Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tests > Philosophy final > Flashcards

Philosophy final Flashcards

0
Q

Analogues

A

Items being compared.

Have primary and secondary analogues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Analogical reasoning

A

Reasoning that depends on a comparison of instances. If instances are sufficiently similar, the decision reached in the end is usually a good one. But if they are not sufficiently similar, the decision may not be good.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Principles useful for evaluating most arguments from analogy

A
  1. Relevance 2. Number of similarities 3. The nature and degree of diasanalogy 4. Number of primary analogues 5. Diversity among the primary analogues 6. Specificity of the conclusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Aalogical arguments in law

A

Based on precedents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Differences of analogical arguments used inlaw

A
  1. Smilarity is more elusive and is up to creativity of lawyers to find similarities in cases
  2. Not all primary analogues (ex. Previous cases) hold up same weight
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Is an analogical argument inductive or deductive?

A

Inductivd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Two things being compared in ‘argument from analogy is’

A

Called analogues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Primary analogues

A

Analogue mentioned in the premise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Secodnary analogue

A

Aalogue mentioned in the conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Moral reasoning

A

Analogues are useful in consteucting arguments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Three kinds of cause

A

Sufficient condition
Necessary condition
Sufficient and necessary condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Mill’s methods

A 
Method of agreement
Method of difference
Join menthod of agreement and difference
Method of residues
Method of concomitant variation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Mill’s methods and science

A

Te methods of agreement, difference, and concomitant variation resemble the methods used by scientists to identify casual connections

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Method of agreement

A

Identifies necessary conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Method of difference

A

Identifies sufficient conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Join method of agreement and difference

A

Identifies sufficient and necessary conditions

16
Q

Method of residues

A

Ientifies generic casual connections

17
Q

Mthod of concomitant variation

A

Ientifies generic casual connections

18
Q

Hypothetical reasoning

A

Used to solve a problem when solution is not readily apparent

19
Q

Four basic stages of hypothetical reasoning

A

Occurance of a problem
Formulating a hypthesis
Drawing implications from the hypothesis
Testing the implications

20
Q

Four examples of hypothetical reasoning from science

A

Radium by marie curie
Neptune by adams and leverrier
Atmospheric pressure by torricelli
Refutation of spontaneous generation by louis pasteur

21
Q

Kinds of hypothesis

A

Empirical

Theoretical

22
Q

Empirical hypothesis

A

Can be proved true or false

23
Q

Theoretical hypothesisq

A

Can be confirmed in various degrees

24
Q

Criteria that bear on the tentarive acceptance of hypothesis

A 
Adequacy (does the hypothesis fit the facts?)
Internal coherence (are the component ideas with other hypotheses?)
External consistency (ads there conflicts withother hypothesis?)
Frutifulness (are new ideas suggested for future analysis?)
25
Q

Criteria that bear on the distinction between science and superstitipn

A

Evidentiary support, objectivity, integrity

26
Q

Evidentiary support

A

Superstitious hypothesis

  • tend to lack supporting evidence
  • evidence is based on observations of the natural world
  • anecdotal evidwnce is usually not acceptable
  • experiemnts must be replicable
  • hypothesis must framed in precise language
  • hypothesis mustne disconfirable
  • ad hoc modifications must be avoided
  • simple explanations are better than complex ones
  • best hypotheses lead to predictions that turn out to be true
  • superstitious hypothesis never lead to striking, new insights that turn out to be true
27
Q

Objectviity

A
  • beliefs grounded in emotion are not well founded
  • well founded beliefs are not rooted in the preachings of a guru
  • mental laziness and magical thinking must be avoided
  • media is responsible for reinforcing magical thinking
  • placebo effect is responsible for many apparent cures
  • perceptuons are affected by expectstions
  • hallucinations can distort the content of perception
  • confabulAtion can distort the content of memory
28
Q

Integrity

A
  • superstition often rests on fake evidence
  • practitoners of superstituon ignore bad predictions that arise in connection with their practice
  • they ignore coherence problems in their hypothesis
  • they ifnore conflicts between their hypotheses and other well confirmed hypotheses
  • scientists work on such problems until they are solved

Tests (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions