Philosophy Final Part 2 Flashcards
difference between thinking and reasoning
reasoning is when you consider reasons for or against a claim
inference
reach line of reasoning used in an argument
argument
putting a line of reasoning into words using premises so people can follow it
standard form
p1, p2,…
c1, c2, ….
deductive argument
conclusion is true if premises are true
inductive argument
adequate support is provided for conclusion, but its not guaranteed
how to identify missing premises
search for a premise that:
- the author could be taking for granted
- makes the argument as good as possible
truth
correspondence of reality with reality itself
empirical
can be settled by observation
i.e. observed by senses or sciences
non-empirical
cannot be known through observations i.e its always wrong to lie, all bachelors are male
generality
has to do with the size of the circle within which things are encompassed
vagueness
how fuzzy are the boundaries
ambiguity
is it unclear what the term means (i.e. borderline cases, baldness)
loaded language
certain terms have positive or negative connotations
i.e. thrifty vs cheap
strawmanning
trying to refute an argument someone didn’t mean to say (assuming they’re making the worst possible argument)
referential ambiguity
words can be interpreted in two different ways
grammatical ambiguity
sentence can be interpreted in two different ways
logical strength
how well the premises would support the conclusion if they were true
sound
premises would support the conclusion if they were true
cogent
argument that’s premises are convincing to the audience and they realized its logically strong
deductive validity
if the premises were true, they would guarantee the truth of the conclusion
modus ponens
if P then Q
P
Q
modus tollens
if P then Q
not Q
Not P
T structure
premises only support the conclusion when taken together
V structure
premises provide individual support for the conclusion
what it takes for a deductive argument to be invalid
the conclusion does not follow from the premises, assuming they are true
sentential logic
replacing simple sentences with placeholders but keeping sentential operators
fallacies
general categories of bad argument that are commonly used
begging the question
attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using the conclusion as a premise
false dichotomy
wrongly assuming there are only two alternatives to consider
red herring
deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument
virtue/guilt by association
accepting/rejecting a claim because of the wonderful/problematic people associated with it
appeal to the person (ad hominem)
rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself
equivocation
lack of logic strength due to ambiguity (i.e. phrase “no man”)
appeal to ignorance
arguing that the lack of evidence against a claim establishes the claim
appeal to tradition/novelty
arguing that a claim must be true because it is part of tradition
appeal to authority/popularity
duh
anecdotal evidence
using anecdotes as data to establish a claim, typically too few in number and too subject to selection effects
slippery slope
assuming without good reason that taking a step will lead to further, undesirable steps
decision-point fallacy
arguing that because a line of distinction cannot be drawn at any point in the process, there are no differences or gradiations in the proccess
burden of proof
when a controversial claim is put forward, the person making the claim is expected to offer reasons for it
counter-arguments
as argument intended to show that the conclusion of another argument is false, does not refute the argument
method of absurd examples
showing that an argument form is not valid by providing an instance of that form in which the premises could be true while the conclusion is false
descriptive statistics
recording and analyzing data about observations
easy for it to be misleading because you have to choose what to focus on
argumentative statistics
making inferences from samples to unobserved populations
i.e. staistical syllogisms and inductive generalizations
resistance to outlier effects
median and mode
inductive generalization
arguing from features of an unoberserved population to features of an observed population (n% of observed G objects are F, therefore n% of all G objects are F)
statistical syllogism
arguing for a claim about a sample based on features of a population (n% of G objects are F, therefore a given G object is n% likely to be F)
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
“with the thing therefore because of it
the fallacy of assuming that because two factors are correlated, there must be a causal connection between the two
post hoc ergo propter hoc
“after the thing therefore because of that”
the fallacy of assuming that because B happens after A, A must have caused B
mere chance
a type of misleading correlation in which the correlation is a complete accident
p-value
the percent chance of getting the result by accident if the null hypothesis were true
reverse causation
swimmer’s body illusion
common cause
the events were caused by an outside force
side effect (placebo)
when A and B are correlated due to a mere side effect of one of the factors
placebo: a positive effect arising from the expectation that an intervention will be effective
regression to the mean
the tendency, when points lie outside the mean, for adjacent points to lie closer to the mean
confounding variables
a third factor responsible for the correlation between A and B, where not being aware of the factor might make one think that they are causally related
contributory cause
event that helps X occur but is neither necessary nor suficient
primary cause
the cause that stands out as the most out of the ordinary
causally necessary conditon
a condition that is required for the event to be casued
sufficient condition
a condition that guarantees the event will occur
proximate cause
a cause that is immediately responsible for the event
distal cause
a cause of the event that is responsible only through intermediate causes
Disjunctive Syllogism
Either P or Q
Not Q
P
Hypothetical Syllogism
If P, then Q
If Q, then R
If P, then R
