Ch2 Quiz Flashcards
deductive
For Deductive Arguments:
True premises + valid = sound argument
Sound arguments guarantee their conclusions
Inductive
For Inductive Arguments:
True/acceptable + relevant + sufficient premises = strong argument
Subjectivism
The speaker believes X
Coherence Theory
X fits with other things we hold to be true
Correspondence Theory
X corresponds with (matches) the facts (reality)
Example: “Grass is green” is true iff grass is actually green
Pragmatism
It is useful for us to believe that X
Example: if it is in our best interest to believe that God exists, then it is true
Subjectivism objections
Theory says we can never have mistaken beliefs --Generates contradictions Both here and not here Self-undermining? --Theory is correct iff you believe it…
Coherence Theory goals and objections
Goal – coherent system with no internal contradictions
–Examples: math, scientific theories
Objection:
–What if our internally coherent system fails to match external reality?
—-Delusion
Correspondence Theory objections
Standard “commonsense” view
Assumed in this text
Objection:
–This is empty/unhelpful unless we have some way of determining what reality is.
Pragmatism explaination and objections
What does “works” mean?
–William James: “True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify.”
Objection:
–Useful beliefs that appear false
—-Example: What if it’s really useful for us to believe that animals don’t feel pain?
Truth
only for empirical claims, can be verified/falsified
Acceptability
impossible (in practice or principle) to verify, non-empirical claims
Random Personal Experience
One possible source of empirical evidence BUT, it: Is random Is only 1 person’s experience Issues with verification Reliability of testimony Cannot generalize from it Can be colored by viewer’s: Interpretation Sensory perception deficits Senses are sometimes unreliable, mistaken Environmental conditions Lack of light, background noise, etc. Observational Skill Emotional State Cognitive state Memory
Evaluating Personal Testimony
Is the claim based on sensory experience or intuition/faith?
How much interpretation is involved?
–Pure description of sensory experience vs. analysis
—-“high-pitched scream” vs. “woman screaming in pain”
How reliable are the person’s sight, hearing, smell, etc.?
What were the environmental conditions?
–Visibility, noise level, etc.
Is the person particularly observant?
–Any training, tools, or knowledge
What was his/her emotional state?
–Stressed, drugged, hurried, afraid
His/her cognitive state?
–Wants, needs, expectations
How long ago did this happen?
–Memory degrades rapidly
How credible is the person?
–reputation
Is there any corroborating or contradicting evidence?
–example: other witnesses
Methodological Investigation: The Scientific Process
Overcomes many weaknesses of personal experience
I. Methodological (not random)
1. Isolate the Phenomenon
2. Control other variables
–Control group and experimental group
II. Experiences of More than 1 person
–Multiple scientists, experiments designed to be repeated
III. Separate Observation from Interpretation
–Separate results and discussion sections
IV. Influence of sensory deficits, emotional states, and cognitive states minimized by:
1. Use of instruments
2. Trained observers
3. Optimized environment
4. Replication
5. Public Scrutiny