Logic Flashcards
Philosophy and Logic
The burden of proof for an asserted claim is on whom?
The individual who made the claim
Philosophy and Logic
What is the definition of Occam’s razor?
“Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.”
I.e. don’t unnecessarily add explanations for events or make extra assumptions when a single explanation makes more sense.
Example: any conspiracy theory that seeks to explain some event via external agents and/or secret plots without providing any information that has a much simpler solution.
Philosophy and Logic
What is the opposite of Occam’s razor?
Occam’s broom
(the process in which inconvenient facts are whisked under the rug by intellectually dishonest players)
Philosophy and Logic
In loose terms, you can think of logic as the science/study of __________.
In loose terms, you can think of logic as the science/study of reasoning.
Philosophy and Logic
What are basic beliefs and properly basic beliefs?
Basic beliefs - Beliefs justified by other beliefs
Properly basic beliefs - Beliefs that are taken as axiomatic or evident to the senses
Philosophy and Logic
What is the basic disagreement between scepticism, foundationalism, and coherentism as epistemic methods regarding how one should justify their beliefs?
Scepticism - justified beliefs are based on other beliefs, eventually terminating in a set of unjustified beliefs. (I.e., at a certain point, our beliefs are unjustifiable.)
Foundationalism - justified beliefs are based on other beliefs, eventually terminating in a set of properly basic beliefs (i.e., beliefs that are justified but not by other beliefs).
Coherentism - justified beliefs are based on other beliefs; at some point, the beliefs loop back on themselves. (I.e., a belief is justified if it is coherent with all or most other held beliefs that are true.)
Philosophy and Logic
True/False.
Logic has a lot to tell us about the fundamental truth of what the universe is and all its characteristics.
False.
Logic is the tool of reasoning we use to assess our observations and beliefs;
it does not inherently make any claims about anything.
Philosophy and Logic
To _______ is to draw conclusions from premises.
To infer is to draw conclusions from premises.
Philosophy and Logic
An argument is a collection of statements, of which one is a(n) _________ and the rest are _________.
An argument is a collection of statements, of which one is a conclusion and the rest are premises.
Philosophy and Logic
What is deductive logic?
Logic in which the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion
Philosophy and Logic
What is inductive logic?
Logic in which the truth of the premises makes likely the truth of the conclusion
Philosophy and Logic
Simply put, deduction is making an inference based on what?
Widely accepted facts and/or premises
Philosophy and Logic
Simply put, induction is making an inference based on what?
Past observances
Philosophy and Logic
Simply put, abduction is making an inference based on what?
What you already know
Which of the forms of inference (deductive, inductive, or abductive) is demonstrated in the examples below?
Sherlock Holmes looks at the evidence at a crime scene and concludes that the chef is most likely to have poisoned the food.
A physician looks at a patient’s signs and symptoms and writes up a differential with a working diagnosis.
Abductive
(combining all the observations into a somewhat likely conclusion)
Which of the forms of inference (deductive, inductive, or abductive) is demonstrated in the examples below?
A sandwhich is meat between two slices of bread. A hotdog is meat between two slices of bread. Therefore, a hotdog is a sandwhich.
I have a 10 AM dentist appointment. It takes 35 minutes to get to the dentist’s office. I should leave at 9:25 AM.
Deductive
(reasoning from premises to a conclusion)
Which of the forms of inference (deductive, inductive, or abductive) is demonstrated in the examples below?
Your six coworkers all order the same sandwich. You conclude that the sandwhich must be good.
You see tanks and soldiers line up on either side of a border between two fairly hostile countries. You conclude war is likely to break out soon.
Inductive
(using observations to draw a likely conclusion)
Philosophy and Logic
Identify which of the forms of logic is highlighted by the following statements:
I am a man.
Men are mortal.
Therefore, I am a mortal.
Deductive logic
(based on the premises, the conclusion is certain)
Philosophy and Logic
Identify which of the forms of logic is highlighted by the following statements:
The Indian and Pakistani armies are amassing on either side of the India-Pakistan border.
Therefore, there is a war coming.
Inductive logic
(based on the premises, the conclusion is likely)
Philosophy and Logic
Identify which of the forms of logic is highlighted by the following statements:
A teenage, otherwise-healthy patient is thirsty, hungry, and has an elevated fasting plasma glucose.
They probably have type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Abductive logic
(based on our incomplete observations, the conclusion is our best guess [warranting further examination])
Philosophy and Logic
__________ logic starts with a theory which is used to reach observations and a conclusion.
__________ logic starts with information which is used to reach a theory.
Inductive logic starts with a theory which is used to reach observations and a conclusion.
Deductive logic starts with information which is used to reach a theory.
Philosophy and Logic
Describe deductive, inductive, and abductive logic in terms of certainty of conclusion.
Deductive - guaranteed true
Inductive - probably true (generalizations from examples)
Abductive - best guess
Philosophy and Logic
What is a syllogism?
A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion;
e.g., all humans are mortal (the major premise), I am a human (the minor premise), therefore, I am mortal (the conclusion).
Philosophy and Logic
In analyzing a syllogism, what questions should be asked?
- Are the premises true?
- Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
Philosophy and Logic
What does it mean for a syllogism to be factually correct?
If all of its premises are true
Philosophy and Logic
What does it mean for a syllogism to be valid?
If its conclusion follows from its premises
Philosophy and Logic
What does it mean for a syllogism to be sound?
If it is both factually correct and valid
Philosophy and Logic
To say that an argument is valid is to say that if the ________ were true, then the ________ would necessarily also be true.
To say that an argument is valid is to say that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would necessarily also be true.
Philosophy and Logic
What are the three axiomatic laws of thought that make up the basis for rational discourse?
- Identity
- Non-contradiction
- Excluded middle
Philosophy and Logic
Describe the law of identity (one of the three axiomatic laws of thought that make up the basis for rational discourse).
‘Whatever is, is.’
(a = a)
(In practice, don’t equivocate. A word must have a finite number of definitions. You can’t unilaterally redfine a word to no longer mean what the original discourse was addressing.)
Philosophy and Logic
Describe the law of non-contradiction (one of the three axiomatic laws of thought that make up the basis for rational discourse).
‘Nothing can both be and not be’
(The following two statements cannot both be true and are mutually exclusive: A = B; A ≠ B) [(as a tautology, A = B or A ≠ B)]
- (In essence, two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Some things are true, and some things are false.*
- To reject this premise is to declare it false, thus using the law of noncontradiction and nullifying your argument)*
Philosophy and Logic
Describe the law of excluded middle (one of the three axiomatic laws of thought that make up the basis for rational discourse).
‘Propositions are either true or they are false.’
(Proposition A = true (or) Proposition A = false)
- (In essence, a given proposition cannot be partially true.*
- In addition, it cannot be true ‘for you’ alone or true ‘for me’ alone.)*
Philosophy and Logic
A person says, ‘diversity is our strength.’
He also says, ‘diversity is dangerous.’
These two statements together seem to break which law of thought?
The law of non-contradiction
Correction:
Person 1 says, ‘diversity of thought is our strength in that it brings new ideas to the table and helps up identify our blindspots and avoid echo chambers.’
He also says, ‘diversity of culture and preferences is dangerous in that it may decrease group cohesion and productivity.’
Philosophy and Logic
Person 1 says, ‘do you believe that taxes are a headache?’
Person 2 says, ‘yes.’
Person 1 says, ‘wow, so you believe pain killers will make your taxes go away.’
Person 1 is violating which law of thought?
The law of identity
Person 1 is equivocating and dishonestly using headache to mean both ‘annoyance’ and also ‘literal head pain.’
Philosophy and Logic
I tell you, ‘the door is not unlocked, but that doesn’t imply that it is locked.’
This is a violation of which law of thought?
The law of excluded middle
The proposition that a door is unlocked is a direct contradiction to the door being locked. So, if the door is not unlocked, that by definition implies that it is locked.
Philosophy and Logic
What philosophical perspective argues that whatever option of action brings the maximum amount of ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’ to the world of conscious individuals is the most morally correct option?
Utilitarianism