Lecture 8 Flashcards
1
Q
Affirming the consequent
A
- invalid argument structure:
- is a common error in logical reasoning. this fallacy occurs when an argument mistakenly infers the truth of a premise from the truth of its consequence, following the basic structure:- examples: - consider the fllowing argument:
- if it rains, the streets will be wet
- the strets are wet
- therefore, it must have rained
2
Q
denying the antecedent
A
- invalid argument structure
- “denyng the antecendent” a common logical fallacy in deductive arguments. this mistake in reasoning occurs when an argumnet incorrectly assumes that denying the antecedent (the if-part) of a conditional statement necessarily denies the consequent (the then-part). the structure of this fallacy looks like this:
- if sandy passed the final, then she passed the course
- sandy did not pass the final
- therefore, sandy did not pass the course - circumstances, may invalidate the argument, such as alternative ways to achieve the outcome
- example scenario: sandy pases the course by doing extra work, not by passing the final exam
3
Q
undistributed middle
A
- fallacy occurs when two things related to a third thing are assumed to be related to each other
- examples:
- cats and dogs are both mammals, but it doesn’t mean they are otherwise related
- aaron and the sniper share similar traits, but it doesn’t prove they are the same person - incorect argument structures:
- all cats are mammals. all dogs are mammals. therefore, all cas are dogs
OR
- 1. all doctors have advancd degrees
- 2. all lawyers hae advanced degrees
- 3. therefore, all doctors are lawyers
4
Q
equivocation
A
- related to semantic ambiguity
- occurs when a word or phase has multiple interpretations
- examples:
- misleading concluson: banks are alongside rivers, and a bank holds money, so the place holding money is alongside a river
- misinterpreting censorship: washington times violating the First Amendment by not publishing controversial authors - importance of clear definitions to avoid equivocation
5
Q
amphiboly
A
- related to syntactic ambiguity
- occurs when the sentnce structure causes ambiguity, not a single word or phrase
- examples:
- unclear reference: “if you want to take the moto out of the car, i’ll sell it to you cheap” (ambiguous reference of “it”)
- confusing requirements: agent and applicant misunderstanding the necessary documents for a program application due to unclear sentence structure - importance of clarity adn punctuation to avoid amphiboly
6
Q
fallacies of composition and division:
A
- composition
- occurs when a feature of the parts is wrongly attributed to the whole
- related to grouping ambiguity
- examples:
- incorrect conclusion: building made from rectangular bricks must be rectangular
- misinterpreting public opinion: if the public like individual mmbers of congress, they must like congress as a whole - distinguishing composition from hasty generalization:
- composition:
- involves drawing a conclusion about the whole based on facts about individual parts
- example: concluding that the senate is large becasue all senators are large - hasty generalization:
- occurs when a conclusion about al members of a group is drawn from an observation about a singleor few members
- example: concluding that all senators are overweight based on the observation of one overweight senator - while both fallacies involve making inaccurate concluions, composition focuses on the relationship between parts adn the whole, while hasty generalization focuses on generalizing individual observations to the entire group
- divisions:
- opposite of composition; occurs when a feature of the whole is wrongly attributed to is parts
-examples:
- false assumption: if a financial portfolio gained value, then every stock in the portfolio (e.g. microsoft) must have gained value too
- misinterprettion of collective actions: assuming one letter carrier walks hundreds of miles a day because, collectively, letter carriers in a town do so - both fallacies (composition and division) involve incorrect assumptions about the relationship between parts and the whole, leading to illogical conclusions
7
Q
confusing explanations with excuses
A
- fallacy: mistaking explanation for excuse/justification
Explanation: involves providing reasons or causes for an action or event. it’s a neutral description meant to make something understandable without necessarily defending, justifying, or excusing it. an explanation focuses on the “why” or “how” something happened
Justification: refers to providing a reason for an action that depicts the action as being reasonable under the circumstances. it means showing that an action was right or acceptable, considering the context. justifications are often based on moral, legal, or rational standards. when an act is justified, it’s deemed to have ben the correct thing to do, absolving the actor of wrongess or immorality
example of explanation:
- the window broke becasue a tree branch fell during the storm last night and struck it
example of justification/excuse:
- speeding because the driver didn’t realize the speed limit had chnged. the action (speeding) remains wrong, but the driver’s blameworthiness is lessened due to ignorance of the speed limit change, assuming the ignorance is reasonable
8
Q
case:
A
WADA’s prohibited List, its Critera, and Its impact on Athletes at the Olympics
9
Q
deandre ayton’s suspension for a banned substance, explained
A
cannabis, low level of diuretics, HRT in Masters Athletes, and others…
- why are these substances banned?
- shouldn’t anti-doping focus only on unfair enhancement?
- shouldn’t rule breaking be enough of a reason to punish these athletes?
- what are the criteria for banning a substance in sport? and how do they get applied?
10
Q
an overview of WADA’s policies
A
- two documents are important to this discussion: 1) The Wada code; 2) the prohibited list
- why is doping wrong? it violates the spirit of sport (yes, that’s it)
- what are the criteria to ban a substance/method in sport:
1. enhances/or has the potential to enhance
2. harmful/or has the potential to cause harm
3. violates the spirit of sport - a substance only needs to fulfil two out of these three criteria
- it is WADA’s sole discretion to decides what subtance fulfils which criteria
11
Q
the conceptul framework…
A
- the spirit of sport: the ideology and rationale that builds the normatve foundations of anti-doping in sport
- anti-doping: WADA’s mission, thatis inspired by the “spirit of sport”
- WADA code and international standards (policies): are the tools that WADA use to serve the anti-doping mission and protect the spirit of sport
12
Q
key ethical issues
A
- procedural justice: due dilligence? scientific integrity?
- multiple recent studies evaluating the evidence of enhancement of substances on the list; they have found that the majority of substances on the list, lack proper scientific evidence of enhancement or harm to health
- transparency: WADA does not publish the criteria by which each substance was selected for the list
13
Q
arguments for 1: it’s democratic
A
- WADA send a notice to all stake holders (governments and the IOC) to make sure that all parties agree to the changes of the prohibited list
- does democracy alone fulfils justice?
- winning a vote, doesn’t make an unethical decision, ethical
14
Q
arguments for 2: the impossibility of evidence…
A
- proper scientific practice requires WADA to prove with double blinded placebo studies, that each substances is enhancing/harful in each specific sport and event that the WADA code is applied to!
- ethical implications of using experimental drugs on athletes
- do the finanicial and ethical challenges render to question for high quality evidence impossible?
- who pays for it? conflict of interest?
15
Q
arguments against 1) is it really a list?
A
- people usually think tht the prohibited list is whole, definitive, exact (i.e. this is what comes in mind when you think of a list)
- S0 Non-approved substances: any pharacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the list and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development of discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times
- section 1: anabolic agents are prohibited… and other subtances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effects… including, but not limited to
- section 2: the following substances, and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effects, are prohibited
