Critical Thinking Misc. 2

Question 1

Four techniques for making clear the meaning of a term:

Answer 1

(1) Lexical definition
(2) Ostensive definition
(3) Definitions by example
(4) Definitions by prolonged social/cultural training

Question 2

Lexical definition:

Answer 2

‘a formal and concise statement of the meaning of a word or phrase’

Question 3

To define by ostension:

Answer 3

‘to explain the meaning of a word by pointing out an object that the word applies to’

Question 4

Definition by example for ‘game’:

Answer 4

“By ‘game’ I mean things like, snakes and ladders, monopoly, chess, tennis, Dungeons & Dragons, etc.”

Question 5

Definitions by prolonged social/cultural training meaning:

Answer 5

In many cases, we learn the meaning of a word through prolonged social training.
E.g. moral concepts: ‘right’, ‘wrong,’ ‘unjust’, ‘virtuous’. Also, irony is a good example of this.

Question 6

Two different functions or goals that a definition might serve:

Answer 6

(1) We might intend to describe or report how what people actually use the word to mean.
(2) We might be proposing or recommending what a word should be used to mean (at least for a specific context). When we do this we are prescribing - as opposed to describing - a meaning for the term.

Question 6

Reportive definitions:

Answer 6

Definitions that intend to describe how a word is actually used.

Question 7

Stipulative definitions:

Answer 7

Proposals that specify a new or special use for a word in a specific context.

Question 8

Four contexts in which stipulative definitions are used:

Answer 8

(1) Legal and administrative contexts
(2) Research
(3) Arguments
(4) Setting out a Position or Theory

Question 9

Stipulative definitions are defective when:

Answer 9

(1) They do not serve the purposes for which the new definitions are introduced.
(2) They define a term for public usage in a way that is at odds with ordinary previous public usage, which may create confusion.
(3) They hide substantive assumptions that are relevant to the discussion/argument at hand, which may beg the question

Question 10

Reportive definitions are defective when:

Answer 10

(1) Too broad (it says the word applies to things that it does not apply to)
(2) Too narrow (the opposite of too broad)
(3) Too obscure (myocardial infarction)
(4) Circular

Question 11

Essential features:

Answer 11

At the very least they are necessary features that something must have in order to count as an example of a given kind of thing.

Question 12

Criterial definition:

Answer 12

A definition which enables us to understand a term in such a way that allows us to readily apply it to particular cases.

Question 13

Operational definitions:

Answer 13

A subset of criterial definition. Operational definitions define a term with reference to a specific set of operations or procedures that determine whether the term applies.

Question 14

Some fallacies of clarity:

Answer 14

Equivocation, Vagueness, Slanting/Loaded Language, False Dichotomy

Question 15

Equivocation:

Answer 15

When a key word in an argument is used in two or more senses (or meanings) and the premises of the argument appear to support its conclusion only because these senses are not distinguished from each other.

Question 16

Vagueness:

Answer 16

A word is vague if we cannot determine precisely which things or things the words applies to, and which things it does not.

Question 17

Slanting:

Answer 17

Emotive language. Language that tends to trigger a strong emotional response from listeners.

Question 18

Euphemisms:

Answer 18

Bland or banal use of language to conceal things that are disgusting, appalling, embarrassing, murderous or ‘politically incorrect.’

Question 19

Positive relevance:

Answer 19

The truth of A counts in favour of that B is true.

Question 20

Negative relevance:

Answer 20

The truth of A counts against the claim that B is true.

Question 21

Irrelevance:

Answer 21

The truth of A counts neither in favour of nor against the claim that B is true.

Question 22

Main fallacies or relevance:

Answer 22

False Dichotomy, the Straw Man, Genetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Ignorance

Question 23

False Dichotomy:

Answer 23

One of an arguments premises asserts that a pair of options are exhaustive when the options are not exhaustive.

Question 24

Straw Man:

Answer 24

The straw man fallacy is committed when a person misrepresents an argument, refutes that misrepresentation, and then claims to have refuted it.

Question 25

Genetic fallacy:

Answer 25

Committed when claims about how a given belief originated are asserted as reasons for against thinking that the belief is justified.

Question 26

Ad Hominem:

Answer 26

A critic attacks a person instead of arguing against the claims that person has put forward.

Question 27

Appeal to ignorance:

Answer 27

There is no evidence that P is true. Therefore, P is false.
OR
There is no evidence that P is false, therefore, P is true.

Question 28

Primary subject:

Answer 28

The thing you want to draw a conclusion about.

Question 29

Analogue subject:

Answer 29

The thing you are making the comparison with in order to draw the conclusion.

Question 30

Common structure of consistency analogies:

Answer 30

P1. The analogue subject has features a, b, and c.
P2. Because the analogue subject has feature a, b, and c, it is properly judged to be W.
P3. The primary subject has features a, b, and c.
C. The primary subject is properly judged to be W.

Question 31

Refutation by logical analogy form:

Answer 31

P1. Argument A is not cogent (or is invalid, or bad).
P2. Argument P is relevantly similar to argument A.
C. Argument P is not cogent (or invalid, or bad).

Question 32

Inductive analogies:

Answer 32

Inductive analogies are used to argue from observed facts, known by experience, to facts that we have not yet observed or experienced.

Question 33

General structure for inductive analogies:

Answer 33

P1. Objects A1, A2, A3 (and so on) all have features F, G, H (etc.), and all have been observed to have feature Z.
P2. The primary subject has those similar features F, G, H (or at least, it has similar features F, G, H).
C. The primary subject has feature Z (or at least, it has a similar feature Z).

Question 34

Analogical Fallacies:

Answer 34

(a) The fallacy of faulty analogy
(b) Two wrongs make a right
(c) Slippery assimilation
(d) Slippery precedent

Question 35

Inductive arguments:

Answer 35

Roughly, an inductive argument is one that moves from premises about things that have been observed in the past, to a conclusion about something that has not (yet) been observed.

Question 36

Kinds of inductive arguments:

Answer 36

Singular Inductions, Inductive Analogies, Inductive Generalisations, Explanatory Inductions

Question 37

Singular Inductions:

Answer 37

The inference goes from “big” to “small”

Question 38

Inductive Generalisations:

Answer 38

The inference goes from “small” to “big”

Question 39

Explanatory Inductions:

Answer 39

In this kind of argument, we argue from observable data, to a conclusion that asserts the probable cause of the data.

Question 40

General form for explanatory inductions:

Answer 40

P1. Data D exists
P2. H1 would explain D
P3. H1 is the best available explanation of D.
C. (Probably) H1 is true

Question 41

Causal Inductive Arguments:

Answer 41

Inductive argument in which the premises describe regularities or correlations between events of various types, and in which the conclusion is that one event, or type of event, is the cause of another.

Question 42

Fallacies Related to Inductive Arguments:

Answer 42

Fallacy of objectionable cause, Post Hoc Fallacy, Hasty Generalisation

Question 43

Fallacy of objectionable cause:

Answer 43

When someone argues to a causal conclusion on the basis of evidence that is too slight.

Question 44

Post Hoc Fallacy

Answer 44

Concluding that A is the cause of B simply on the ground that A occurs earlier than B

Question 45

Hasty generalisation

Answer 45

This fallacy concerns inductive generalisations. It occurs when we draw general conclusions on the basis of too little evidence (e.g. a small sample).

Question 46

Conductive Arguments:

Answer 46

In conductive arguments, the support for the conclusion is always convergent. This means that premises count separately in favour of the conclusion.