Logic and critical thinking exam 2
Explain the four distinctions between the disciplines of logic and psychology in detail.
1) OBJECT OF STUDY •Psychology and other natural sciences study actual events in the world such that one type of event brings about another type of event (such relations are called casual relations) in order to discover causal laws. • Logic studies logical relations between proposition and their truth values, such that the truth values of some propositions depend upon the truth values of other propositions. 2) MODALITY OF THE OBJECT OF STUDY • Psychology and the other natural sciences operate actual world. •Logic studies what is possibly true or false and what is necessarily true or false. 3) WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE STUDY OF THEIR OBJECTS: •Psychology and other natural sciences are descriptive and explanatory sciences, they explain why events occur by means of causal laws of nature. • Logic is an evaluative science, which evaluates arguments to see if they re good or bad, and thereby evaluate wether the conclusions of the arguments are true or false. 4) FORM OF JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIM TO KNOWLEDGE •Psychology and other natural sciences are empirical (empirical sciences seeks to justify their claims by appeal to observation or experience) • Logic is an a priori science (a priori sciences seek to justify their claims independently of observation or experience.
Explain why a proposition can never be valid or invalid, and why an argument can never be true or false.
1) arguments can never be true or false, only a proposition can be true or false. 2) Propositions can never be valid or invalid only a deductive argument can be valid or invalid. Truth values apply only to single propositions. Each proposition has a truth value, but arguments do not have truth values since they are composed of several propositions standing in specific relationships with one another. Neither the whole set of propositions nor the relationships between them have a truth value. So, no argument can be true or false, only individual propositions, whether parts of an argument or not, can be true or false.
Name and state the first two laws of logic.
1) law of bivalence: a proposition can either have the value true or the value false 2) law of truth values: a proposition can only have one truth value either true or false.
state and explain Orwell's six rules to help avoid misleading language.
1) never use a metaphors, simile or other figure of speech, which you are used to seeing. 2) never use a long word where a short one will do 3) eliminate unnecessary words 4) never us passive voice where you can use the active voice 5) never us a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday english equivalent 6) break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous (we must continue to be artful and maintain an esthetic sense.
instead of asking "is that a fact or an opinion?" what questions should we ask instead? why?
1) what is the state of affairs? 2) what proposition is asserted about the state of affairs? 3) are the propositions true? 4) is there an argument? 5) is there a good argument? 6) is there an attitude towards that argument? These are clear questions that avoid the confusions inherent in the spurious distinction between fact and opinion.
What is a law of logic?
A law of logic states a condition that must hold before any proposition could even have a truth value.
What is a proposition?
A proposition is an aspect of language that purports to describe the arrangement of things in the world: the state of affairs.
What is a state of affairs
A state of affairs is an arrangement of things in the wold
Distinguish between content propaganda and vocabulary propaganda. What makes vocabulary propaganda especially deceptive (more deceptive than content propaganda)?
A use of rhetoric is content propaganda if and only if it tries to deceive us that false propositions are true or that true propositions are false. A use of rhetoric is vocabulary propaganda if and only if it tries to deceive us by distorting the meaning of words or phrases so as to make it unclear, which propositions sentences are expressing. Therefore the difference that makes the difference between content propaganda and vocabulary propaganda is that content propaganda corrupts the relationship between the state of affairs and the proposition such that the proposition inaccurately describes the state of affairs and yet is held to be true (or accurately describes it and is held to be false), and vocabulary propaganda corrupts the relationship between the proposition and the sentence in which it is expressed, such that it obscures the meaning of sentences so you cannot even see the proposition's content. Vocabulary propaganda is more dangerous because we do not notice its presence because we are so accustomed to seeing it in language, whereas we are very accustomed to seeing content propaganda because we are always on the lookout for it.
Explain: A) how logic and critical thinking help us to resist the rhetorical force of content propaganda. B) how logic and critical thinking help us to resist the force of vocabulary propaganda.
A) Logic and critical thinking help us resist the force of content propaganda by giving us the standard of good argument by which we can evaluate any argument and definitively tell wether it is good or bad. B) Logic and critical thinking help us to resist the force of vocabulary propaganda by making clear distinctions so that we can accurately articulate the world.
Explain and give examples for each of the following. A) cliches or dead imagery B) complicated verb phrases substituted for simple verbs C) Pretentious words, foreign loan words, and jargon D) Vague, ambiguous and meaningless words and phrases
A) cliches and dead imagery are bad because they do not cary any weight to them anymore--they are dead to the audience that hears them. Example: the straw that broke the camel's back B) complicated verb phrases substituted for simple verbs are bad because they overly complicate language and make it hard to understand. Example: rendered unusable instead of useless. C) Pretentious word, foreign loan word, and jargon are bad because they make it hard for some people to understand. You should be able to say the complicated jargon word in a way that anyone can understand it. Example: vertical integration. PTSD D) vague, ambiguous and meaningless words and phrases are bad because they do not help us understand the concrete world. Example: honor, justice, love,
Define a rhetorically effective argument
An argument is rhetorically effective if and only if it typically persuades the audience of the truth of its conclusion.
what are dogmatists and skeptics ?
Dogmatists are people who accept the truth of a proposition based upon the fact that someone who is in a position of authority tells them to believe it. Dogmatists rely on authority to provide the truth and do not use logic or critical thinking to evaluate truth. Skeptics are people who will not accept anything as true and question everything's truth. They too do not use logic and critical thinking to evaluate a propositions but instead reject its truth immediately. 1) neither skeptics or dogmatist look at arguments. 2) Dogmatists and skeptics treat everything as if they are matters of authority focusing on speakers and attitude. They want to know who will be slave and who will be master. 3) They treat truth values as if truth is put in with the attitude. 4) Both dogmatists and skeptics eliminate the possibility of that we might reason and use logic and critical thinking to sort out good and bad arguments to know which is true.
Using an example, explain why people's psychological states are irrelevant to considerations of logic.
If we take the proposition Sue believes the door is open. Sue's attitude toward the proposition does not effect wether the door is actually open or is actually closed. the door, regardless of sue's belief will be in a certain arrangement. Her belief can be acted on by social pressures or the forces of rhetoric and hence is not reflective of the actual world. Logic is about the justification of truth, not about belief.
What are the different meanings of the word fact? Which meaning is most basic? why?
In the most basic sense a fact is a state of affairs because this is the simplest thing it can be used to describe; however when most people use the world fact, they use it to mean a true proposition. Thus we should avoid the world fact all together.
How does knowledge differ from fact in the most basic sense?
Knowlege is true justified belief i.e. knowledge is when the state of affairs is as the proposition purports and an argument supports the proposition and you actually believe it to be true. Fact is simply the state of affairs, without any justification, or belief.
Why are logic and critical thinking important?
Logic and critical thinking are important because they allow those who use them not to be slaves to the force of rhetoric. If we cannot use logic and critical thinking, then we let someone else think for us. If we allow others to think for us then we will become slaves to the force of rhetoric.
how do logic and critical thinking help us resist force?
Logic and critical thinking help us resist force because if you can use logic and critical thinking then you can know with certainty what is actually true when you evaluate a rhetorical argument with the standards of good argument and so you won't get swept away in the propaganda of rhetoric.
using the distinction between propositions and states of affairs, define truth and falsity
Propositions are a bit of language with purport to describe a mint of the world, or the state of affairs. The state of affairs is a bit of world; it is the arrangement of things in the world/. Thus, the difference that makes the difference is that propositions are an aspect of language whereas the state of affairs is a bit of the actual world. Therefore a true proposition is a proposition that accurately describes the state of affairs as it exists in the actual world and a false proposition is a proposition that inaccurately describes the state of affairs as it exists in the actual world.
Compare and contrast the aim of rhetoric with the aim of logic and critical thinking.
Rhetoric aims at persuasion. Rhetoric seeks to win power over others. Logic and critical thinking aims at distinguishing good arguments from bad arguments in order to find the actual truth--the state of affairs.
What is rhetoric?
Rhetoric is the art of finding in any given situation the means of persuasion.
Compare and contrast the form of rhetoric with the form of logic and critical thinking.
Rhetoric precedes by assertion of the opinions the rhetorician want the audience to believe and act on, and by attacking any alternative opinions the audience may have. The rhetorician attacks other opinions and defends their own. Critical thinking proceeds by evaluating arguments in support of the truth of the proposition under consideration.
compare and contrast the content of rhetoric with the content of logic and critical thinking.
Rhetoric's content revolves around changing people's attitudes and does not worry if the content of the argument is actually true. A) truth gets treated as if it were relative to who says something. So "its true' gets (mistakenly) equated with is "believes to be true." B) Two people are necessary for rhetoric to take place. Rhetoric requires someone to do the persuading and someone to be persuaded. Rhetoric is an essentially adversarial activity. C) Rhetoric does not differentiate between a person and a proposition. Propositions get identified with their beliefs and opinions. So, criticisms of propositions get mistaken for attacks on the people who hold them. Logic and critical thinking aims at good reasoning and true conclusions. Critical thinking seeks to understand state of affairs by means of evaluating arguments in support of the truth of conclusion about the state of affairs. The truth value of the proposition and how well it is supported by good reasons matters for logic and critical thinking. A) truth can be discovered through good reasoning. Truth is not relative to the person who expresses a proposition, but to the states of affairs the proposition is about and the reasons given to support the truth of the proposition. B) only one position is necessary for critical thinking. So anyone is capably to improve the proposition and it is essentially a cooperative activity. C) Prositions bay be held hypothetically, i.e., one may evaluate positions no one actually believes. Whether anyone believes a position is irrelevant to the truth of the propositions it contains or the goodness of the arguments that are supposed to support it.
What is the confusing involved in saying that an attitude is true or false?
The confusion is that that by saying an attitude is true or false you blur the distinction between attitudes and propositions. An attitude is never true or false only a proposition is true or false, an attitude is a bit of the world shaped by casual forces. To call an attitude true or false is like calling the door true. It does not make sense.
Compare and contrast the means of rhetoric with the means of logic and critical thinking
The means of rhetoric is language that is appealing, flatters the audience, and tricks (informal fallacies) to cause the audience to believe and do what the rhetorician wants. Rhetoric tries to find the weakest version of an opponent's argument and attack it. Rhetoric is a sort of battle between the speaker and the opponent. Critical thinking tries to find the strongest version of a proposition and evaluates this version for logical adequacy. logic and critical thinking use the standard of good arguments to find the truth: do the premises of the argument support their conclusion and are those premises actually true.
why does the question "is that fact or opinion promotes dogmatism and skepticism?
The question "is that fact or opinion promotes dogmatism and skepticism because when people use the question is that fact or opinion they are asking about the authority of the speaker and if they should be skeptics and disobey the speaker or dogmatists and obey the speaker? The question does not ask about actual truth or actual falsity, but only relies on authority, thus the speaker of the question becomes a slave to the person speaking.
How does the question "is that fact or opinion?" ignore propositions?
The question is that fact or opinion ignore propositions because a fact is the state of affairs, or a bit of the world and an opinion is a psychological state, which is a bit of psychology. Neither the world or psychology are propositions, so the question is the fact of opinion ignores propositions.
What are people usually asking when they ask the question "is that fact or opinion?"? What confusions are involved in asking this question in this way?
They are asking if they should obey or disobey the speaker. They are asking wether the person they are asking can be relied upon so that the person the person asking should accept that the proposition is true. By asking this they make themselves dogmatists and are in fact slaves to the speaker--because they do not judge the truth or falsity of the proposition but ask if the person can be trusted--so whatever the person says becomes their shared belief.
What do the first two laws of logic imply about propositions?
They imply that a proposition can hold exactly one truth value, the value true or the value false.
Using an example, explain the distinction between a proposition and a person's attitude toward that proposition. (hint: compare the truth values of propositions about people's attitudes towards proposition with the truth values of the proposition toward which they have those attitudes.
To distinguish between a proposition and a person's attitude toward that proposition let's take these two examples. 1) the door is open. 2)Sue believes the door is open. In the first proposition, the truth depends on wether or not the the proposition accurately represents the arrangement of things in the world. But in the second proposition the truth has nothing to do with the actual state of affairs of the door's position in the world. Instead, in the second proposition it is true if sue actually believes the door is open and is false if she does not believe the door is open. The truth and falsity of this proposition can have four possible outcomes. Sue believes the door is open & the door is open T F T T F F F T
What does it mean for someone to have an opinion? How do opinions differ from proposition attitudes?
To have an opinion means that someone has a belief that a certain proposition about a state of affairs is true. Opinions differ from proposition attitudes in that a propositional attitude is a psychological state directed towards a proposition and its truth value.
In what circumstances should we say "true propositions" or "statement of fact" rather than saying "fact"? why?
We should say true proposition when referring to a proposition which accurately purports the state of affairs. We should say statement of fact when we are talking about a proposition, because a proposition purports to be about the state of affairs or a fact. We should say fact when we are referring to the state of affairs, but it is better not to use it at all.
what distinctions should we use instead of the bogus ones between fact and opinion?
We should use the distinctions between the state of affairs and propositions, the distinction between propositions and true propositions, and the distinction between proportional attitudes and propositions. we should do this by asking theses questions: 1) what is the state of affair? 2) what propositions is asserted about the state of affairs? 3) is there an argument? 4) is the argument good? 5) are the propositions all actually true? 6) is there an attitude towards that argument? 1) what is the state of affairs? 2) what proposition is asserted about the state of affairs? 3) are the propositions true? 4) is there an argument? 5) is there a good argument? 6) is there an attitude towards that argument?
Explain why (give an argument that) fact and opinion do not constitute genuine alternative to one another.
You cannot substitute fact and opinion because there is not one category that can be either fact or opinion. A fact is about the actual world, and an opinion is a psychological belief about a proposition--a bit of language. They are not comparable.
Explain the difference between a (causal) law of nature and a law of logic.
laws of logic are apriori, i.e., they ar justified without experience in the actual world and hold true in any worl, whereas the laws of nature are justified through experience of the actual world. So laws of logic are true in any world whereas natural laws are only necessarily true in the actual world, but not in any world.
