Extra aandacht

Question 1

Ruwe ervaringen smelten samen tot een ervaring van samengestelde objecten

Answer 1

Reflectie

Question 2

De opvatting dat er een feitelijke wereld is buiten onze ervaring, of dat we moeten aannemen dat die er is

Answer 2

Realisme

Question 3

Het standpunt dat de werkelijkheid zich slechts in de ervaring bevindt en dat ons bewustzijn dus bepalend is voor de werkelijkheid

Answer 3

Idealisme

Question 4

Het idee dat er een buitenwereld is maar dat deze verborgen is voor ons

Answer 4

Transcendentaal idealisme

Question 5

Uitspraken die afkomstig zijn uit het verstand die iets nieuws toevoegen aan dat wat wij weten

Answer 5

Synthetische a-priori-uitspraak

Question 6

If one can specify the steps that would verify whether the statement was true

Answer 6

Verification criterion

Question 7

The process of drawing inferences such that if the premises are true the conclusion is guaranteed to be true

Answer 7

Deduction

Question 8

Of which two components does a paradigm consist?

Answer 8

1. A set of fundamental theoretical assumptions
2. A set of ‘exemplars’ or particular scientific problems

Question 9

Een uitspraak in de vorm van een veronderstelling die een verklaring biedt voor een geobserveerd fenomeen

Answer 9

Verklarende hypothese (H*)

Question 10

Op basis van een beperkt aantal waarnemingen een algemene uitspraak over de werkelijkheid doen

Answer 10

Inductieve generalisatie

Question 11

P1 - als P, dan Q
P2 - P
C - Q

Answer 11

Modus ponens
(deductie)

Question 12

P1 - als P, dan Q
P2 - niet-Q
C - niet-P

Answer 12

Modus tollens
(deductie)

Question 13

P1 - als P, dan Q
P2 - Q
C - P

Answer 13

Bevestigen consequent
(ongeldig)

Question 14

P1 - als P, dan Q
P2 - niet-P
C - niet-Q

Answer 14

Ontkennen antecedent
(ongeldig)

Question 15

Identify several markers of some variable in order to more precisely measure it while not oversimplifying it

Answer 15

Cluster indicators

Question 16

A factor that increases the likelihood of an event occurring despite being neither necessary nor sufficient

Answer 16

Contributing cause

Question 17

A defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone

Answer 17

Fallacy

Question 18

In which five groups can twenty-two fallacies be divided into?

Answer 18

1. Fallacies of relevance
2. Fallacies of weak induction
3. Fallacies of presumption
4. Fallacies of ambiguity
5. Fallacies of grammatical analogy

Question 19

Arguments have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically

Answer 19

Fallacies of relevance

Question 20

Occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion

Answer 20

Appeal to force
(argument ad baculum/argument van de stok)

Question 21

Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

Answer 21

Appeal to pity
(argumentum ad misericordiam/beroep op medelijden)

Question 22

Uses the readers or listeners desire to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognised and accepted, to get them to accept a conclusion

Answer 22

Appeal to the people
(argumentum ad populum/populistische drogreden)

Question 23

Argument that states you will be left behind or out of the group if you do not use the product

Answer 23

Bandwagon argument

Question 24

Argument that associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it

Answer 24

Appeal to vanity

Question 25

Fallacy that involves two arguers. One of them advances a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to he first person’s argument but to the first person himself

Answer 25

Argument against the person
(argumentum ad hominem/op de persoon spelen, persoonlijke aanval)

Question 26

In which three forms does the argument against the person occur?

Answer 26

1. Ad hominem abusive
2. Ad hominem circumstantial
3. Tu quoque

Question 27

The second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person

Answer 27

Ad hominem abusive

Question 28

The second person attempts to discredit the first person’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent

Answer 28

Ad hominem circumstantial

Question 29

The second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith

Answer 29

Tu quoque

Question 30

Committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Answer 30

Accident
(negeren van een uitzondering)

Question 31

Committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished

Answer 31

Straw man
(stropop)

Question 32

Occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn

Answer 32

Missing the point
(ignoratio elenchi/irrelevante conclusie)

Question 33

Committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one

Answer 33

Red herring
(rookgordijn, afleidingsmanoeuvre)

Question 34

Occur because the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

Answer 34

Fallacies of weak induction

Question 35

Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility

Answer 35

Appeal to unqualified authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam/beroep op veronderstelde autoriteit)

Question 36

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing

Answer 36

Appeal to ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam/argument van de onwetendheid)

Question 37

Occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group

Answer 37

Hasty generalisation
(overhaaste generalisatie)

Question 38

Occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist

Answer 38

False cause
(verkeerde oorzaak)

Question 39

Presupposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the second

Answer 39

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Question 40

Committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession

Answer 40

Non causa pro causa

Question 41

Occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect, but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause

Answer 41

Oversimplified cause

Question 42

Committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related

Answer 42

Gambler’s fallacy

Question 43

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place

Answer 43

Slippery slope
(hellend vlak)

Question 44

Committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn

Answer 44

Weak analogy
(zwakke analogie)

Question 45

Welke vier normen onderleggen het karakter van wetenschap volgens de CUDOS-norm?

Answer 45

1. Gemeenschappelijkheid
2. Universalisme
3. Belangeloosheid
4. Georganiseerde scepsis

Question 45

Wat zijn de vier FAIR-principes?

Answer 45

1. Findable
2. Accessible
3. Interoperable
4. Reusable

Question 45

Wat zijn de vijf principes voor integer onderzoek zoals deze in de Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschappelijke integriteit zijn toegelicht?

Answer 45

1. Eerlijkheid
2. Zorgvuldigheid
3. Transparantie
4. Onafhankelijkheid
5. Verantwoordelijkheid

Question 46

Relevantiedrogredeneringen

Answer 46

1. Appeal to force
2. Appeal to pity
3. Appeal to the people
4. Argument against the person
5. Accident
6. Straw man
7. Missing the point
8. Red herring

Question 47

Name three specific forms that the indirect approach of the appeal to the people includes

Answer 47

1. Bandwagon argument
2. The appeal to vanity
3. The appeal to snobbery

Question 48

Zwakke inductieve redeneringen

Answer 48

1. Appeal to unqualified authority
2. Appeal to ignorance
3. Hasty generalisation
4. False cause
5. Slippery slope
6. Weak analogy

Question 49

Name four varieties of the false cause fallacy

Answer 49

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
2. Non causa pro causa
3. Oversimplified cause
4. Gambler’s fallacy