intro and fallacies Flashcards
scientific claim
facts, state of affairs in the world; true/false; Descriptive
Moral claim
values, beliefs coming from certain moral views; approved/non-approvable; consistent/ inconsistent; Normative
Ethics
comes from the term ‘behaviour’ (ethos) in greek,
evaluates moral choices and actions;
depends on theories, concepts, and principles used to evaluate the values
Ethics is not a matter of rationality only
morality
a set of rules/principles that represent responses to ethical issues and get public consensus
Moralizing
giving moral judgements and /or increasing the severity of your moral attributions
Moralism
the habit of moralizing
Law
deals with regulations and prescriptions at the state/interntional level;
connected with political authority and existence of certain procedures such as sanctions, punishment etc.
Meta ethics
theoretical; nature of moral properties, judgements, etc.
Normative ethics
Practical means and tools; standards of right and wrong
Applied ethics
specific determinations; the analysis of particular moral issues
Bioethics
is an applied ethics,
conditions to judge certain actions as right/wrong to pursue certain goals
Converging
a set of rules exist based on ethical principles; aka law and ethics converge;
may converge in 2 forms - moralistic-paternalistic approach or liberal approach
Diverging
Laws differ from ethical principles, case-study post-liberal approach
Paternalistic approach
an external entity limits persons autonomy/groups liberty pretending to know better
Libertarian approach
emphasizes individual’s liberty and autonomy
Eurobarometers
since 1974 a series of opinion polls has been conducted on the european population on behalf on the european commission
Argumentation
consists of providing reasons to defend a view
arises in response to/in anticipation of a difference in opinion
consists of propositions
consists of a claim (conclusion) supported by evidence (premises)
fallacies
basic illogical/inferential mistakes
invalid or faulty reasoning
biases
psychological tendencies
systematic, persistent flawed patterns of reasoning
unconscious, unintentional
rationality
concerns the standard principles to reason correctly
ethics is not a matter of rationality only
logic and science are counter-intuitive
yuck factor
expression coined by Arthur Caplan.
defines the phenomena that most people instinctively reject fearsome/ repugnant things, especially when they are unfamiliar
Heuristics
Term produced by Herbert Simon
Fast, frugal way of problem-solving, special adaptive tools we posses in uncertain situations
Selected by evolution to face situations in ancestral environments (Gigrenzer)
eg. the Garcia effect
–> conditioned taste aversion after indigestion
proposition
asserts that something is the case (affirm x) or it asserts something is not the case (deny y)
either true or false
even if truth/falsity is unknown
Argument
One proposition (conclusion) is affirmed based on other propositions (premises)
correct/incorrect
inference ties propositions from premises to conclusion
A MATERIAL IMPLICATION BETWEEN THE COMBINATION OF PREMISES
if an ethical argument is based on false premises it is unjustified (not a logical error but an error in knowledge)
Deductive
If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
conclusion is contained in the premises
inductive (weak vs strong)
only probable; if the premise is true, the conclusion is likely true, the conclusion adds something new to the premises (it is a prediction)
fallacy
A typical incorrect argument, mistakes in reasoning that exhibit a pattern that can be identified and names
Falsifiability
criterion for demarcating science from non-science (Karl Popper)
A single counter-instance falsifies some belief
Replicability is the core of the scientific method
naturalistic fallacies
case of defective induction, false cause
very much debated in meta-ethics
enunciated by David Hume
Rhetoric
The art to persuade others
Sophism
confusing or slightly incorrect argument used to deceive someone
Machiavellianism
the psychological trait of deceiving others, in order to get some personal gains, especially social power
Fallacies of relevance (7)
Most numerous and frequent, PREMISES OF THE ARGUMENT NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSION, they derive because they are made to appear relevant
- Appeal to populace
- Appeal to emotion
- Red herring
- Straw man
- Attack on person
- Appeal to force
- Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion)
Fallacies of defective induction (4)
mistake arises form the fact that THE PREMISES (although relevant to the conclusion) ARE WEAK AND INEFFECTIVE
- Argument from ignorance
- Appeal to inappropriate authority
- False cause
- Hasty generalization
Fallacies of presumption (3)
TOO MUCH IS ASSUMED IN THE PREMISES; inference to a conclusion mistakenly depends on unwarranted assumptions
- Accident
- Complex question
- Begging the question
Fallacies of ambiguity (5)
Incorrect reasoning arises from the EQUIVOCAL USE OF WORDS OR PHRASES ; meanings of the same word/phrase differ in the argument
- Equivocation
- Amphiboly
- Accent
- Composition
- Division
Appeal to the populace (Argumentum ad Populum)
it is the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing feelings of the multitude (aka appeal to popular belief e.g. nationalism)
Sheer emotion offered as the premise of an argument is fallacious
Appeal to emotion
The effort to elicit some emotion
Appeal to pity (ad miscericordiam) –> When the premises boil down to no more than a merciful heart (generosity, mercy)
Other emotions:
Fear (ad metum), hatred (ad odium); pride (ad superbium), envy (ad invidiam)
Red herring
Think smoked herring to deflect dogs attention
Lies in deflecting attention: leading the focus away from the issue under the discussion.
The Straw man
an opponent’s position is depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what was actually asserted (misquoting) making it easily torn apart
Argument against the person (ad hominem)
The adverse reaction is directed to the person instead of the conclusion. Character of the person is not related to the conclusion they are asserting, making this argument fallacious
Abusive:
Based on character aspects of a person believed to be bad. Most common accusation of guilty by association
Circumstantial:
Circumstances of a person who makes/rejects some claim has nothing to do with the conclusion When circumstances are used in a negative spirit to devalue the opponents opinion
Appeal to force (ad baculum)
Affirming a position as true by resulting to force. Based on coercion. Not only physical. Appeal to force is the abandonment of reason
Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion; ignoratio elenchi)
Premises support a different conclusion from the one that is proposed
may on occasion be an instrument of deception.
The argument from ignorance (ad ignorantiam)
Arguing something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or vice versa). Ignorance sometimes obliges us to suspend judgement (not assigning truth or falsity yet)
Appeal to inappropriate authority (ad verecundiam)
Argument that proposition is true because an expert in a given field said so. Fallacious when the experts area of expertise is not relevant to the conclusion
False cause (non cause pro causa)
an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event that has nothing to do with it
Post hoc ergo propter hoc:
mere temporal succession does not establish causality
Slippery slope
taking a step will lead to further damage. A fallacy in which a change in direction is asserted to lead to inevitably further changes (usually undesirable) in the same direction
Hasty generalization (converse accident)
A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from a single case, or very few cases, to a large-scale generalization about all or most cases
Accident
generalization that is largely true may not apply in a given case (or to some
subcategory of cases) for good reasons
complex question (plurium interrogationum)
to ask a rhetorical question, in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some
conclusion that is buried in the question
Begging the question (petito principii)
The conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in any one of the premises. Also known as circular reasoning
Equivocation
When two words with different meanings are used interchangeably in different parts of the argument
(accidentally or intentionally)
Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted in more than one way; The premise is based on one interpretation and the conclusion on another
Accent
When an argument contains a premise that relies on one possible emphasis of certain words, but the conclusion relies on a different emphasis that gives those words different meaning
Composition
An argument erroneously assigns attributes to a whole (or to a collection) based on the fact that parts of that whole (or members of that collection) have those attributes.
Confuses distributive and collective terms
Division
Reverse of the fallacy of composition.
Assigning parts of a whole (or to members of a collection) based on the fact that the whole (or the collection) has those attributes
The Naturality argument
The more scientific applications are considered threats to the ‘natural order’ the more they are objected morally
cognitive dissonance
mental stress experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values
Epistemic Blindness or resistance to change
when people are confronted with evidence that is ‘inconsistent with their beliefs’, they first respond by refuting the information, then band together with like-minded dissenters and champion their own hard-set opinion
Confabulation
To defend their beliefs people start producing reasons to defend their previous beliefs
Homo oeconomicus
The agent in classical economic models
A Homo oeconomicus, or “economic man,” is a theoretical individual who acts rationally, always making decisions to maximize personal utility and self-interest based on complete information.
epistemology
the study of knowledge
logic
the study of correct arguments
has to do with rationality
it concerns the standard principles to reason correctly
Fallacy vs. Biases
Both have to do with reasoning
Fallacies relate to an argument
Cognitive biases relate to patterns of thought
Logic vs. psychology
Linda experiment
1983 Kahneman and Tversky
choosing a conjunction even though the probability is less probable
Happens because of the representativeness heuristic - people judge probability based on how well the description matches their stereotypes, rather than on logical reasoning
The Lawyers and Engineers Experiment
by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky that demonstrates the Base Rate Fallacy - a cognitive bias where people ignore general statistical information in favour of specific details
The Ice cream Parlor Experiment
Shafir Simonson and Tversky 1993
It illustrates how irrelevant options or the presence of too many choices can lead to poor decision-making due to decision overload and paradox of choice
compatibility bias -
Positive dimensions are weighted more heavily in choosing than in rejecting, and
negative dimensions are weighted more heavily in rejecting than in choosing
Milgram Obedience experiment
1963
how ordinary people could commit harmful actions under the influence of authority
authority figures can strongly influence people’s moral decision-making, power of situational factors
Stanford prison experiment
1971 Philip Zimbardo
The effects of perceived power and authority on behavior, demonstrating how individuals can adopt extreme roles when placed in situations that foster dehumanization and power dynamics
Role conformity, prisoner rebellion, Psychological harm, loss of personal identity, lack of intervention, right to withdraw
Human subject protection
