the persuasiveness when the readers think of the writer as honest and credible. Ideally, in order to be most persuasive to the audience, it is best to combine the three. In combination, the audience will trust that the author puts forward only truth and real facts. Those facts will also appeal rationally to beliefs and feelings. This is the strongest method for an argument.
What is method? How do we use skills of exposition an argument in methodology?
Method literally means the procedure followed in achieving an end. So its about how you write, what techniques you use. Two of those techniques are writing expository and writing argumentatively. Methodology reflects on three phases: How do you do research? How do you analyse the data? How do you write about it? An exposition is a descriptive writing or speech primarily intended to explain and convey information. The maker stays rather neutral to convey all the facts. An argument however is intended to persuade users. The skills and methods of exposition and argument relate to all 3 stages. First, empirical research is preferred. Secondly, analyse information by looking for thesis statements, evidence, structure etc. From the third stage on, there is a difference between expository and argumentative methodology. In an exposition, use neutral language, cover all sides of the topic, explain everything. In an argument, take a position and write from that position to persuade users.
What is the difference between POV and prejudice and bias? Can we use POV's in academic writing?
Prejudice is preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience, and bias is the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment. A point of view is the position from which something or someone is observed. a bias is a tendency to go one way or the other according to the different values and beliefs a person holds, whereas a point of view is the way a person may evaluate something according to their relationship to it, their experience. take by example chocolate ice cream vs vanilla ice cream. A person who is allergic to chocolate can write neutral from this POV. If you are biased or have prejudice, you are significantly less neutral. Point of view is the perspective from which an essay is written, therefore point of view should not be a problem in academic writing as long as it's written from the third point of view. This way the writing won't only include one perspective but could have a hold of the entire subject, making it more general.
Briefly define and explain the difference between reportive, stipulative and essential definitions. How do you tackle verbal disputes? Do we use definitions and do the latter introduce fallacies?
Reportive definition = a definition that identifies or reports how a word is generally used, this is used in dictionaries. They aim at giving the essential property shared by all and only those objects referred to by the term. When writing you sometimes have to come up with your own (instead of relying on the ones in the dictionary). You will really have to name details designated to that what you are explaining. (bed and table both have 4 legs, what makes them different) Stipulative definition = explaining what you personally mean with a word. It does not have to be in line with the normal use. You use this when a word can be interpreted differently by different people (what is tall? it is different for everyone). You can often find them in specialized fields of study Essential definition = to know in a perfect manner what a thing is, its real essence. eg. What is truth?' we are not asking about the meaning of a word, because we all know what the word 'truth' means, but about the nature of what the word refers to. A verbal dispute is a disagreement about the meaning of a term. When is discussion with someone involving a certain term, you will have to establish the essential characteristics of that term so you guys know ya'll are arguing the exact same thing. Once clarified, be my guest and argue away. A definition will help the reader understand your argumentation better. You need to specify what you mean by certain terms because your readers need to know what you are talking about in order to understand better what you mean. It is not here to persuade the reader (different from other premises), but to help them understand better. Fallacies: begging the question/being circular → the definition of student is given as someone who studies. It does not make you understand it better. Then you would have to explain what studying is as well.
What is the difference between scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge? Should science seek autonomy from other ways of knowing? Do you think that such autonomy would be possible?
Scientific knowledge is characterized by critical thinking and application of specific tools associated with critical thinking. (skills, tools and principles). Science is the body of organized knowledge. It is a collection of ideas and theories and the methodology used to prove those ideas and theories. People use a set of methods to explain/make sense of the things they see or believe in. The method of scientific logic, deductive/inductive and logical reasoning is what classifies knowledge into science. All other types are known as non-scientific bodies of knowledge, some types of which are unorganized and unrelated to the natural world. Non-scientific knowledge is knowledge that is based on non-falsifiable claims (can't be falsified by empirical testing etc.) Often relying on belief. I don't think science seek autonomy from other ways of knowing, or that it would be possible. A lot of non-testable and a lot of scientific theories have an origin in myths, and therefore a myth may contain important anticipations of science theories. And so, if a theory is found to be non-scientific or metaphysical as it cannot be falsified, it cannot be labelled as insignificant in terms of its value to knowledge but it can't claim to be supported by empirical evidence in a scientific sense.
What is the illative core and the dialectic tier? Difference between argument as artifact and argument as process
Tba
What does McLaughlin mean by the "S-test?" Does it apply to argument as artifact or argument as process?
The S-test is an evaluation process that is used to evaluate an argument. First, determine if each individual premise is satisfactory. A premise is satisfactory when we have good reason to believe that it is true. Secondly, examine the connection between the premises and the conclusion: do the premises offer support to establish the conclusion? It is not because a premise is true, that it supports the conclusion. Lastly, determine if all the premises together offer sufficient support for the conclusion. Is there enough evidence? Only if there is sufficient support for the conclusion and the premises are satisfactory, the argument is successful. And if it is successful, then its conclusion should be accepted. The S-test applies primarily to argument as artifact. It evaluates and thus dissects or dresses the argument, and based on the judgements it makes, we can assess the strength or validity of the argument.
What is meant by "the problem of induction?" How might we determine the strength or weakness of an inductive argument?
The problem of induction, coined by David Hume, is a philosophical question of what are justifications for a growth of knowledge. In most cases nowadays, knowledge is not more than a collection of observations. There are 2 main flaws in our scientific reasoning. The first one is that we assume that nature is uniform, that everything in the future will follow the logic of the past. Who says that laws of physics won't change in the future? The second one is that it assumes a necessary connection through cause and effect. Take the example of a turkey, when the Turkey sees its owner coming with food, it assumes it will eat and live on. But one day, it will eat and be slaughtered. That is a different effect. Inductive arguments are generalizations based on evidence. The more evidence collected to support your induction the stronger the generalization made. Weaker arguments are as a result of oversimplifying either the evidence or the generalization. Also, the method of data collection is also important for gathering the evidence. Randomized- controlled trials and systematic reviews are the strongest forms. So we measure the strength of an inductive argument both on the amount of - and the method of collecting evidence
What is the relation between the "problem statement" and its "thesis statement? How should thesis statements relate to topic sentences?
The topic that you want to write about usually raises thesis/research questions. These indicate the direction of your research, leading to a problem- or a thesis statement. So: there are problems/questions and your statement provides a solution/thesis for these questions. The thesis statement in an argumentative essay encompasses the position that you will argue within your essay. This is commonly placed in the introduction so the reader knows your position. The problem statement in an expository essay is mostly placed in the introduction. The thesis statement on the other hand is common placed in the conclusion, so your readers first have had a chance to understand the topic and its issues. If you put it in the introduction, they might not understand where you are coming from. The topic sentence expresses the controlling idea of a paragraph, which links back to the thesis statement and creates unity between the paragraphs as well as supporting the overall position in the essay. It is ideally located at the beginning of the paragraph in order to provide organisation focus and structure throughout the essay.
outline the steps of the writing process and discuss how they relate to each other. What is recursivity?
The writing process contains 5 stages: we start with assessing the writing situation, think of who you'll write for, for how long, why and so on. Then you go to the next stage: discovering and shaping ideas. In this stage, you shape your ideas, find an angle on where to start and do research about the topic. The next stage is the drafting stage. Start by making an outline of your text and then start writing. The next stage, the revising stage is the puzzling stage. See how the different paragraphs come together, make them more cohesive. The last and most important stage is the editing stage. Rewrite your sentences and paragraphs so that they perfectly serve their purpose. Recursion means that each stage influences all the other stages. While you are revising the text, you might find some inconsistencies and need to do some more research. Writing is not a linear process, you don't follow the stages chronologically