Philosophy Final Part 2 Flashcards

1
Q

difference between thinking and reasoning

A

reasoning is when you consider reasons for or against a claim

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

inference

A

reach line of reasoning used in an argument

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

argument

A

putting a line of reasoning into words using premises so people can follow it

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

standard form

A

p1, p2,…

c1, c2, ….

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

deductive argument

A

conclusion is true if premises are true

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

inductive argument

A

adequate support is provided for conclusion, but its not guaranteed

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

how to identify missing premises

A

search for a premise that:

  • the author could be taking for granted
  • makes the argument as good as possible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

truth

A

correspondence of reality with reality itself

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

empirical

A

can be settled by observation

i.e. observed by senses or sciences

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

non-empirical

A

cannot be known through observations i.e its always wrong to lie, all bachelors are male

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

generality

A

has to do with the size of the circle within which things are encompassed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

vagueness

A

how fuzzy are the boundaries

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

ambiguity

A

is it unclear what the term means (i.e. borderline cases, baldness)

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

loaded language

A

certain terms have positive or negative connotations

i.e. thrifty vs cheap

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

strawmanning

A

trying to refute an argument someone didn’t mean to say (assuming they’re making the worst possible argument)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

referential ambiguity

A

words can be interpreted in two different ways

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

grammatical ambiguity

A

sentence can be interpreted in two different ways

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

logical strength

A

how well the premises would support the conclusion if they were true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

sound

A

premises would support the conclusion if they were true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

cogent

A

argument that’s premises are convincing to the audience and they realized its logically strong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

deductive validity

A

if the premises were true, they would guarantee the truth of the conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

modus ponens

A

if P then Q
P
Q

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

modus tollens

A

if P then Q
not Q

Not P

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

T structure

A

premises only support the conclusion when taken together

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
V structure
premises provide individual support for the conclusion
26
what it takes for a deductive argument to be invalid
the conclusion does not follow from the premises, assuming they are true
27
sentential logic
replacing simple sentences with placeholders but keeping sentential operators
28
fallacies
general categories of bad argument that are commonly used
29
begging the question
attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using the conclusion as a premise
30
false dichotomy
wrongly assuming there are only two alternatives to consider
31
red herring
deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument
32
virtue/guilt by association
accepting/rejecting a claim because of the wonderful/problematic people associated with it
33
appeal to the person (ad hominem)
rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself
34
equivocation
lack of logic strength due to ambiguity (i.e. phrase "no man")
35
appeal to ignorance
arguing that the lack of evidence against a claim establishes the claim
36
appeal to tradition/novelty
arguing that a claim must be true because it is part of tradition
37
appeal to authority/popularity
duh
38
anecdotal evidence
using anecdotes as data to establish a claim, typically too few in number and too subject to selection effects
39
slippery slope
assuming without good reason that taking a step will lead to further, undesirable steps
40
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
41
burden of proof
when a controversial claim is put forward, the person making the claim is expected to offer reasons for it
42
counter-arguments
as argument intended to show that the conclusion of another argument is false, does not refute the argument
43
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
44
descriptive statistics
recording and analyzing data about observations | easy for it to be misleading because you have to choose what to focus on
45
argumentative statistics
making inferences from samples to unobserved populations | i.e. staistical syllogisms and inductive generalizations
46
resistance to outlier effects
median and mode
47
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)
48
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)
49
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
50
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
51
mere chance
a type of misleading correlation in which the correlation is a complete accident
52
p-value
the percent chance of getting the result by accident if the null hypothesis were true
53
reverse causation
swimmer's body illusion
54
common cause
the events were caused by an outside force
55
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
56
regression to the mean
the tendency, when points lie outside the mean, for adjacent points to lie closer to the mean
57
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
58
contributory cause
event that helps X occur but is neither necessary nor suficient
59
primary cause
the cause that stands out as the most out of the ordinary
60
causally necessary conditon
a condition that is required for the event to be casued
61
sufficient condition
a condition that guarantees the event will occur
62
proximate cause
a cause that is immediately responsible for the event
63
distal cause
a cause of the event that is responsible only through intermediate causes
64
Disjunctive Syllogism
Either P or Q Not Q P
65
Hypothetical Syllogism
If P, then Q If Q, then R If P, then R