COMS 369 Flashcards
Midterm Study
What is an argument?
is the way you put together or structure your ideas, opinions, or beliefs so that people will better understand what it is you’re trying to say.
What is an argument made up of?
Premise(s) + Conclusion = Argument.
Arguments are made up of two things: the point you believe and the reasons why you believe it.
Name two types of argumentation.
Deductive & Inductive reasoning.
What is Deductive reasoning?
it involves coming to conclusions after looking at information or evidence in a certain way and seeing specific patterns within the evidence that lead inevitably to a conclusion. The conclusion is guaranteed by the premises.
What is Logical Validity?
if the premises of an argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
Forms of Deductive Arguments (Valid) Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)
If A, then B. A. Therefore, B. If you build it, he will come. You build it. He will come.
Forms of Deductive Arguments (Valid) Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
If A, then B.
Not-B.
Therefore, not-A.
If you ate shellfish, you would have trouble breathing.
You are not having trouble breathing.
Therefore, you must not have eaten shellfish.
Forms of Deductive Arguments (Valid) Disjunctive Argument (can also be False)
Either A or B. Not-A. Therefore, B. Either I will eat a fruit, or I will eat salad. I am not going to eat a salad. Therefore, I'm going to eat fruit.
Forms of Deductive Arguments (Valid)
Predicate Instantiation
All P1's are P2's. M is a P1. Therefore, M is a P2. Where P refers to a class of things. All politicians are liars. Jones is a politician. Therefore, Jones is a liar.
Forms of Invalid Deductive Arguments
Fallacy of affirming the consequent
If A, then B. B. Therefore, A. If it rains, then I'll get wet. I'm wet. Therefore, it must have rained.
Forms of Invalid Deductive Arguments
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B. If it is sunny, then I will get tanned. It is not sunny. Therefore, I do not get tanned.
Inductive Reasoning
The conclusions does not have to be logically valid (it is not guaranteed by its premises).
Based on using statistical probability to make generalizations.
Conclusions are regarded as “warranted,” “more likelly,” or “more probable.”
Statistical Syllogism
75% of A are B. X is an A. Therefore, the probability that X is B is 75%. 70% of Hispanics voted for Obama. Juan is hispanic. Therefore, he probably voted for Obama.
The problem of induction (David Hume)
- We cannot guarantee that what we have observed in the past will occur in the future.
- Therefore we cannot claim that inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.
Biases
- “A way in which a person is influenced in order to understand and act on particular types of information.”
- They steam from “factors that influence the way we see and understand the world”
Biases from biological influences
- Genetic (ADHD, “gay gene”)
- Neuropsychological (depression, OCD, PTSD)
- Emotions
- Sex
- Health
Biases from cultural influences
- Memes (tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, fashion, ways of making pots or of building arches).
- A unit of cultural transmission.
- A replicator.
- We’re loyal to groups without realizing it.
Memetic Equilibrium
- “every aspect of your life that relates to objects or ideas of culture creates an equilibrium of memes.”
Social Biases
“How we come to define ourselves and establish our identities…the result of culture”
- Ethnic background
- Family upbringing
- Religion
- Geographic location
- Education
- Friends
- Media
Confirmation Bias
- look for information that confirms our biases.
- Reserve the right to change your mind
Cognitive Dissonance
Holding two conflicting cognitions (ideas, beliefs, values).
Example: A smoker that knows that smoking it’s unhealthy.
Context
“time, place, surroundings & circumstances”
“without full context, we may interpret information in such a way that our own biases creep in and unfairly influence us.”
Example: Shirley Sherrod
Fairness
- keep your mind open.
- accept new evidence or information as it arises.
- try to attain sufficient information and appreciate the context in which that information was determined prior to taking a stand on any issue.
Knowledge is provisional
Conditional statements:
- “All things considered…”
- “Based on the information…”
- Given what I now know…”
- “…I believe X”
Rules of Fair Play for Critical Thinking
- Acknowledge your existing biases.
- Make every effort to attain enough facts before formulating a position.
- Make every effort to acknowledge the context.
- Acknowledge disagreements.
- Be open to the possibility of revising your position.
Diagramming
Conclusion (C): overall, main point
Premises (P): reasons that support the main point.
Independent Premises: individual pieces of evidence that stand on their own to support the conclusion.
Dependent Premises: (designated by a double arrow) premises that require each other to provide evidence
Other components of an argument
Main Premise (MP): supports the conclusion, supported by premises Hidden Conclusion (HC); unstated
Premise Indicators
since, as indicated by, if, because, the reason(s) is (are), for, as, give that
Conclusion Indicators
therefore, hence, thus, so, ergo, then, consequently, as a result, follows, we may infer that, I conclude that, which shows/reveals that, which means that, establishes, implies, proves, justifies, supports.
Assumptions/Noise
Assumptions are claims functioning as evidence.
Noise - doesn’t really connect to the narrative.
Evidence
Propositions: assertions that contain contextual information and underlying assumptions. Can be confirmed or denied.
Certainty is elusive.
Burden of proof resides with the claimant.
To be convincing, a claim should supported by evidence.
Types of Evidence
Anecdotal (personal experience)
Legal - eye witness, expert witnesses, lawyers
Intuition - feeling or hunch
Scientific - Claims that involve our understanding of the natural world that require we present physical, empirical evidence.
The Scientific Method
Observation Hypothesis Predictions Test Observe again: confirm/falsified Other competing theories?
Mertonian Norms (Cudos)
Communal-ism: scientific results are the common property of the scientific community. Universalism Disinterestedness Originality Skepticism
Other Criteria
Simplicity
Reliability
Relevance
Sufficiency
Logical Fallacies
Inconsistency:
- Premise does not support the conclusion
- Hypocrisy: saying one thing and doing another (“Do as I say, not as I do”)
- Error in reasoning (logical fallacy)
Ad Hoc : “for this purpose”
- adding more premises in an attempt to save a particular belief or position.
“I was healed from cancer by God!” - evidence to support this.
“The medication will cure your migranes” example
Ad Hominen: “against the man”
Personal attack
- demonstrates the arguer has run out of valid arguments.
- comparing someone to a Nazi or Hitler.
Ad Ignorantiam: “argument to ignorance”
(P1) We can find no evidence for the truth of X.
(C) Therefore, X is false.
(P1): We can find no evidence for the falsity of X.
(C): Therefore, X is true.
Innocent until proven guilty.
There are no fairies or gnomes.
Confirmation Bias/Appeal to ignorance.
Appeal to Authority
- citing credible authorities
Questions to determine an good Authority:
1. Does the person have the education/experience needed? Is this acknowledge by their peers?
2. is the expert trustworthy? Do they use their power to advance their own interests?
3. Do they recognize and account for their own biases?
Example: Consumer Reports (they don’t receive funding from the companies they test.
Ad Populum: “Appeal to Popularity”
- “majority rules fallacy” or the “bandwagon fallacy”
- large amounts of people can and frequently do hold crazy beliefs
- large group of experts holds a consensus on an issue, we are justified in accepting their claims as long as it’s logical & scientific.
Example: International Panel on Climate Change
Appeal to Emotion
- act according to feelings of sorrow for someone or something rather than on good reasoning and fairness to all.
Example: Abortion
Appeal to Force “scare tactic fallacy”
- “You wanna take this outside?”
Begging the question
- The premise presupposes the conclusions
Example: The word in the bible is true. God says it’s true, this is written in the bible and God would not let the bible to have lies. - Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being as as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.
Confirmation Bias
You are looking for premises that support a conclusion which you believe to be true. In this instance you ignore all other premises and are unaware of your own biases.
Common Cause: “Third Cause Fallacy”
- Logical error of mistaking correlations between events
P1: A & B are regularly connected
C: Therefore A is the cause of B. - The fallacy occurs because a cause common to both A and B is not sought.
- Your baby wakes up crying. She has a fever. You assume she’s crying because she has a fever, when in fact she was an earache brought about by an infection.
Confusing Cause & Effect
Basic form:
- A and B frequently occur at the same time. Therefore, A is the cause of B (or B is the cause of A).
- This form assumes that there is no cause common to both.
Example: Every time I see dark clouds and I take my umbrella to work, it rains. I want nicer weather, so I’m going to stop taking my umbrella to work.
Disanalogy: Non-sequitur “it does not follow”
- Comparing apples to oranges
Example: Witches burn, so does wood.
Therefore the witch must be made out of wood.
Wood and ducks both float.
If the witch weighs the same as a duck, she must be made of wood.
If she is made of wood she must be a witch.
Equivocation
The use of a term, phrase or sentence that has two different meanings.
P1: Power tends to corrupt
P2: Knowledge is power
C: Therefore, knowledge tends to corrupt.
Extraordinary Claims Fallacy
Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Assess the claim:
- how strong is the claim?
- do the premises offer adequate support for the conclusion?
- is the claimant an authority or expert?
- have their previous claims been reliable?
Example: Nate Silvers’ claims that Obama would win the election.
False Dichotomy
A form of argument where the claimant attempts to narrow down the alternatives to two. Either A or B.
Example: If you believe in the ‘theory’ of evolution, then you’re not a real christian.
Hasty Conclusion
- Making a judgement before we have sufficient evidence to do so. Enabled by “fear, ignorance, prejudice, and other biases.”
P1: because they save lives
C: airbags in cars are good
Language Problems
- language is constantly evolving
- people mispronounce and invent words
- The principle of Charity: Although we might laugh at George W. Bush for saying “The misunderestimated me,” we understand what he meant.
Euphemisms
-Substituting mild or indirect terms for those more harsh or the other way around.
“Passed away” instead of “Died”
Vagueness and Ambiguity
Vague: Lacking in preciseness
Ambiguous: more than one meaning
Example: John is nice. Heather is a good student.
Post hoc Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc: “after this, therefore, because of this”
Form: A occurs before B. Therefore A causes B.
Example: Every Monday evening I put out the garbage on our curbside. And every Tuesday morning, a garbage truck picks it up. Therefore, my putting garbage out on the curb causes the garbage truck to come.”
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant premise to the argument.
- this is a diversion tactic
- Gish Gallop - throwing in so many lies supported by a little grain of truth, that your opponent doesn’t have the time to counteract your lies.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
- Refers to casual events
- If A, then B.
If B, then C.
And C is really Bad!
Example: If you smoke pot, it’s a gateway drug to using other drugs like cocaine and this is going to ruin your life!
Strawman or “dummy fallacy”
Misrepresenting another’s argument and using it to advance your own.
This is unethical and unfair.
Quote Mining - the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint. It’s a way of lying.”
Tu Quoque Fallacy
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Form of red herring:
1: You engage in behaviour A.
2: Oh yeah? Well, you engage in behaviour A too!
