Philosophy Flashcards
Successful Induction Requires
Relevance, Clarity, Sufficiency
R.C.S. (RC Sproul)
Relevance
Is the evidence relevant to the conclusion?
Clarity
Is the Evidence unambiguous?
Sufficiency
Is there enough evidence to make the conclusion more likely than not?
Mnemonic for Fallacies of Relevance
In an episode of Family Matters called Emotional Irrelevance, Carl Winslow uses a Baculum to smash Steve Urkel’s Misericordiam that Steve used to appeal to the populum. Shifting the focus to other things that happened, Steve used an Ad Hominem against Carl in retaliation but it was a red herring. The audience ignored the ratio enlenchi and missed the point completely. Behind the scenes, the straw man had an accident with oversimplifying and then misapplying a general rule to a specific case.
Mnemonic for Fallacies of Sufficiency
A hasty general-ization called conclusion, started drawing a slippery slope without a picture of it and predicted it would turn out bad. His wife pointed to the picture he had painted on their honeymoon of her butt and indicated it was exceptional and that she was sure the current drawing would be just as good, but he thought this a weak anal-ogy.
Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Accident - misapplying a general rule to a specific case.
Accident - misapplying a general rule to a specific case.
Fallacies of Sufficiency -
Hasty Generalization - Drawing a conclusion from an insufficient example
Suppressed Evidence - deliberately leaving out evidence that would weaken one’s conclusion.
Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Argumentum Ad Hominem
(Argument against the person)
Fallacies of Relevance - Emotional Irrelevance - Argumentum ad Baculum
Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to the Stick)
Fallacies of Relevance - Emotional Irrelevance - Argumentum ad Misericordiam
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
Fallacies of Relevance - Emotional Irrelevance -
Argumentum ad Populum
Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People)
Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Red Herring
Red Herring - Irrelevant information to draw attention away from thesis.
Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Ignoratio Elenchi
Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the point) - Drawing the wrong conclusion from the evidence.
Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Straw Man
Straw Man - oversimplifying an opponent’s argument to defeat it.
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause) - Confusing Correlation with Causation
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Slippery Slope
Slippery Slope - Predicting Negative Consequences with insufficient evidence
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Weak Analogy
Weak Analogy - drawing conclusions from cases that are insufficiently parallel
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to authority, unqualified) - using the wrong kind of authority as a witness
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) - asserting something based on the lack of evidence against it.
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Petitio Principii
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) - assuming as a premise something that itself needs to be established first.
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Complex Question
Complex Question - posing two questions in one, or hiding a question within a question.
Fallacies of Sufficiency - False Dichotomy
False Dichotomy - to assert an exclusive disjunction when more alternatives are possible.
Fallacies of Sufficiency - Suppressed Evidence
Suppressed Evidence - deliberately leaving out evidence that would weaken one’s conclusion.
Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Equivocation
Equivocation - applying different definitions to a single term in an argument.
Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Amphiboly
Amphiboly - drawing a conclusion from a grammatical ambiguity.
Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Composition
Composition - Asserting what’s true of the parts must be true of the whole.
Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Division
Division - Asserting what’s true of the whole must be true of the parts.
Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Natural Fallacy
Natural Fallacy - confusing what is natural with that which is good.
Mnemonic for fallacies of clarity/ambiguity
Please insert here…
Formal Error (error in form or structure)
Also referred to as a deductive fallacy, logical fallacy, non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”)
Affirming the consequent: The truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Four Arguments for God
Cosmological
Teleological (Design)
Ontological
Moral
Cosmological Argument for God
Everything that exists has a cause by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause.
God exists by the necessity of his nature.
The universe had nothing in its nature that requires it to exists.
Teleological (design) Argument for God
The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Fine tuning is a scientific fact.
Not due to physical necessity.
Not due to chance.
Ontological Argument for God
Premise 1: It is possible that God exists (most objected to premise.) God is defined as a maximally great being.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exists in all Possible Worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Three modes of existence:
Impossible: something that cannot exist in any possible world. Example - Square circle.
Conditional: Exists in some possible worlds but not all.
Necessary: Something that exists in all possible worlds. Example: Numbers, absolutes, shape definitions.
