Critical Thinking Misc. 2 Flashcards
Four techniques for making clear the meaning of a term:
(1) Lexical definition
(2) Ostensive definition
(3) Definitions by example
(4) Definitions by prolonged social/cultural training
Lexical definition:
‘a formal and concise statement of the meaning of a word or phrase’
To define by ostension:
‘to explain the meaning of a word by pointing out an object that the word applies to’
Definition by example for ‘game’:
“By ‘game’ I mean things like, snakes and ladders, monopoly, chess, tennis, Dungeons & Dragons, etc.”
Definitions by prolonged social/cultural training meaning:
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.
Two different functions or goals that a definition might serve:
(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.
Reportive definitions:
Definitions that intend to describe how a word is actually used.
Stipulative definitions:
Proposals that specify a new or special use for a word in a specific context.
Four contexts in which stipulative definitions are used:
(1) Legal and administrative contexts
(2) Research
(3) Arguments
(4) Setting out a Position or Theory
Stipulative definitions are defective when:
(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
Reportive definitions are defective when:
(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
Essential features:
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.
Criterial definition:
A definition which enables us to understand a term in such a way that allows us to readily apply it to particular cases.
Operational definitions:
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.
Some fallacies of clarity:
Equivocation, Vagueness, Slanting/Loaded Language, False Dichotomy
Equivocation:
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.
Vagueness:
A word is vague if we cannot determine precisely which things or things the words applies to, and which things it does not.
Slanting:
Emotive language. Language that tends to trigger a strong emotional response from listeners.
Euphemisms:
Bland or banal use of language to conceal things that are disgusting, appalling, embarrassing, murderous or ‘politically incorrect.’
Positive relevance:
The truth of A counts in favour of that B is true.
Negative relevance:
The truth of A counts against the claim that B is true.
Irrelevance:
The truth of A counts neither in favour of nor against the claim that B is true.
Main fallacies or relevance:
False Dichotomy, the Straw Man, Genetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Ignorance
False Dichotomy:
One of an arguments premises asserts that a pair of options are exhaustive when the options are not exhaustive.
Straw Man:
The straw man fallacy is committed when a person misrepresents an argument, refutes that misrepresentation, and then claims to have refuted it.
Genetic fallacy:
Committed when claims about how a given belief originated are asserted as reasons for against thinking that the belief is justified.
Ad Hominem:
A critic attacks a person instead of arguing against the claims that person has put forward.
Appeal to ignorance:
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.
Primary subject:
The thing you want to draw a conclusion about.
Analogue subject:
The thing you are making the comparison with in order to draw the conclusion.
Common structure of consistency analogies:
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.
Refutation by logical analogy form:
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).
Inductive analogies:
Inductive analogies are used to argue from observed facts, known by experience, to facts that we have not yet observed or experienced.
General structure for inductive analogies:
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).
Analogical Fallacies:
(a) The fallacy of faulty analogy
(b) Two wrongs make a right
(c) Slippery assimilation
(d) Slippery precedent
Inductive arguments:
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.
Kinds of inductive arguments:
Singular Inductions, Inductive Analogies, Inductive Generalisations, Explanatory Inductions
Singular Inductions:
The inference goes from “big” to “small”
Inductive Generalisations:
The inference goes from “small” to “big”
Explanatory Inductions:
In this kind of argument, we argue from observable data, to a conclusion that asserts the probable cause of the data.
General form for explanatory inductions:
P1. Data D exists
P2. H1 would explain D
P3. H1 is the best available explanation of D.
C. (Probably) H1 is true
Causal Inductive Arguments:
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.
Fallacies Related to Inductive Arguments:
Fallacy of objectionable cause, Post Hoc Fallacy, Hasty Generalisation
Fallacy of objectionable cause:
When someone argues to a causal conclusion on the basis of evidence that is too slight.
Post Hoc Fallacy
Concluding that A is the cause of B simply on the ground that A occurs earlier than B
Hasty generalisation
This fallacy concerns inductive generalisations. It occurs when we draw general conclusions on the basis of too little evidence (e.g. a small sample).
Conductive Arguments:
In conductive arguments, the support for the conclusion is always convergent. This means that premises count separately in favour of the conclusion.
