Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Scientific and Statistical Reasoning > Critical Thinking ch7 > Flashcards

Critical Thinking ch7 Flashcards

1
Q

are fallacies arguments

A

yes, but not very good ones. they do have premises and conclusions tho.
they are mistakes in reasoning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

formal fallacies =

A

geen logische connectie. dus altijd invalid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

substantive/informal fallacies

A

unjustified assumptions or inferences, we need to make the premises explicit to find out that they are false.
unsound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

wat zijn de meeste fallacies in het dagelijkse leven

A

substantive/informal fallacies.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

simply having false premises does not make an argument fallacious. Nor does having true premises guarantee that an argument is not fallacious.

A

oke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

P1) If Colonel Mustard killed the victim with the candelabra, then there is blood
on the candelabra.
P2) There is blood on the candelabra.
C) Colonel Mustard killed the victim

welke fallacy is dit

A

affirming the consequent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

many types of fallacious argument are effective as rhetorical ploys

A

Someone might be aware that their argument commits a fallacy, but will use it anyway to try to persuade us because they are aware of its rhetorical power: they are aware, that is, that it does tend to persuade people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

affirming the consequent: wat is de argumentvorm

A

P) P -> Q
P) Q
C) P

even if the premises are true, the conclusion does not have to be true: invalid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

denying the antecedent of a conditional: wat is de argumentvorm

A

P -> Q
not - P
not Q

als de premises waar zijn hoeft de conclusie nog niet waar te zijn: invalid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

deriving ought from is=

A

a prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly derived from purely descriptive premises.

a conclusion making a claim about something that should or ought to be done/believed -> is deduced only on the basis of a descriptive premis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

wat is de duimregel voor de fallacy deriving ought from is

A

we moeten echt waken voor het te snel interpreteren met de ought from is, door the principle of charity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

dus de formal fallacies

A
  1. affirming the consequent of a conditional
  2. denying the antecedent of a conditional
  3. deriving ought from is
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

substantive/informal fallacies

A
  1. the fallacy of majority belief
  2. common practice
  3. the gamblers fallacy
  4. ad hominem
  5. ad hominem circumstantial
  6. tu quoque
  7. appeal to authority
  8. the perfectionist fallacy
  9. conflation of morality with legality
  10. weak analogy
  11. causal fallacies:
    - post hoc ergo propter hoc
    - fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause
    - inversion of cause and effect
  12. epistemic fallacies:
    - appeal to ignorance
    - epistemic fallacy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

kunnen formal fallacies valid zijn? en informal falacies?

A

formal fallacies kunnen nooit valid zijn.

informal fallacies kunnen wel valid zijn, maar nooit sound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

common practice =

A

This is the tactic of attempting to persuade someone to do something they
shouldn’t do by giving them the justification that ‘everyone does it’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

dus verschil majority belief en common practice

A

majority belief = belief
common practice = doing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

P1) Everyone claps at public events.
P2) Any act that everyone performs is morally acceptable.
C) It is morally acceptable to clap at public events.

welke fallacy

A

common practice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

P1) Most people believe that the defendant was set up and is not guilty.
P2) Any belief held by the majority is true.
C) The defendant is innocent

welke fallacy

A

majority belief

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

P1) The British monarchy has existed for a thousand years.
P2) Anything that has existed for a thousand years should be retained.
C) The British monarchy should be retained

welke fallacy

A

deriving ought from is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

P1) If someone is a philosopher (P), then they are wise (Q).
P2) Jon is not a philosopher (not-P).
C) Jon is not wise (not-Q).

welke fallacy

A

denying the antecedent of a conditional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

P1) If someone is a philosopher (P), then they are wise (Q).
P2) Jon is wise (Q).
C) Jon is a philosopher (P).

welke fallacy

A

Affirming the consequent of a conditional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

termen bij:

general -> specific
specific -> general
specific -> specific
inference to the best explanation

A

general -> specific = statistical syllogism
specific -> general = inductive generalisation
specific -> specific = inductive analogy
inference to the best explanation = abduction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

waardoor komt de gamblers fallacy

A

door de misunderstanding van factors that influence probability.
denken dat, hoe meer je iets niet win, the meer likely het is dat je wel een win krijgt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

P1) I buy five raffle tickets every year.
P2) I never win anything.
P3) Not winning anything for a long time makes it more likely that I’ll win
this time.
P4) If my chances of winning are increased, it makes sense to buy tickets.
C) I’m going to buy five tickets again this year

welke fallacy

A

gamblers fallacy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

voorbeelden gamblers fallacy

A

met gokken
kinderen: hoe meer jongens, hoe meer kans nu op een meisje

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

ad hominem

A
  1. responding to someones argument by making an attack to that person
  2. rejecting a claim because of diapproval or dislike for the person who makes it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

P1) Jeremy Corbyn wants to increase taxes on the highest earners and abolish
nuclear weapons.
P2) Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t wear a tie and has a beard.
C) We should not increase taxes on the highest earners and abolish
nuclear weapons.

welke fallacy

A

ad hominem

en hij is nu ook nog invalide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

on what does the ad hominem fallacy depend

A

All instances of the ad hominem fallacy will depend upon similar underlying
general assumptions referring to certain characteristics or beliefs of arguers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

ad hominem circumstantial

A

This is a sub-species of the ad hominem fallacy and occurs when someone’s argument in favour of doing or believing something is discounted on the grounds that they would allegedly benefit from our doing or believing it.

dus tegen iemand zeggen van ja dat zou je wel willen he, dit is in jouw voordeel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

P1) The Conservative Party leadership argues in favour of decreasing the top
rate of taxation.
P2) The leadership of the Conservative Party will benefit from the enactment of
this policy.
P3) Whenever someone would benefit from something they propose, we should
reject their arguments in favour of it.
C) We should reject the Conservative Party leadership’s arguments in
favour of the proposal to decrease the top rate of taxation

welke fallacy en wat is er mis aan

A

ad hominem circumstantial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

P1) This witness is currently serving a prison sentence for fraud.
P2) This witness has several previous convictions for fraud.
P3) Anyone convicted of fraud is likely to be dishonest.
P4) Evidence provided by witnesses who are likely to be dishonest should
always be treated with scepticism.
C) The evidence provided by this witness should be treated with scepticism

wat is dit voor argument

A

een non-fallicous argument met een ad hominem claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

tu quoque=

A

when you attack the other person for being hypocritical (inconsistency between acts and claims)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

P1) My dad says one shouldn’t talk on the mobile phone while driving.
P2) My dad talks on his mobile phone while he’s driving.
P3) Whenever someone’s behaviour is inconsistent with their advice, that advice
is false.
C) It is okay to talk on the mobile phone while driving

wat voor fallacy

A

tu quoque

34
Q

wat is de gedachte achter tu quoque

A

whether someones areguments are sound does not depend on whether they themselves adhere to these arguments

35
Q

dus hoe zou je tu quoque gebruiken in real life

A

iemand: ja, maar hij doet het zelf ook niet
jij: ja, maar dat betekent niet dat zijn argument niet goed is. dat is de tu quoque fallacy die je nu aanneemt

36
Q

We might well think that people ought to follow their own advice and principles; in
fact in most cases it is irrational for them not to do so, but it is equally irrational of
us to discount their arguments solely on the grounds that they themselves don’t
heed the conclusions of those arguments. Of course, the fact that someone in the public arena behaves inconsistently or hypocritically does undermine their credibility and may lead us to withdraw our trust and respect, but it is not in itself a reason to reject their arguments.

A

dus het is irrationeel als mensen hun eigen advies niet aanhouden, maar het is ook irrationeel voor ons om hun argumenten te discrediteren, uitsluitend op basis van dat ze het zelf niet doen.

37
Q

appeal to authority=

A

when people make an unjustified appeal to an alleged authority, but….
1. authority is not authorative over this matter
2. claimed authority may not be adequately informed about the facts

38
Q

P1) Mr McKay says that alcohol education should be introduced for five-yearolds.
P2) Mr McKay has 30 years’ experience as a whisky blender.
P3) If someone has 30 years’ experience as a whisky blender, they must be an
expert on alcohol education.
P4) If someone is an expert on a subject, we have good reason to accept their
opinion on that subject.
C) Alcohol education should be introduced for five-year-olds

welke fallacy

A

appeal to authority

39
Q

perfectionist fallacy=

A

wanneer iemand een idee afschrijft, alleen gebaseerd op basis van dat het niet het probleem helemaal kan oplossen

40
Q

P1) Politicians’ proposals to cut carbon emissions by 20 per cent will not solve
the problem of climate change completely.
C) We should reject politicians’ proposals to cut carbon emissions by 20
per cent.

welke fallacy

A

the perfectionist fallacy

41
Q

wat is de uitleg van de perfectionist fallacy

A

The assumption driving this instance of the perfectionist fallacy is that solutions
should only be pursued if they will completely solve the problems they are intended to solve; more generally, the perfectionist assumption is that no measure aimed at solving or reducing a problem is justified unless it solves or reduces it completely. This is really quite silly if you think about it. It is obvious that many measures are intended to reduce a problem, not completely eradicate it, and are justified if they do reduce the problem sufficiently

42
Q

conflation of morality with legality

A

This is the mistake of assuming that anything legal must be moral or, conversely, that anything illegal must be immoral.

43
Q

confliction of morality and legality

A

legal -> moral
illegal -> immoral

44
Q

welke fallacy: ‘there’s no law against it, so it’s acceptable’

A

conflicting morality with legality

45
Q

weak analogy=

A
  1. analogy is too weak to sustain the argument
  2. analogy itself has not been argued for: question begging
46
Q

wat is de standaard vorm van een analogy

A

P1) An object X is similar to an object Y in respect of characteristic A.
P2) Whenever an object X is similar to an object Y in one respect, it is similar in
all respects.
P3) Y has characteristic B.
C) X has characteristic B

47
Q

post hoc ergo propter hoc=

A

inferring that X caused Y because it came before it.

48
Q

which fallacy if often commited in public discourse, over responsibility for a policy

A

post hoc ergo propter hoc

49
Q

P1) Since the administration took office four months ago the economy has been
performing well.
C) The administration caused the economy to perform well.

welke fallacy

A

post hoc ergo propter hoc

50
Q

the fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause

A

when one event is found in conjunction with another, they think its the cause.

51
Q

Sales of ice cream are correlated with higher levels of crime. But it is almost certainly false that ice cream is causing crime to go up, or vice versa. Instead, it is much more plausible that there is a third factor whose occurrence causally explains their co-occurrence: warm weather

A

The fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause

52
Q

inversion of cause and effect =

A

if X causes Y, an absence of X will prevent Y

53
Q

P1) Vitamin E deprivation causes hastened ageing.
P2) If a lack of something X is the cause of a phenomenon Y the presence of X
will cause of the opposite of Y.
C) Vitamin E causes the ageing process to slow.

which fallacy

A

inversion of cause and effect

54
Q

Contrary to what the healthy-eating lobby dictates, traditional British cooking
is good for you. Remember the good old days when we ate bacon, eggs, sausages, fried tomatoes, potatoes, toast and marmalade? And that was just for
breakfast. Well, in those days, people didn’t succumb to anorexia or bulimia
and the incidence of obesity was much lower. Seems the ‘experts’ have got it
wrong again.

A

inversion of cause and effect

55
Q

3 causal fallacies

A
  1. post hoc ergo propter hoc
  2. the fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause
  3. inversion of cause and effect
56
Q

2 epistemic fallacies

A

appeal to ignorance
epistemic fallacy

57
Q

appeal to ignorance =

A

because a claim has not been proven, it must be false (negative)
because it has not been disproved it must be true (positive)

58
Q

P1) No one has proved that UFOs don’t exist.
P2) All propositions that have not been disproved are true.
C) UFOs do exist.

welke fallacy

A

appeal to ignorance

59
Q

epistemic fallacy

A

wanneer iemand van de 3rd person point of view inferences maakt over wat iemand wel of niet gelooft.

hij gelooft dit, dus hij vind ook dat we dit en dit en dit moeten doen????

60
Q

propositional attitude verbs=

A

knows, believes, wants, desires etc

61
Q

faulty argument techniques

A

equivocation
red herring
slippery slope
straw target
false dilemma
begging the question

62
Q

equivocation=

A

accepting the conclusion of an argument, on the basis of an equivocation (dubbelzinnig/ambiguous) iets.

63
Q

verschil equivocation en rhetorical ploy of trading on an equivocation

A

bij rhetorical ploy of trading on an equivocation gaat het gewoon om een unsupported claim. bij equivocation gaat het om een conclusie accepteren op de basis van een argument die ambiguous is

64
Q

red herring =

A

irrelevant premise is given as a reason for accepting the conclusion.

65
Q

verschil red herring en smoke screen

A

red herring = irrelevant premis
smoke screen = irrelevant information

66
Q

dus waar moet je naar kijken bij red herring

A

echt kijken naar welke informatie wel in de premise wordt gegeven maar niet in de conclusie.

67
Q

dus red herring depends on….

A

our knowledge about the subject

68
Q

slippery slope

A

when an arguer wrongly assumes that to permit or forbid a course of action will inevitably lead to the occurrence of further related and undesirable events

69
Q

P1) If cannabis were to be decriminalised, the use of hard drugs would increase.
C) Cannabis should not be decriminalised.

welke fallacy

A

slippery slope

70
Q

straw target =

A

when an arguer ignores their opponent’s real position on an issue and sets up a weaker version of that position by misrepresentation, exaggeration, distortion or simplification.

dus iemands argument verdraaien zodat het minder goed lijkt

71
Q

welke rhetorical ploy lijkt op straw target

A

op appeal to ridicule

72
Q

false dilemma

A

technique of limiting consideration of positions on an issue to fewer alternatives than are actually available to be considered.

dus doen alsof er 2 opties zijn maar dat er eigenlijk veel meer zijn

73
Q

begging the question =

A

circular reasoning.

dus de truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises, and the truth of the premise depends on the truth of the conclusion

74
Q

P1) I’m the leader of the gang.
P2) Gang leaders should always get the biggest share of their gang’s haul.
C) I should get the biggest share of the haul.

A

begging the question

75
Q

3 types of faulty reasoning due to misinterpretation of statistics

A
  1. confusing absolute and relative differences
  2. margin of error
  3. base rate fallacy
76
Q

confusing absolute and relative differences=

A

er zit een verschil tussen absolute and relative differences.

relative risk is een percentage van the absolute risk.
dus 80% improvement betekent eigenlijk het een 80% verschil tussen de controle en de interventiegroep

Absolute risk refers to the actual probability of an outcome occurring in a specific group regardless of any other factors. Relative risk on the other hand, compares the risk of an outcome between exposed and unexposed groups. dus relative risk is in het experiment, en absolute is in het echte leven

77
Q

waar zie je confusing absolute and relative differences vaak

A

bij medical trials

78
Q

margin of error =

A

misrepresentation in margin of error.

margin of error = the test predicts the actual percentage within n percentage points with 95 per cent probability of being correct.

maar vaak wordt het gezien als: het ligt binnen de margin of error, dus het is sowieso zo

79
Q

waar heb je de base rate fallacy vaak

A

bij minority groups:
even though there may be a high incidence of criminality among one group, there are way less people in that group. dus de probability dat iemand die in criminality zit uit die groep komt is veel kleiner.

80
Q

wat als je even niet weet welke fallacy

A

kan het red herring zijn? dus extra, overbodige informatie geven

81
Q

wat is er met de informal fallacies

A

ze kunnen ook legitimate zijn. je hebt bijvoorbeeld een legitimate slippery slope (niet je tanden poetsen = gaatjes = tand laten trekken), en een legitimate analogy en een legitimate ad hominem etc.

82
Q
A

Scientific and Statistical Reasoning (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions