Flaws Flashcards
The nature of
Correlation causation (CC)
Stating a link between 2 variables (correlation) the flaw is that the arg does not present evident to prove that causal conclusion. there argument has to identifiy a link between 2 variables that implies or states a cause and effect. this means that the evid in argument could be explained by something else
What is causality?
It is a type of strong language that is a link between or among variables that implies or states cause and effect
Types of causality
striaght up casual terms
verbs of change
blame
Types of causality
Straight up casual terms
directly indicate cause and effect
results in/from, affect,effect, influence, cause, causes, casual, produce leads too
Types of causality
verbs of change
indicate that one thing changes another- promotes, benefits, induces, boost, raise, solve, solution
types of causality
blame
words that indicate that one thing is responsible for producing a given result- genetic predisposition, preisposes, responsible for, successful, explains, enable
correlation
the evidence of the correlation causation flaw
any link between two variables that does not express causation no matter how weak
types of correlation
temporal, geographic, entity based
types of correlation
temporal
two characteristics in the same time fram
types of correlation
geographic
2 characterisitcs in the same geographic area
types of correlation
entity based
2 characteristics in the same species population, person, age group ect
The assumption of
Correlation causation (CC)
Stating a correlation between two variables amounts to saying something like, “these two things go together in
some way, but I have no idea why.”
Stating a causal statement is akin to getting more cocky about your knowledge of the situation because you are
asserting to know the reason that those two characteristics are correlated.
So, the flaw is that the ARG does not present EVID to prove that particular Causal CONC. This means that the
correlation in the EVID could actually be explained by some other causal relationship.
Correlation (EVID) Causation (CONC)
the more better approach (CC FLAW)
scientists try to isolate those
characteristics in other contexts to determine whether
the relationship between those characteristics is truly a
causal one. As scientists identify additional contexts in which the
correlation holds, scientists become increasingly certain of a causal relationship between the two characteristics.
Competing causal explanations (CC FLAW)
In some situations, very often …
* one scientist says, “X causes the correlation.” while
* an other scientist says, “No, Y causes the
correlation.”
We will call X and Y, “Competing Causal Explanations” for the correlation.
These competing causal explanations are working against one another. The existence of each provides some reason to doubt the other.
in correlation causation flaw
How alt causes WKN ARG
Putting forth an Alternative Cause for the
correlation (in Evid) would WKN the ARG
because it provides a Competing Causal
Explanation.
in CC flaw
how does alt cause stn arg
ringing up an Alt Cause while
saying that this Alt Cause it NOT responsible
for the correlation will STN the ARG by
Eliminating a Competing Causal
Explanation for the correlation.
control groups
When scientists try to prove that some
factor causes some other factor, they
experiment by creating a treatment group
and a control group.
A control group removes the factor that
scientists believe to be the cause. The
control group should be identical to the
treatment group in every other way to
control for potential Alt Causes.
Removing the cause of an effect should
result in the absence of that effect.
treatment group
These groups have the Treatment (the
Cause), but can STN or WKN the argument,
depending on whether the effect is present
Reverse Causality
Asserting that the causal relationship is
actually the reverse of the one asserted
in the CONC would WKN the Arg.
When “the ARG has Causality in the CONC and Causality
in the EVID, what flaw should you think of
never think CC flaw instead look at
concept shift
argument by analogy
net effect
The nature of the flaw
Argument by Analogy ( AA)
you are dealing with 2 different situations. soemtimes those situations are similar enough to produce the same result and sometimes they are not
the assumption of
Argument by Analogy ( AA)
the 2 situations [groups/people/times] are similar enough to attain the same results
all CACs will adress the assumption in some way
Nature of the flaw
Comparasons (CNR)
knowing that one option is truly better than the other requires us to know ALL the factors that may tip the balance in favor of one option over the other. the speaker making this flaw OMITS certain aspects that would ensure that the chosen option is better.
Nature of the flaw
Extreme Conclusion (EXTC)
the conclusion must be absolute YES OR NO. the evidence will eliminate one or 2 options other than the one chosen in CONC. the evidence will eliminate one or two options in situations where potentionally numerous more options are avaliable. then the conc will say something abosolute about the situation. the flaw is that the situatuation still has multiple options remaining.
nature of the flaw
Concept shift (CS)
The TICNE and the concept in the target evid that is TRYING to prove the TICNIE to be true are simply not the same concept. so the flaw is that those concepts are not the same.
e/c table
nature of the flaw
Sufficient and Necessary (CSN)
Confuses a sufficent term (tirigger) with a necarry term (result). false contrapositive, going against if then statement, reversing without negating, negating without reversing.
IF- then statemnts are one way relationships. in this flaw the trigger forces the result to be true but the result does not force the triguer to be true.
nature of the flaw
Assuming the trigger (ASST)
the result of the if-then in the evid matches the fact in the conclusion. if then statements are hypotheticlal. so without proof that the trigger is true one cannot conclude anything from the if them statment. when the speaker ocncludes that the result fromt eh if then statement is true the speaker is assuming that the if then is not hypothetical.
nature of the flaw
general to specific (g-S)
The charteristic that applies to the whole group may or may not apply to every individual part porton subset in that that group. the characterstici of the general the whole applies to the specidic part/.
nature of the flaw
Specific to General (S-G)
The individual part or subgroup may or may not be represent the whole.
the assumption for
Specific to general (S-G)
The specific is representative of the GENERAL
the assumption of the faw
General to Specific (G-S)
The characteristic of the general (whole) applies to the specific (part)
nature of the flaw
Baseline (BL)
a differnece in the starting point for the two groups may explain the different or similar outcomes of the two groups. bu tthe speaker will attribute the difference in the outcomes to some other explanation
assumption
Baseline (BL)
the starting point for each group is roughly the same
nature of the flaw
Bad Information (BI)
Studies, experiments, data, and records can be flawed and thus fail to provide the truth. these arguments ignore the possibiliity that the source of the information may be providing bad information.
assumption
bad information
the data/person/theory/records are CORRECT
nature of the flaw
thought v reality (T v R)
the fact that something is true in reality tells us nothing about whether a person beleives intends, or knows the truth
the fact that someone beleives or intends somethign tells us nothing about the truth in reality.
nature of the flaw
Polar opposite
if someone failed to prove an idea true, then that idea may be true or false we DO NOT KNOIW
if someone failed to prove an idea FALSE, then that idea may be true or it may be falsse we DONT KNWO
in both cases the speaker instead of concluding that they dont knwo they conclusde that they do know the truth or falisty of the claim.
