Philosophy

Question 1

Successful Induction Requires

Answer 1

Relevance, Clarity, Sufficiency

R.C.S. (RC Sproul)

Question 2

Relevance

Answer 2

Is the evidence relevant to the conclusion?

Question 3

Clarity

Answer 3

Is the Evidence unambiguous?

Question 4

Sufficiency

Answer 4

Is there enough evidence to make the conclusion more likely than not?

Question 5

Mnemonic for Fallacies of Relevance

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Mnemonic for Fallacies of Sufficiency

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Accident - misapplying a general rule to a specific case.

Answer 7

Accident - misapplying a general rule to a specific case.

Question 8

Fallacies of Sufficiency -

Answer 8

Hasty Generalization - Drawing a conclusion from an insufficient example

Suppressed Evidence - deliberately leaving out evidence that would weaken one’s conclusion.

Question 9

Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Argumentum Ad Hominem

Answer 9

(Argument against the person)

Question 10

Fallacies of Relevance - Emotional Irrelevance - Argumentum ad Baculum

Answer 10

Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to the Stick)

Question 11

Fallacies of Relevance - Emotional Irrelevance - Argumentum ad Misericordiam

Answer 11

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

Question 12

Fallacies of Relevance - Emotional Irrelevance -

Argumentum ad Populum

Answer 12

Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People)

Question 13

Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Red Herring

Answer 13

Red Herring - Irrelevant information to draw attention away from thesis.

Question 14

Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Ignoratio Elenchi

Answer 14

Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the point) - Drawing the wrong conclusion from the evidence.

Question 15

Fallacies of Relevance - Shifting Focus - Straw Man

Answer 15

Straw Man - oversimplifying an opponent’s argument to defeat it.

Question 16

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Answer 16

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause) - Confusing Correlation with Causation

Question 17

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Slippery Slope

Answer 17

Slippery Slope - Predicting Negative Consequences with insufficient evidence

Question 18

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Weak Analogy

Answer 18

Weak Analogy - drawing conclusions from cases that are insufficiently parallel

Question 19

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Answer 19

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to authority, unqualified) - using the wrong kind of authority as a witness

Question 20

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Answer 20

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) - asserting something based on the lack of evidence against it.

Question 21

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Petitio Principii

Answer 21

Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) - assuming as a premise something that itself needs to be established first.

Question 22

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Complex Question

Answer 22

Complex Question - posing two questions in one, or hiding a question within a question.

Question 23

Fallacies of Sufficiency - False Dichotomy

Answer 23

False Dichotomy - to assert an exclusive disjunction when more alternatives are possible.

Question 24

Fallacies of Sufficiency - Suppressed Evidence

Answer 24

Suppressed Evidence - deliberately leaving out evidence that would weaken one’s conclusion.

Question 25

Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Equivocation

Answer 25

Equivocation - applying different definitions to a single term in an argument.

Question 26

Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Amphiboly

Answer 26

Amphiboly - drawing a conclusion from a grammatical ambiguity.

Question 27

Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Composition

Answer 27

Composition - Asserting what’s true of the parts must be true of the whole.

Question 28

Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Division

Answer 28

Division - Asserting what’s true of the whole must be true of the parts.

Question 29

Fallacies of Clarity/Ambiguity - Natural Fallacy

Answer 29

Natural Fallacy - confusing what is natural with that which is good.

Question 30

Mnemonic for fallacies of clarity/ambiguity

Answer 30

Please insert here…

Question 31

Formal Error (error in form or structure)

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

Four Arguments for God

Answer 32

Cosmological
Teleological (Design)
Ontological
Moral

Question 33

Cosmological Argument for God

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

Teleological (design) Argument for God

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Ontological Argument for God

Answer 35

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.