Final Review Flashcards
List all fallacies of induction
- hasty generalizations
- accident
- weak analogy
- appeal to authority
- appeal to population
- post hoc ergo propter hoc
- cum hoc, propter hoc
- slippery slope
List the 2 formal fallacies
- affirming the consequent
2. denying the antecedent
List the 3 miscalculating probabilities
- Gambler’s fallacy
- overlooking prior probabilities
- overlooking false positives
A fallacy that is a weak argument based on debatable or unimportant similarities between 2 or more things
weak/false analogy
A fallacy in which a speaker or write commits fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that one event came after another established that it was caused by another
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
when a speak or write commits this fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that 2 events happen at the same time established that one caused the other
Slippery Slope
a fallacy in which an argument resets on an unsupported warning that is controversial and tendentious, to the effect that something will progress by degrees to an undesirable outcome
Fallacious appeal to authority
when he or she tries to support a contention by offering as evidence the opinion of a nonauthoritative source
What 5 ways to commit a hasty generalization?
- anecdote
- exceptional cases
- biased sample
- too small of sample
- self-selected
What are 2 ways to commit fallacy of popular belief?
- fallacious appeal to common practice
2. bandwagon fallacy
Accident fallacy
occurs when a speak or write assumes that a general statement automatically applies to a specific case
Type of hasty generalization that occurs when someone generalizes about members who are included by their own decision
self-selection fallacy
Type of hasty generalization that occurs a generalization about a large population on an atypical or skewed sample
fallacy of biased sample
In an induction argument what are the premises suppose to do to conclusion?
the premise(s) support(s) the conclusion
How are inductive arguments evaluates?
whether they are strong or weak
What are 3 to reason inductively?
- argument from analogy
- generalize from a sample
3, cause and effect
What makes an argument by analogy strong?
the more numerous and diversified the similarities between the premise and conclusion analogues and if there are more than one premise-analogues that are numerous and diversified
What makes an argument by analogy weak?
the more numerous and diversified the differences between the premise analogue and conclusion analogue and too few premise analogues that are more numerous and diversified in differences
What fallacy is associated with argument from analogy?
weak/false analogy
Explain generalizing from a sample
when you reason that all, most or some percentage of all members of a population have an attribute because all, most, or some percentage of a sample of the population have that attribute
What are 3 ways that generalizing from a sample is weak?
- the more atypical (biased) the sample the weaker the generalization
- the less diversified the sample. the weaker the generalization
- if the sample is too small to mirror the overall the population, the generalization is weak
Which types of samples are best to generalize about a population?
if a sample is unbiased, large and diversified
Which type of fallacy is best associated with generalize from a sample?
hasty generalizations
What are 3 principles often used to arrive at a cause and effect relationships?
- paired unusual event principle
- covariation
- common variable principle
Paired Unusual Event Principle
if something unusual happens look for something else unusual that has happened and consider whether it might be the cause
Covariation
when a variation in 1 phenomenon is accompanied by a variation in another phenomenon
Common Variable Principle
a variable common to multiple occurrences of something may be related to it causally
How do we evaluate cause and effect?
- use common sense and background knowledge
2. confirm the hypothesis
What fallacy is associated with cause and effect relationships?
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Which 3 ways can we confirm cause and effect hypothesis?
- randomized controlled experiments
- prospective observational studies
- retrospective observational studies
What is the significance of a retrospective observational study?
going backwards, people already have the effect . the purpose is to observe if they have the same cause
What is the significance of a prospective observational study?
going forward, looking to see if people will have the same effect
What is the significance of a randomized controlled group?
to control who is in which group
T/F All moral judgments expresses a moral value judgment
false
What is a value judgment?
assesses the merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness of someone or something
What is a moral value judgment?
a claim assessing the moral rightness of a person or action
What is the consistency principle?
the first principle of moral reasoning which states that if separate cases aren’t different in any relevant way, they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way
Gambler’s Fallacy
past events and future events are independent
overlooking False positives
cannot determine probability that are x’s are y’s without knowing proportion of non-x’s that are y
Legal Moralism
if x is immoral then x is illegal
Harm principle
the only legitimate basis for forbidding X is it does harm to others
Offense Principle
a law forbidding X is justifiable if X is offensive to others
Legal Paternalism
A person should/can be forbidden to do X for that person’s own good
