Philosophy Test - Metaphysics Flashcards
What is the ‘practical man’, as Russell describes him?
The ‘practical man’ is one who is only capable of recognizing physical, and material needs, such as food, water, and shelter - needed for survival - and fails to recognize that the mind has needs as well.
A man who is not “practical” would not recognize philosophy
What kind of knowledge does philosophy aim for? (according to Bertrand Russell)
The knowledge it aims for is the endless answers that philosophic questions cause, and the development of The Self because the choices that most resonate with a philosopher, are entirely reliant on their life experiences.
What is the chief value of philosophy?
The chief value of philosophy is that the philosopher is forced to think on a greater scale - one of the outer world as a whole - beyond the individual world we typically go about in our day-to-day. This allows the philosopher to feel free of the customs they have encountered in their private lives and seek a wave of calmness as they realize how small their world is in comparison to the world around them.
How is the life of the ‘instinctive man’ inherently limited?
The life of the instinctive man is inherently limited because he is forced to remain in the world of his private life - one that only consists of his customs and those of his family and friends - this prevents him from experiencing the outer world and the freedom it provides.
- After reading the article, what is Russell attempting to say about how the philosophic mind enlarges itself? In other words, what is to be gained by philosophic contemplation?
Russell is trying to say that by thinking philosophically one can meet the needs of the mind as philosophy produces endless indefinite answers to questions that cause one to consider the outer world.
By considering the outer world, the customs of the private world are left behind and a calmness is found as one realizes their existence is not as stressful as it appears.
Why Take Philosophy?
Reason #1 - You don’t have a choice.
It seems as though all humans, ever, orient their lives around ideas about what reality is like, that they believe explains their experiences, and ideas about what reality and human beings should be like.
Human beings seem to need these ideas, perhaps because they are not instinctive to us. We are not born with a reason to exist, other than simply existing. We want to know. So we search for reasons.
Why Take Philosophy?
Reason #2 - We’re wrong, like, a lot.
Looking through history, even quickly, shows that many or most of the philosophies and ideologies of the past are no longer viewed as being correct, or moral, or both.
So every generation and every culture attempts to discover their own meanings and their own reasons to behave in a particular way.
Why Take Philosophy?
Reason #3 - Philosophy and Science together.
Science (the thing that can make cars, electron microscopes, green technology, your phone and satellites) isn’t separate from philosophy. Philosophy simply asks the big huge questions, and science takes it from there.
Why Take Philosophy?
Reason #4 - Your Own Philosophy will Determine your Future.
You can find these answers, or someone else will just make you believe their answers. There’s no other option.
“This is your life, and it’s ending one minute at a time.”
Why Take Philosophy?
Reason #5 - Ideas are Ridiculously Powerful.
Our ideas guide our actions - good or bad. Just in the 1900s, the idea of Nazism led to millions of people dead. The idea of Stalinism killed millions as well. People kill and are killed based on their religious ideas. The idea that your country is superior or your people are superior leads us to kill each other all the time.
Conversely, the idea of human rights has benefited people greatly. The simple philosophy of sharing leads people to do great things every day. The concept of empathy brings us closer to understanding and caring for each other - even total strangers.
The ideas in your head are, in many ways, literally a matter of life and death.
Ultimately… Your ideas, your philosophies…
Will shape your life.
Field #1 - Logic
Logic is the study of valid argument forms. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians focused on a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic has two broad divisions:
mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.
Field #2 - Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of being and the world.
Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology
This is the big one: it is the search for ultimate categories that will help us understand the universe and our place in it.
Past topics include existence, essence, time, space, God, self, and cause.
Stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath – metaphysics is now mostly pre-scientific and mathematical in nature.
Cosmology is
the study of the Universe in its totality, and by extension, humanity’s place in it.
The study of the universe has a long history involving science, philosophy and religion.
Ontology is
the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.
Ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
Field #3 - Epistemology
Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and limitations of knowledge.
It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?
Do we really know anything, and if so, what?
And how do we know it? And how do we know that we know it? Etc….you get the point
Note: epistemology currently centres on the issues of language.
“What do you know?” has taken a backseat to “What do you mean?”
Field #4 - Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.
Which actions are right and which ends are good
Are actions good if they produce good results or if the intention is good?
Its practical stuff – think TV’s Dexter – Am I a good person doing bad things or a bad person doing good things?
Field #5 – Social/Political Philosophy
Political philosophy is the study of concepts such as liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority:
what they are, why (or if) they are needed
what makes a government legitimate
what rights and freedoms it should protect and why
what form it should take and why
what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any
when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.
Field #6 - Aesthetics
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty.
It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensory-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.
More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as “critical reflection on art, culture and nature.”
Philosophy of education
how and why should we educate our population?
Philosophy of religion
subset of Metaphysics, more in-depth
Philosophy of history/historiography
how do we study history? How have others studied it and what does that say about them?
Philosophy of science
Concerning with the assumptions and foundations of science
Philosophy of language –
issues surrounding language, our use of it, and its relationship to meaning and reality
Feminist philosophy
as women are an often overlooked group in philosophy, it attempts to re-evaluate traditional philosophy from a feminist perspective
Environmental philosophy
concerning with our place in the natural world – generally a subset of ethics
Business philosophy
aims and means of business – subset of ethics
Medical philosophy
another ethics subset
Philosophy of the mind
studies the nature of the mind and mental events
A government official, when examining tax exemptions, has to determine what qualifies as a religious group, and what does not.
Metaphysics
A neuroscientist in his examinations of the human brain, begins to wonder how complex processes, like human emotions are created by the brain.
Epistemology
A pacifist, when conscripted during the World War II, has to decide whether there is such a thing as “good violence”.
Ethics
A physicist, upon researching subatomic particles, confirms that the space between particles takes up more space than the particles themselves, and therefore, most objects are mostly made of nothing.
Metaphysic
An orthodox clergyman, in a constant debate regarding the nature of evolution, wonders whether religious texts were meant to be taken as metaphor.
Historiography
An ESL teacher marvels at how children seem to be able to pick up numerous languages very quickly, while adults cannot.
Epistemology
The World Wildlife Fund, while discussing the protection of endangered animals, wonders whether protecting some animals is worth the effort if they seem doomed to extinction. (pandas)
Ethics
A child psychologist while working with troubled teens and seeing a lack of success and progress, begins to question the existence of free will.
Metaphysics
A devout churchgoer, overwhelmed by the amount of suffering in the world, wonders why a good God would allow evil to exist.
Philosophy of religion – subset of Metaphysics
Ethics
An environmental group discusses how they can balance development, economic growth and the protection of the environment.
Ethics - Environmental philosophy
While learning about methodology in education, a teachers college student wonders if anyone actually knows how people learn things.
Epistemology - Philosophy of education
A mathematician uses his calculations to example how he believes that the universe is actually a “multiverse” composed of up to 26 dimensions.
Metaphysics
What are the three questions that Rand refers to?
The three questions that Rand says most men spend their days struggling to evade are; “Where am I?” “How do I know it?” and “What should I do?”
What is metaphysics, and what is its corollary question?
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence
Asks the corollary question “How do I know it?”
How is politics, related to your opinions in the field of ethics?
This is because the answers provided by ethics determine how one person thinks they should treat another person and in turn, how one thinks the government should treat its people.
How have people been influenced by the works of philosophers, even if they didn’t know it? Give a few examples from the text, that you have heard people say in their own lives.
People have been influenced by the works of philosophers even if they don’t know it, as they might assume that they never think philosophically and are always immediately working with specific, concrete, real-life problems. However, in order to work with those problems in the first place, they have to use philosophy.
examples
People are constantly spewing philosophical thoughts; “Don’t be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything” comes from David Hume
“This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice” comes from Plato,
“That was a rotten thing to do, but it’s only human, nobody is perfect in this world” comes from Augustine
Complete the rest of the reading. According to Rand, what is the point of studying philosophy? Summarize her perspective into your own words.
According to Rand, the point of studying philosophy is for self-protection and the defence of truth, justice, freedom, and any value you ever held or may ever hold.
Think back to your reading from Bertrand Russell. List three ways in which you think that the views of Ayn Rand differ from Bertrand Russell’s on the importance of philosophy
- The Different Roles of Philosophy in Our Lives - Individual vs. Collective, Wonder vs. Survival
Rand believes that philosophy is innately used for the survival of an individual and their happiness while Russell views philosophy as not innate but a journey people choose to go on to achieve a similar sense of wonder and understanding of the world around them. - Rational Thinking - The Limitations of Reason vs. An Emphasis on Reason
While Rand is so focused on using one’s reason to protect their own principles, Russell believes that one needs to expand beyond personal reason to foster a true understanding of reality. - Impact of Philosophy on Lives - Indirect Effects vs. Direct Effects
Russell sees how philosophy would have indirect approaches and recognizes that philosophy could free someone from the stressors of their private life and thus, have positive effects on the individual. Rand sees a direct correlation between an individual life as philosophy will guide their actions and ultimately, if they achieve happiness. Rand does not take into account factors beyond philosophy - she recognizes it as everything, down to survival. Russell separates philosophy from survival and thinks of survival instincts as those of a man who is not philosophically thinking.
LOGIC Definition
LOGIC - is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.
Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.
Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies.
Fallacy
FALLACY
1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: that the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2. a misleading or unsound argument.
Deductive versus Inductive
Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms.
Deductive reasoning versus Inductive reasoning EXAMPLES
Deductive: All living people have a heart beat. You are alive, therefore you must have a heartbeat
Inductive: The burgers at “The Grind” are good. The pizza at “The Grind” is good. Therefore everything at “The Grind” is good.
The Problems with Deductive & Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is always correct if the initial premise is correct. But correct initial premises are difficult to find sometimes without relying on Inductive reasoning.
Example – How do I KNOW that all living people have heart beats?
Inductive reasoning is all based on very particular and limited knowledge, and can therefore be wrong.
Example: Can I really conclude with 100% accuracy that EVERYTHING at “The Olive” is good?
Inductive Reasoning Problems
Lazy induction
Hasty induction
Lazy induction
not drawing a conclusion strong enough for the evidence suggests. “I failed math in Grade 10 and Grade 11, but I’m sure I’ll do okay in Grade 12.
Hasty induction
basing a conclusion on an insufficient number of premises or observations. “That kid just failed his math test. He must be totally stupid.”
The Liar Paradox
A man tells you that he is a liar.
If he is telling the truth than he isn’t lying.
If he is lying than he isn’t a liar because he is lying?
The Present Paradox
What is the ‘present’….or ‘right now’?
A minute? A Second? A Nano-second?
Any unit of time (a minute) has a beginning, a middle and an end….but the beginning would be the past and the end would be the future.
Therefore only the middle would be the present, but can’t the middle also be divided into 3 parts?
It doesn’t matter how small the unit of time you have, the middle can ALWAYS be subdivided into parts.
If the present has any duration it can be subdivided. Therefore the present has NO duration.
But something with no duration by definition, does not exist.
The Runner Paradox
To complete a race, a runner must make it halfway first. But before she can make it halfway, she must make it ¼ of the way. But before that, she must make it ⅛ of the way, and 1/16 of the way, and 1/32 of the way.
The runner has an infinite amount of tasks to complete, but will do it, in a finite amount of time.
Theseus’ Ship
Not so much a paradox, but a problem of identity.
Theseus has a magnificent ship, but over time, pieces begin to rot and are replaced.
After enough time, every board has been replaced with a fresh piece of wood.
Is it still Theseus’ ship?
Theseus’s Ship - 2nd part
Let’s say as pieces are replaced, the old pieces are put in a museum. Theseus’ develops a method to ‘fix’ rot, and he uses the old pieces to reconstruct the ship.
Which ship is Theseus’ ship?
The Barber Paradox
The barber only shaves men that do not shave themselves.
If he doesn’t shave himself, he must shave himself.
If he DOES shave himself, he does not shave himself.
Formal Logic is the science of deductive reasoning
Definition of DR
Definition: “reasoning from known premises, or premises presumed to be true, to a certain conclusion.”
In contrast, most everyday arguments involve inductive reasoning.
reasoning from uncertain premises to probabalistic conclusions
“Inference-making”
Inductive Reasoning…
…is often incorrect.
Hasty Induction – making a conclusion on too few examples.
Ie. That long-haired boy smokes pot. Therefore all long-haired boys must smoke pot.
Lazy Induction – NOT making a conclusion, when the examples lead you too.
Ie. I have lost the last 134 times I bought lottery tickets. But this next one is going to be a winner!
Formal logic cannot establish the truth of the premises. The truth of the premises must be
presumed, or taken as a given.
In deduction, proofs are always valid or invalid.
There is no
middle ground.
A deductive argument can’t be “sort of” valid.
By contrast, everyday arguments enjoy degrees of probability–plausible, possible, reasonable, believable, etc.
The form or structure of a deductive argument determines
its validity
The conclusion is said to be “entailed” in, or contained in
the premises.
The terms used in a syllogism must be defined precisely
If the meanings of key terms are vague or ambiguous, or change during the course of a deductive argument, then
n o valid conclusion may be reached.
Major premise: All pitchers hold water
Minor premise: Tom Glavin is a pitcher
Conclusion: Therefore, Tom Glavin holds water
(the term “pitcher” has two different meanings in this argument, so no valid conclusion can be reached)
Example of a valid deductive argument
Major premise: All cats have 9 lives
minor premise: “Whiskers” is a cat
conclusion: Therefore, Whiskers has 9 lives
(Note: it doesn’t matter whether cats really have 9 lives; the argument is premised on the assumption that they do.)
An argument is valid if
its structure conforms to the rules of formal logic.
An argument is sound if
it is valid, and its premises are true.
An argument is valid if its structure conforms to the rules of formal logic.
An argument is sound if it is valid, and its premises are true.
Thus validity is a
prerequisite for soundness, but an argument needn’t be sound to be valid.
If sound, then valid too
If valid, not necessarily sound
major premise: All cats are pink
minor premise: Felix is a cat
conclusion: Therefore, Felix is pink
example of
a valid, but unsound argument
(Cats aren’t pink, which makes the first premise untrue. Validity, however, presumes the truth of the premises.)
major premise: Anthrax is not a communicable disease
minor premise: Communicable diseases pose the greatest threat to public health
conclusion: Therefore, anthrax does not pose the greatest threat to public health
Example of a
valid and sound argument
(The premises are true and the conclusion is valid, that is, it necessarily follows from the premises)
The … is a common form of deductive reasoning.
syllogism
There are 3 different types of syllogisms
categorical (universal premises)
hypothetical (if-then premises)
disjunctive (either-or premises)
categorical
(universal premises)
hypothetical
(if-then premises)
disjunctive
(either-or premises)
all syllogisms follow the basic form:
major premise
minor premise
conclusion
Categorical syllogisms rely on
universal premises
Example of a … categorical syllogism:
major premise: All Christians believe Jesus is the son of God.
minor premise: Biff is a Christian.
conclusion: Biff believes Jesus is the son of God.
valid
(Note: validity isn’t affected by whether the premises are true or not. Obviously, other religions don’t accept Jesus as the son of God.)
Hypothetical syllogisms use
“if-then” premises
Example of a … hypothetical syllogism:
Major premise: If Biff likes Babbs, then he’ll ask her to the prom.
Minor premise: Biff likes Babbs,
Conclusion: Therefore, he’ll ask her to the prom.
valid
Hypothetical syllogisms use … premises
“if-then”
Example of a … disjunctive syllogism:
Major premise: Either Babbs will get her navel pierced, or she’ll get a tongue stud.
Minor premise: Babbs didn’t get her navel pierced.
Conclusion: Therefore, Babbs got a tongue stud.
valid
Practice syllogism
Major premise: Any creature with six legs is an insect.
Minor premise: . Dr. Gass has six legs.
Conclusion: Therefore, Dr. Gass is an insect.
What kind of syllogism is this? (categorical, hypothetical, or disjunctive)
Are the premises true?
Is the conclusion valid?
Is the argument sound (true premises and a valid conclusion)
categorical
Valid, but unsound
Deductive invalidity
- Affirming the consequent
For example
Students who plagiarize are expelled from school
Rex was expelled from school
Rex must have plagiarized
Deductive invalidity
- Denying the antecedent
For example
If you exceed the speed limit, you’ll get a ticket.
I’m not exceeding the speed limit.
Therefore, I won’t get a ticket.
Deductive invalidity
- Undistributed middle term:
for examoke
All humans need air to breathe
All dogs need air to breathe
Therefore, all humans need dogs
What, if anything, is wrong with this syllogism?
All rock stars want to become movie stars
Morton wants to become a movie star
Therefore, Morton must be a rock star
affirming the consequent
denying the antecedent
undistributed middle term
valid syllogism
Undistributed Middle Term
What, if anything, is wrong with this syllogism?
Anyone who has lived in California for more than a few years has experienced an earthquake
Nadine has lived in California for more than a few years
Nadine has experienced an earthquake
affirming the consequent
denying the antecedent
undistributed middle term
valid syllogism
Answer: Valid Syllogism
What, if anything, is wrong with this syllogism?
Anyone who has tried heroin has tried marijuana
Naomi hasn’t tried heroin
Therefore, Naomi hasn’t tried marijuana
affirming the consequent
denying the antecedent
undistributed middle term
valid syllogism
Answer: Denying the Antecedent
If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, not B
What, if anything, is wrong with this syllogism?
All Christian fundamentalists are opposed to lying
Nadine is opposed to lying
Nadine is a Christian fundamentalist
affirming the consequent
denying the antecedent
undistributed middle term
valid syllogism
Answer: Affirming the Consequent
If A, then B
B
Therefore, A
- If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet
- Jane has a cat
- Therefore, Jane has a pet
Sound
- If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet
- Jane has a pet
- Therefore, Jane has a cat
Invalid, Affirming the Consequent
- If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet
- It is not the case that Jane has a pet
- Therefore, it is not the case that Jane has a cat
Sound
- If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet
- It is not the case that Jane has a cat
- Therefore, it is not the case that Jane has a pet
Invalid, denying the antecedent
- If pigs fly, then hell has frozen over
- Pigs fly
- Therefore, hell has frozen over
Valid
- If Bush is president, then a Republican is president
- A Republican is president
- Therefore, Bush is president
Invalid, affirming the consequent
- If E.T. phones home, then blue is Joe’s favourite colour
- It is not the case that blue is Joe’s favourite colour
- Therefore, it is not the case that E.T phones home
Valid
- It is not the case that Yoda is green
- If Darth Vader is Luke’s Dad, then Yoda is green
- Therefore, it is not the case that Darth Vader is Luke’s dad
Invalid, denying the antecedent
- Dan plays the cello
- If Mary plays the harp, then Owen plays the clarinet
- Therefore, it is not the case that Mary plays the harp
Invalid
- All smurfs are snorks
- All ewoks are snorks
- Therefore, All smurfs are ewoks
Invalid, undistributed middle term
- Kate is a lawyer
- Therefore, Kate is a lawyer
Valid
- If it is morally permissible to kill an 8-month old fetus, then it is morally permissible to kill a newborn infant
- It is not the case that it is morally permissible to kill a newborn infant
- Therefore, it is not the case that it is morally permissible to kill an 8-month old fetus
Invalid, denying the antecedent
- If Rufus is a human being, then Rufus has a right to life
- It is not the case that Rufus is a human being
- Therefore, it is not the case that Rufus has a right to life
Valid
- All anarchists are socialists
- All socialists are totalitarians
- Therefore, all anarchists are totalitarians
Invalid, undistributed middle term
- No cat is a biped
- All kangaroos are bipeds
- Therefore, No cat is a kangaroo
Sound
- If there is order in the universe, then God exists
- There is order in the universe
- Therefore, God exists
Valid
- Amy joins the Army, or Mary joins the Marines
- It is not the case that Mary joins the Marines
- Therefore, Amy joins the Army
Sound
(Note: the word ‘OR’ is a logical term much like ‘if…then’, ‘therefore’ and ‘it is not the case that…’ Like these other terms, ‘OR’ is part of the structure or form of the argument, rather than the content.)
- Ariel joins the Air Force or Nancy joins the Navy
- Nancy joins the Navy
- Therefore, Ariel joins the Air Force
Invalid
Definition of a Fallacy:
Incorrect or flawed reasoning, that often may appear correct.
Attack on the Person
Aka an ad hominem fallacy
This attacks the person arguing in an attempt to undermine the argument.
A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”
B: “Well, you’ve never had a good grasp of biology…didn’t you fail science?? So this can’t be true.”
Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy (an aside)
People often MISUSE the ad hominem fallacy, by stating that ANY personal attack is an ad hominem.
This is not true. It is ONLY an ad hominem if it is used to discredit an argument.
Ex. “Margaret is really stupid.” – NOT ad hominem (just an insult)
Ex. “Margaret’s opinion is wrong because she is really stupid.” – this IS an ad hominem
If I dismiss an argument as an ad hominem, and it is NOT, then my usage of that term, is an ad hominem attack.
Appeal to Tradition
This avoids questioning the idea, and instead uses fact that past practices should allow the idea to exist.
“The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and even the British had slaves. We should realize that slavery is morally acceptable.”
Attack on the Motive
The credibility of the person or group is attacked as biased, or motivated by other concerns, but the idea is not questioned.
“We shouldn’t listen to Mr. Smith’s opinion. After all, he is really religious.”
Appeal to Popularity
An idea is given validity due to the fact that many people support it. (aka Bandwagon Argument)
Also can be an….
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Authority
An idea is given validity due to the fact that a seemingly important person supports it.
Straw Man Argument
Misrepresenting another person’s argument in a weaker form, and then attacking the weaker form of the argument.
“I cannot believe in Darwin’s theories, because I refuse to think that humans are descended from baboons.”
Appeal to Ignorance
Attempt to prove an idea by the fact that no evidence exists to the contrary.
“Well, it is difficult to find evidence of the UFO invasions in the past, because the government hides it all from us.”
Begging the Question/Circular Argument
Occurs when the conclusion exists in the premise, usually in a slightly different form
Equivocation
Occurs when a word changes its meaning over the course of an argument.
“Power tends to corrupt. Knowledge is power. Therefore, knowledge corrupts.”
Loaded Term
A term/phrase is “loaded” when it is used to drive a particular conclusion using terms that carry a particular definition or emotion.
Pro-life
Terrorist
Regime
Elite
Bureaucrat
Slippery Slope – Argumentum ad Absurdum
When an action or idea is attacked because to would lead to an undesirable chain of events is taken to (an absurd) conclusion.
“Why would we want to legalize gay marriage? If we don’t keep the definition of marriage the same, it could lead to polygamy! Or marriage with animals! What would stop it!”
==== this is an Argumentum ad Absurdum
Accident
Accident – When a general rule is applied to an exceptional situation.
“We spend every summer up at the cottage – so I don’t care if my wife is in the hospital…I am going to the cottage.”
Converse Accident
like hasty induction, it occurs when an exceptional situation is used to create a general rule.
“I saw a bus stop here once. So even if there isn’t a sign, I am waiting here
for the bus.”
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT OUTWEIGH DATA
Composition
When it is assumed that the characteristic of a part will transfer to the whole.
“Team A has really good players. It must be a good team.”
Decomposition
When it is assumed that the characteristics of the whole can be transferred to each part.
“Team B is really good. Every player on that team must be good.”
False Dichotomy
When an argument is presented so as to appear as though there are only 2 options.
“You’re either with us or against us.”
“You don’t agree with the Liberals? You must be a Conservative voter.”
Burden of Proof Reversal
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the assertion, not those that disagree.
Assertions without proof, can be disregarded without proof.
- Thou shall not attack the person’s character - instead attack the idea.
It is too easy to attack someone based on irrelevant details. An ad hominem attack, doesn’t help your argument - it just makes it sound like you cannot argue your actual point.
“Why should I believe you, when you (insert irrelevant detail here)?”
- Thou shall not misrepresent the other person’s idea.
AKA A Strawman argument is when someone misrepresents an idea and then argues with the new, weaker version they just created.
A - “We should give more money to social services for those that are struggling financially”
B - “But, if we give all of our money to those that don’t work, no one will ever work again and we’ll lose all of our money.”
- Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.
A singular example, or an anecdotal story does not disapprove data. “You can do anything - my grandpa came here with nothing and no education. He’s a millionaire now!” While it may be a true story, 1 person doing it, does not mean anyone can.
If someone cites a study that says 13.7% of Americans have no access to health insurance (Gallup, Uninsured Rate Rises to 4 Year High, 2019), saying that YOU do, does not disprove the statistic.
IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS but small amounts of evidence do no disprove large amounts of evidence.
- Thou shall not argue a point by assuming one of its premises to be true.
“Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes are deadly.” While this statement may be correct, it isn’t saying anything meaningful. “Smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes are deadly” isn’t a good argument. It is a tautology.
“Everyone wants an iPhone because it’s one of the hottest phones on the market!” - same idea. It’s popular because it’s popular?
“Abortion is wrong because it is the murder of babies.” - Is a ‘fetus’ really a baby? That’s the disagreement, and you can’t just sneak it in as an accepted premise.
- Thou shall not assume something is a CAUSE just because it happened first.
A restaurant introduces a new menu item, aggressively promotes it, and sales increase.
Must be that people love the new item, right? Or could it be just that the new promotions have been effective? Without more information, you can’t know.
“The women’s rights movement led to an increase in divorces, and crime has gone up.”
Just because A happened before B, doesn’t mean A CAUSED B to happen.
- Thou shall not reduce the argument to 2 possibilities.
There are often FAR more than just two possibilities.
“If you want better schools, you will have to raise taxes and pay more. If you don’t want to raise taxes, you can’t have better schools.”
What about more efficiency? What about streamlining or removing expenses unrelated to student learning? What about curriculum changes? Etc….
This a called a false dichotomy.
- Thou shall not argue that something must be true or false if we don’t have enough information or BECAUSE of the lack of information.
“The government is run by lizard people that live underground! I know it’s true because SOO many people attack the idea when I say it - they’re all IN ON IT!”
“There are thousands and thousands of doctors that don’t believe the Covid story, but they are obviously being silenced so we never hear from them.”
This is called an Argument from Ignorance.
“Lots of things are invisible, but we don’t see them.”
- Thou shall assume that the burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion, not the one questioning the claim.
A: “Barack Obama never should have been president because he was born in Kenya”
B: “Do you have any proof?”
A: “It’s not my job to teach you, open a book. Besides, they won’t release his long form birth certificate.”
Notice this problematic for TWO reasons. They aren’t proving their statement AND they are saying that not having the information proves something.
Assertions without evidence should be disregarded without evidence.
- Thou shall not assume a connection exists when one hasn’t been demonstrated.
“You will follow all of my rules because you are my child. Now go and practice the oboe!”
Why should anyone practice the oboe simply because of a biological relationship? There MAY be a point here, but this isn’t it. Can my cousins demand that I play the harmonica?
- Thou shall not assume popular ideas are true
“It was on the New York Times bestseller list, so it MUST be a great book!”
“This song has 10 million Spotify listens this month…it’s an awesome song.”
Popularity =/= quality or truth.
- Who is Bo Seo?
Bo Seo is Harvard’s former debate coach
- What is the problem with our society’s ability to argue and disagree?
We do not see debate as learning anymore and see them as personal attacks that make us defensive
The skills of good argument have been declining
Argument is no longer a skill and is now something we jump into out of defensiveness
We fail to realize what arguments can do for us - a source of good and a source of help
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Aristotle was one of the first philosophers to undertake a comprehensive study of the reasoning process.
He essentially developed what would become known as “formal logic” – dedicated to the study of deductive reasoning
He was a student of Plato, and he disagreed with Plato about everything.
SOCRATES -> PLATO -> ARISTOTLE -> ALEX THE GREATO
Order of Philosophy
SOCRATES -> PLATO -> ARISTOTLE -> ALEX THE GREAT
REASONING DEFINED:
The process of using logic and critical thinking to make informed decisions and solve problems. It involves analyzing and evaluating information, considering different perspectives and options and making judgements based on evidence and reasoning.
A Proposition
A proposition is a statement that is considered either true or false.
Questions and commands are not propositions because we do not label them as true or false.
Your room is messy.
We are in the kitchen.
You are a snail.
The truth or falsity of a proposition can be a matter of debate, but they are all propositions.
The Three Laws
Aristotle Logic
The Law of Identity
The Law of NON-contradiction
The Law of the Excluded Middle
The Law of Identity
A is A
Whatever a thing is, it isn’t something else.
This may seem trivial, but the identity of an object depends on the properties that it possesses. It cannot have those properties, and at the same time, NOT have those properties.
Without this, the world would be incomprehensible.
The Law of NON-contradiction
A proposition cannot be both true and false in the same respect.
“It is September” cannot be both a true and a false statement.
A proposition cannot contradict itself. “It is Friday and not Friday.”
