Criticak Thinking > Midterm Exam > Flashcards
Midterm Exam Flashcards
An argument
Is a set of statements called premises. Premises comprise a reason for believing a conclusion
In a good argument
The premises support the conclusion
Deductive arguments
Guarantee their conclusions
Ampliative arguments
Make their conclusions probable
Premise
A statement offered in support of a conclusion
Conclusion
The main point of an argument
Validity
An argument is valid just in case if all the premises are true then its conclusion must be true as well
A valid argument has a structure in which the truth of the premises would force the conclusion to be true
Soundness
An argument is sound just in case it is valid and all its premises and conclusion are true
Logical form
The quality of an argument which makes it valid or invalid
Fallacy
An error in reasoning
Hypothetical syllogism (valid)
If A then B
If B then C
If A then C
Modus Tollens
If A then C
Not C
Not A
(Deductive argument)
Modus Pollens
If A then B
B
A
(Inductive argument)
Inductive arguments
All inductive arguments are invalid. They are strong over weak.
Strength: the more likely the conclusion is to be true based on the truth of the premises, the stronger the argument
Strength = validity
Inductive arguments
cannot be sound but can be cogent
Cogency: an inductive argument is cogent when it is both strong and has all true premises
Cogency = soundness
Three main kinds of inductive arguments
Inductive generalization, argument to the best explanation, argument by analogy
Inductive argument ( inductive, generalization)
Two main factors determine the strength of an inductive generalization
1. The size of the sample.
2. The representation or biasedness of the sample.
Inductive argument ( argument to the best explanation)
If A then B
B
A
Inductive argument (argument, analogy)
X and Y have properties a, b and c,
X has property d
Therefore, Y has d as well
Two main factors determine the strength of an analogical argument:
the relevance of the similarities between the two things being compared and the number of relevant similarities identified. The more relevant similarities there are and the stronger the connection between them, the stronger the analogical argument becomes.
Three main theories of knowledge
Foundationalism, Coherentism, Reliabilism
Foundationalism
We acquire knowledge by starting
with basic beliefs and building upon them.
a. Basic beliefs are non-inferentially justified.
b. Problems
i. Which kinds of beliefs count as epistemically
basic?
ii. We may have very little knowledge.
Problem: Tends to lead to skepticism because we wind up
having little knowledge.
Coherentism
A belief counts as knowledge if it is true,
and it has a sufficient amount of support from other
beliefs.
a. Web of justification
b. Two problems
i. It is too permissive (many false beliefs can be
justified this way as well).
ii. Your beliefs could be justified if you were a
brain in a vat.
Reliabilism
A belief counts as knowledge if it is true and was formed by a reliable process.
a. Problem: How do we know which processes are
reliable?
b. Problem?: Violates the KK principle—You can know
X but not know that you know x.
Is Justified True Belief (JTB) enough for knowledge? Consider
the following scenario:
One morning Eleanor is walking through the train station,
having just arrived on her usual commuter train. She
glances up at the big clock in the center of the station and
sees that it says 8:45. Eleanor has noted the time on that
clock on many occasions over the last several years, and it
has always been accurate. So without looking at her watch
or checking the time on her cell phone, Eleanor forms the
belief that it is 8:45. And her belief is true; it is 8:45.
However, at 8:45 the previous evening, the clock broke,
and it has not yet been repaired. So it has said it is 8:45
for the last twelve hours. It is just a lucky accident that
Eleanor happened to glance at the clock at exactly 8:45.
Thus it is just a lucky accident that the belief she formed is
true.1
This is called the Gettier problem, after Edmund Gettier, who
introduced the problem in a famous paper in 1963. It
appears that you can have a justified true belief that isn’t
knowledge. Other examples can be formulated.
Epistemology—three theories
(Foundationalism, Coherentism, Reliabilism)
The study of knowledge.
–What do we know (if anything)?
–What can we know?
–What is required for knowledge?
–What is knowledge?
Strength
refers to the quality or degree of validity, soundness, or effectiveness of an argument or reasoning. It is a measure of how well the evidence, logic, or premises support a conclusion or claim. A strong argument is one that is well-supported and has a high level of credibility and persuasiveness. It’s like having a solid foundation for your reasoning!
Cogency
refers to the quality of an argument being clear, logical, and convincing. It means that the premises of the argument are relevant, reliable, and provide strong support for the conclusion. A cogent argument is one that is well-structured, avoids fallacies, and presents compelling evidence or reasoning. It’s like having a strong and persuasive case for your point of view!
know why it is not acceptable to explain piety simply by citing things the gods have done
It’s not acceptable to explain piety simply by citing things the gods have done because it lacks critical thinking and reasoning. Just because the gods have done something doesn’t necessarily make it pious. We need to examine the nature of piety and understand its underlying principles and values. Simply relying on divine actions without further analysis would be an oversimplification and could lead to flawed understanding. Critical thinking allows us to delve deeper into the concept of piety and evaluate it based on rationality and moral considerations.
know why it is not enough to just cite what the gods love and what the gods hate
It’s not enough to just cite what the gods love and hate when discussing matters of piety because it raises questions about the nature of morality and ethics. What the gods love or hate may not necessarily align with what is morally right or wrong. Simply relying on divine preferences without critical examination would be a form of moral relativism. It’s important to engage in critical thinking and ethical reasoning to understand the principles and values that underlie piety, rather than relying solely on divine commands or preferences.
know the difference between saying the something is good because God loves it and that God loves something because it is good
The difference between saying something is good because God loves it and saying God loves something because it is good lies in the understanding of morality.
When we say something is good because God loves it, it suggests that the goodness of an action or object is solely determined by God’s preference. In this view, morality is subjective and dependent on divine command.
On the other hand, saying God loves something because it is good implies that there is an independent standard of goodness that exists outside of God’s will. In this perspective, God recognizes and loves things that are inherently good based on an objective standard of morality.
These two viewpoints have been subjects of philosophical debates regarding the nature of morality and the relationship between God and ethics.
negativity bias
Sure, I can simplify it for you! Negativity bias means that our brains have a tendency to focus more on negative things than positive things. We pay more attention to bad experiences or information and they have a stronger impact on us. It’s like our minds have a natural inclination to give more importance to the negative stuff. This bias can affect how we think, feel, and make decisions.
availability bias
Availability bias is like taking a mental shortcut by using the first info that pops into your head to make a decision.
bandwagon bias
Bandwagon bias, also known as the “herd mentality,” is when people tend to adopt certain beliefs or behaviors because many others are doing the same. It’s like jumping on the bandwagon and following the crowd without critically evaluating the information or considering alternatives. This bias can influence our decisions and actions, sometimes leading to conformity rather than independent thinking.
(Bandwagon bias is when people follow what others are doing instead of making their own choices.)
affect bias
Affect bias is when our emotions or feelings influence our judgments or decisions. It’s like our feelings can sway us towards certain choices, even if they may not be the most rational or logical ones. Emotions can have a strong impact on how we perceive and evaluate information, sometimes leading us to make biased judgments based on our current emotional state. It’s important to be aware of this bias and try to balance our emotions with critical thinking.
(Affect bias is when our feelings steer our decisions, not just logic.)
confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is when we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs or opinions, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. It’s like we have a tendency to favor information that supports what we already think, which can hinder our ability to consider alternative perspectives or make objective judgments.
(Confirmation bias is when we only notice things that agree with what we already believe.)
self-interest bias
Self-interest bias is when we tend to favor information or make decisions that benefit ourselves personally. It’s like we have a natural inclination to prioritize our own interests, sometimes at the expense of objectivity or fairness. This bias can influence how we perceive and interpret information, leading us to make choices that align with our own self-interest rather than considering the broader perspective or the needs of others.
(Self-interest bias is when we choose things that are best for us, not always fairly.)
belief bias
Belief bias is when we let our existing beliefs influence our reasoning and judgment. We tend to accept arguments that align with our beliefs, even if they’re not logically sound. It’s like our beliefs can cloud our ability to think critically and objectively evaluate information.
(Belief bias is when we think something’s true just because it fits what we already believe.)
short-term thinking bias
Short-term thinking bias is when we focus more on immediate outcomes rather than considering long-term consequences. It’s like prioritizing instant gratification over future benefits or potential risks. This bias can lead to decisions that may not be in our best interest in the long run.
(Short-term thinking bias means we often choose quick rewards over better ones later on.)
Know the difference between relativism and skepticism.
Relativism is the belief that truth and morality are subjective and vary from person to person or culture to culture. Skepticism, on the other hand, is the questioning of knowledge and the idea that absolute certainty is difficult to attain. It’s like being doubtful and questioning things rather than accepting them at face value.
Know the difference between individual moral relativism and cultural (moral) relativism.
Sure, I can help with that! Individual moral relativism is the belief that moral judgments are subjective and vary from person to person. It suggests that what is morally right or wrong can differ based on an individual’s personal beliefs and values. On the other hand, cultural (moral) relativism is the belief that moral judgments are subjective and vary from culture to culture. It suggests that what is considered morally right or wrong can differ across different societies and cultures.
Know the difference between descriptive relativism and cultural moral relativism
Descriptive relativism is the observation that different cultures or individuals have different moral beliefs or practices. It describes the existence of moral diversity without making any judgments about which beliefs or practices are right or wrong. On the other hand, cultural moral relativism is the belief that moral judgments are relative to specific cultures. It suggests that what is considered morally right or wrong is determined by the cultural norms and values of a particular society. Cultural moral relativism goes beyond the observation of diversity and asserts that moral judgments should be understood within the context of a specific culture.
Know reasons why cultural moral relativism is not a good theory
Cultural moral relativism has some criticisms because it can lead to moral relativism, where all moral beliefs are considered equally valid. This can make it difficult to criticize or challenge harmful practices in other cultures. Additionally, cultural moral relativism may undermine the idea of universal human rights, as it suggests that moral standards are determined solely by cultural norms. It also raises questions about how to resolve moral disagreements between cultures. These are some reasons why cultural moral relativism is not universally accepted as a comprehensive moral theory.
Know the difference between global and local skepticism and relativism.
In the context of skepticism and relativism, global skepticism refers to the position that doubts the possibility of having any knowledge or certainty about the external world or any specific domain of knowledge. It casts doubt on the reliability of our senses, reasoning, and even the existence of an external reality. On the other hand, local skepticism is more specific and targeted. It questions certain areas of knowledge or specific claims without rejecting the possibility of knowledge altogether.
Similarly, global relativism is the belief that all truth and moral values are relative and subjective, with no objective or universal standards. It asserts that what is true or morally right varies from person to person or culture to culture. In contrast, local relativism applies relativistic principles to specific domains or contexts, acknowledging that different perspectives and values may exist within those specific areas.
So, to summarize, global skepticism and relativism cast doubt or reject knowledge and truth universally, while local skepticism and relativism are more specific and targeted, questioning or relativizing certain areas or contexts.
Know the difference between a priori and a posteriori truths.
Sure, I can help with that! In philosophy, a priori truths are knowledge or truths that can be known independently of experience or empirical evidence. They are based on reason, logic, or pure thought. A posteriori truths, on the other hand, are knowledge or truths that are known through experience or empirical evidence. They are based on observations, sensory perception, or scientific investigation. So, a priori truths are independent of experience, while a posteriori truths are dependent on experience.
