SSR exam 1 Flashcards
justificiation
when we ask for a reason
argument
to attempt to persuade by giving good reasons
rhetoric
any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to believe desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief desire or action, but attempts to motivate that belief desire or action solely thought the power of the words used
premises
the supporting claims, he ones intended to give us reasons for accepting the conlcusion
proposition
factual content expressed by a declarative sentence on a particular occasion
an argument
a set of propositions of which one is a conclusion and the remainder are premises, intended as sport for the conclusion
indexicals
the meaning of an indexical changes relative to its context of use or relative to the person to whom it refers
inference bar
the line between premises and conclusions, purpose is to distinguish steps in reasoning. the bar should be read as ‘therefore’
implicit conclusions
conclusions sometimes remain unexpressed. they are only implied or suggested by the actual text or speech content, not explicitely expressed by it.
premise indicators
there are certain words that usually but not always indicate the presence of premises
justificiation
we want the person to give us an argument for why the action is reasonable or acceptable
criterion validity
whether you can establish that an instrument measures what it claims to measure through comparison to objective criteria
concurrent validity
when data are recorded simulateously using the new instrument and existing criteria
predicitive validity
when data from the new instrument are used to predict observations at a later point in time
content validity
with self report measures it is assessed the degree to which individual items represent the construct being measured, and if it covers full range of the construct
test retest reliabilty
reliable instrument will produce similar scores at both points in time
unsystematic variation
small differences in performance created by unknown factors
systematic variation
differences in performance created by a. specific experimental manipulation
leptokurtic
a distribution with many scores in the tails and pointy top
platykurtic
a distribution with negative kurtosis is thin in the tails and tends to be flatter than normal
mode
score that occurs most frequently in the data set
median
middle score when scores are ranked in order of magnitude
quantiles
values that split a data set into equal portions.
percentiles
points that split the data into 100 equal parts
noniles
points that split the data into nine equal parts
deviance
the difference between each score and the mean
sum of squared scores
add the squared deviances
logical benchmark
consistency of belief. making deductively valid inferences
probabilistic benchmark
consistency of degrees of belief. updating beliefs in accordance with rules of probability
rational decision benchmark
consistency of preference & choice. deciding in a manner that maximises expected utility
belief bias
existing assumptions are an obstacle to a fully rational analysis
normative
calculate relative frequency
fit
the degree to which a statistical model represents the data collected
central limit theorem
as samples get large, the sampling distribution has a normal distribution with a mean equal to the population mean
lexical ambiguity
property of individual words and phrases that occurs when the word or phrase has more than one meaning. thus two or more separate extensions
extenstion
the set or group of things to which an expression applies
syntactic ambiguity
occurs when the arrangement of words in a sentence is such that the sentence could be understood in more than one way (as expressing more than one proposition)
meaning of a word or expression is vague when
it is indefinite or if it is uncertain what is conveyed by the word in the context under consideration
primary connotation
something falls within the extension of a term if and only if these conditions are met
secondary connotation
characteristics that the things within the extension usually exhibit but not necessarily
metaphors
function by bringing only the secondary connotation of a word into play. a tsunami of islamisation
rhetorical questions
take the form of a question but indirectly assert a proposition , not really used to ask a question but make a point in a indirect way
irony
this takes the form of language that would convey the opposite of what they wish to convey, r something otherwise very different from it
implicitly relative
they make a comparison with some group of things but that comparison is not explicitly mentioned.
quantifiers
are words and phrases that tell us how many/much of something there are/is, or how often something happens
counterexamples
cases that we use to challenge the truth of a generalising claim
generalisations
a statement about a category of things
soft generalisations
when we want to express the idea that such and such tends to be true of certain things normally, typically generally usually on average for the most part.
hard generalisation
does intend it to apply without exception. such a generalisation is rightly conveyed by a quantifier such as ‘all, every no always never’
rhetorical force
not part of the propositional content that it expresses, rather it is the emotive or otherwise suggestive window dressing surrounding the proposition which may be used to persuade us
implicature
meaning which is not stated but which one can reasonably take to be intended given the context in which the sentence is written or uttered
definitions
tells us what it takes for something to qualify as a particular type of thing
fallacies
are argumentative, they give reasons why their conclusion should be accepted, but they constitute bad reasoning
rhetorical ploys
are non argumentative, some of these persuasive devices may pretend to provide reasons for accepting a claim but their real persuasive capacity depends on something non argumentative
trading on an equivocation
this ploy deliberately exploits the ambiguity, and in some cases the vagueness of a word or phrase in the given context. although nothing false is claimed the speaker or writer manages to influence our actions or beliefs by misleading us.
trading on implicature
tactic of using a statements implicature to mislead the audience
many questions aka leading question or complex question
tactic of posing a question that appears to seek an explanation for some proposition misleadingly implying that p is true ‘are you still beating your wife?
red herring
is still an attempt to persuade an argument ; it gives reasons for accepting a claim, just not good reasons
buzzwords
the technique of using fashionable or otherwise currently ‘hot’ words or phrases that are loaded with rhetorical power due to their rich secondary connotation
jargon
way of speaking or writing that uses words or phrases that are likely to be unfamiliar to most of the audience, or which uses familiar words in unfamiliar way
acronyms
series of initials used as though they are a word to provide an abbreviation for a name or phrase ‘lol, obj’ etc
spin
way of referring to techniques that employ rhetorical ploys to good effect in influencing peoples opinions
propositions
a set of premises advanced in support of a conclusion
principle of charity
we should always choose the best reconstruction of a given argument. that way we discover reasons for accepting or rejecting particular propositions advancing the cause of knowledge
inferences
extended arguments may contain more than one reference, and each one is subject to being valid or invalid.
an argument is valid when
it would be impossible for all the premises of the argument to be true, but the conclusion false
prescriptive claims
claims which state or express desires norms and moral rules
descriptive claims
claims that are fact stating
deductively sound argument
when an argument has accomplished its purpose ; that it has demonstrated its conclusion to be true.
deductively unsound
argument which has one or more false premises, or is invalid or both
inductive force
if the premises are true then so must be the conclusion
deductively valid argument
the premises cannot be true and the conclusion false
degree of rational expectation
a persons degree of rational expectation in a given proposition is the degree to which he or she is entitled to believe it, given the evidence he or she has
conditional probability
the degree to which would be reasonable to accept a certain proposition, given no other relevant info except that contained within a certain seat of propositions
inductively sound
it is inductively forceful and its premises are (actually) true
inductive inference
it is not deductively valid, its premises include a generalisation about a sample of a given population, and its conclusion extrapolates the generalisation to all or part of the total population from which the sample is drawn
experiment wise error rate/family wise
the probability that one or more of the significance tests results in a Type I error.
bonferonni correction
if we conduct 10 tests, we use 0.005 as our criterion for significance. in doing so, we ensure that the cumulative type 1 error remains below 0.05
empirical probability
the proportion of events that have the outcome in which your interested in an indefinitely large collective of events
publication bias
significant findings are about seven times more likely to be published than non significant ones
p-hacking
researchers degrees of freedoms that lead to the selective reporting of significant p-values
HARking
the practice in research articles of presenting a hypothesis that was made after data collection as though it were made before data collection
effect size
objective and usually standardised measure of the magnitude of observed effect
odds ratio
a poplar effect size for counts
the odds of an event occurring
is defined as the probability of an event occurring dividedby the probability of that event not occurring
bayesian statistics
is using data you collect to update your beliefs about a model parameter or a hypothesis
bayes’ theorem
sites that the conditional probability of two events can be obtained from their individual probabilities and the inverse conditional probability.
posterior probability
our belief in a hypothesis (or parameter) after we have considered the data
prior probability
belief in a hypothesis (or parameter) before considering the data
marginal likelihood
probability of the observed data
likelihood
the probability that the observed data could be produced given the hypothesis or model being considered
credible interval
the limits between which 95% of values fall in the posterior distribution fall
prior odds
which compare the probability of the alternative hypothesis to the null before you look at the data
bayes factor
the degree to which our beliefs change because of looking at the data
connecting premise
the premise which had to be made explicit in order to make the argument valid
independent t-test
used when u want to compare two means that come from conditions consisting of different entities
paied samples t -test
also known as the dependent t test, is used when u want to compare two means that come from conditions consisting of the same or related entities
standard error of differences
the standard deviation of this sampling distribution (a freqyency distribution of difference between means of pairs of samples wed get the sampling distributions of differences between means)
variance sum law
the variance of the sampling distribution of differences between two sample means will be equal to the sum of the variances of the two populations from which the samples were taken
rationally unpersuasive
when an argument is deductively sound and deductively valid but you don’t know it’s truth-value of the conclusion.
to say that an inductively forceful argument is defeated for a person is to say
the person reasonably believes the premises, but nevrethelesss, reasonably rejects the conclusion
conditional proof
that takes the form of asserting a conditional, and proving that the antecedent of the conditional necessarily leads to the consequent
formal fallacies
failures of logical connection
substantive (or informal) fallacies
the impact false or dubious premise will be of general nature, having nothing specifically to do with the subject matter of the argument
affirming the consequent of a conditional
if P then Q, Q, so P. invalid
fallacy of deriving ought from is
zwarte piet discussie
base rate fallacy
the proportion of one group that has a certain feature is higher than the proportion o another group that has that feature.
common practice
tactic of attempting to persuade someone to do something they shouldn’t do by giving them the justification that everyone does it.
gamblers fallacy
stems from a misunderstanding of the factors that can influence probability.
ad hominem
will depend upon underlying general assumptions referring to certain characteristics or beliefs of arguers.
ad hominem circumstantial
occurs when someones argument in favour of doing or believing something is discounted on the grounds that they would allegedly benefit from our doing or believing it.
tu quoque
the fallacy is committed when we reject a persons claim that a behaviour or proposal should be refrained from or discarded on the grounds that they themselves practise that behaviour.
appeal to authority
also involves mistaken assumptions about people mentioned by an argument. it is committed when an argument makes an unjustified appeal to an alleged authority
the perfectionist fallacy
occurs when we place excessive demands on an idea or a proposal and then reject it purely on the grounds that it will not completely solve a problem.
conflation of morality with legality
mistake of assuming that anything legal but be moral or, conversely that anything illegal must be immoral
weak annalogy
I don’t see what’s all the fuss about guns you can kill someone with a hockey stick but I don’t see anyone propose to ban hockey sticks
post hoc ergo propter hoc (causal fallacies)
the fallacy occurs when we mistakenly infer that an event X caused an event Y merely on the basis that Y occurred after X.
fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause
is committed when a statistical correlation is assumed, without any further justification to establish a causal relation
inversion of cause and effect
the proposition that a lack of something causes X does not entail the proposition that the rpresence o fstat thing causes the opposite of X
appeal to ignorance
fallacy of concluding either that because a claim has not been proven it must be false(the negative form) or that because it has not been disproved it must be true (the positive form)
epistemic fallacy
Chris believes that the US president enjoys basketball. Obama is the US president therefore Chris believes that Barack Obama enjoys basketball.
equivocation
the ploy whereby we deliberately use a word or form of words with the intenttion to confuse the audience
red herring
is used to throw someone of the scent of ones argument by distracting them with an irrelevance.
slippery slope
if you accept one thing, that eventually will lead to more things. legalising cannabis will lead to more use of harder drugs
floodgates
the argues allege without evidence that allowing X will inevitably pen the floodgates to Y and Z
straw man
used when an arguer ignores their opponents real position on an issue and sets up a weaker version of that position by misrepresentation, exaggeration distortion or simplification
begging the question
cirkel redenering
false dilemma
the technique of limiting consideration of positions on an issue to fewer alternatives than are actually available to be considered. arguer pretends that there are only two options when infact there are more
relative risk
a measure of the difference in risk between someone taking the medication that’s being trialled and someone who’s not taking it.
disjunctive syllogism
p or q, not q, so p
hypothetical syllogism/chain
if p then q, if q then r, if p then r
