Terms - critical thinking Flashcards
absurd consequences move
-Latin name
-definition
-example
-Reductio ad absurdum
-Proving that a position is false, or at least untenable, by showing that if true, it would lead to absurd consequences
-anyone who takes mind-altering drugs should be locked up / many influential people have drunk alcohol / should we have locked them up?
ad hoc clauses
-definition
-example
-problems?
- clauses added to a hypothesis to make the hypothesis consistent with some new observation or discovered fact
- a biologist reaching a hypothesis about all living organisms / finds an organism which doesn’t fit with the hypothesis / amends the hypothesis by adding an (except that organism) clause
- this is the alternative to discarding the hypothesis / whilst it is okay for one or two exception clauses, it can be undermined as a generalisation by adding numerous exception clauses
Ad hominem (2 cases)
1) an informal fallacy; shifting the debate to focus on a personal (irrelevant) attack
2) a legitimate demonstration of an opponent’s inconsistency
E.g. hypocriticism
Affirming the antecedent
If p then q
P
Therefore q
affirming the consequent
If p then q
Q
Therefore p
A formal fallacy
ambiguity (3 types)
When confusion can arise due to more than one interpretation of a statement
Lexical ambiguity
When a word with more than one meaning is used, so the phrase / sentence can be understood in more than one way
Referential ambiguity
When a word used could be taken to be referring to more than one thing e.g. The phone was by the book; I picked it up {did you pick up the book or the phone}
Syntactical ambiguity
Also known as amphiboly
When the order of the words allows for more than one interpretation
analogy
Only useful when?
Arguments based on a comparison between two things which are alleged to be similar.
Only yields probable conclusions at best - can’t provide conclusive evidence
Only reliable if the situations being compared are relevantly similar
Analogy must hold in relevant respect IN order for the argument to have any force
An exception is analogy in a logical form
anecdotal evidence
Evidence which comes from selected stories
Weak evidence - involves generalising from one case
Often used in a pejorative way
The appropriateness of this evidence depends entirely on context and the type of evidence used
antecedent
the first part of an ‘if … then’ statement
argument
reasons supporting a conclusion
assertion
an unsupported statement of belief
assumption
an unstated premise, one that is taken for granted and never made explicit
could also mean a stated premise that is the starting-point of an argument
nothing intrinsically wrong with assumptions
bad company fallacy
attacking another’s position solely on the grounds that it is one that has also been upheld by some obviously evil or stupid person
good company fallacy
believing whatever someone of whom you approve endorses
bad reasons fallacy
the mistake of assuming that if the reasons given for a conclusion are false, then the conclusion itself must be false
an informal fallacy
it is possible to derive true conclusions from false premises; it is also possible to derive them from true premises using fallacious reasoning
bad arguments don’t reliably yield truth
begging the question
assuming the very point that is at issue
can involve incorporating the conclusion of the argument into one of the premises
not a formal fallacy - a valid form of argument - but it is not convincing
biting the bullet
accepting the apparently unpalatable consequences which follow from principles which you are unwilling to discard
e.g. a utilitarian stating that it is right to kill an innocent person in certain cases
black and white thinking
classifying every particular case as an example of one of two extremes when in fact there is a range of possible positions that can be occupied
catch-22
a rule which allows you no way out, when another rule apparently does allow a way out
e.g. needing relevant work experience for a job, but only being able to get that work experience if you’ve already had the work experience you are trying to get
principle of charity
interpreting arguments or positions adopted by others in the best light possible
circular arguments
‘A’ because of ‘B’
‘B’ because of ‘A’
not invalid, but uninformative
circular definition
whatever is to be defined (definiendum) itself crops up in the definition (definiens)
companions in guilt move
demonstrating that the case in question is not unique & if the arguer wants to defend the conclusion, they will have to treat further cases in the same way
e.g. if someone wanted to ban boxing because it is dangerous, one might argue that other sports which have caused severe injuries should also be banned
complex questions
questions with several parts that have the appearance of a simple question
an informal fallacy - the fallacy of many questions
often used to deliberately trick the unwary into a confession
compound questions
aka complex questions
conclusion
the main judgement arrived at in an argument
conditional statements
if ‘p’ then ‘q’
provided the antecedent is true, the consequent must be true
consequent
the second part of an ‘if … then’ statement
contradiction
two statements which cannot both be true as one denies the other
consistency
two beliefs are consistent when they can both be true
consistent application of principles
not making special exceptions without good reasons
contraries
two statements which cannot both be true, though they can both be false
correlation = causation confusion
the mistake of treating a correlation as conclusive evidence of a direct causal connection
just because two things tend to be found together, it doesn’t follow that one of them causes the other
post hoc ergo propter hoc error
because it occurs after this, therefore it occurs because of this
counterexample
a particular case which refutes a generalisation
effective against rash generalisations
deduction
Valid reasoning from premises to conclusion
truth-preserving: if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true
democratic fallacy
treats majority opinion as revealed by voting as a source of truth and a reliable guide for action
an informal fallacy
an informed majority is generally needed, not simply a majority
denying the antecedent
if ‘p’ then ‘q’
not ‘p’
therefore not ‘q’
a formal fallacy
treats ‘if’ as ‘if and only if’
denying the consequent
a valid argument
if ‘p’ then ‘q’
not ‘q’
therefore not ‘p’
devil’s advocate
someone who puts the strongest possible case against a position for the sake of argument rather than due to real disagreement
useful for identifying loopholes and avoiding sloppy thinking
dictionary definitions
accounts of how words are and have been used
disanalogy
ways in which two things being compared in an analogy differ
a serious disanalogy undermines an argument from analogy
domino effect
if one thing is allowed to happen then this will inevitably trigger a chain of subsequent undesirable events
drawing a line
making a distinction between two categories which only differ in degree
economy with the truth
selective withholding of information with intent to deceive
emotive language
language which arouses emotion, usually by expressing the speaker’s approval/disapproval of a group or person
typical emotions aroused by such language are hatred or strong approval
empirical
based on experience or observation
enthymeme
an argument with a suppressed premise; argument with a tacit assumption without which the conclusion would be a non sequitur
equivocation
a type of lexical ambiguity in which the same word or phrase is used twice or more within an argument but with a different meaning
etymological fallacy
an informal fallacy & a genetic fallacy
unreliable and often misleading move from a word’s original meaning to its current meaning
‘everyone does it’
an inadequate excuse based on the companions in guilt move
exception that proves the rule
a singular counterexample which tests the truth of a generalisation
here, ‘proves’ means ‘tests out’ - an archaic meaning
false dichotomy
a misleading account of the available alternatives
family resemblance term
a name coined by Ludwig Wittgenstein
words or concepts which cannot be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions
formal fallacy
any invalid form of argument
e.g. one in which the premises can be true without the conclusion necessarily being true
is not truth-preserving
gambler’s fallacy
Believing that in games of chance your odds of winning increase the more times you lose
genetic fallacy
An informal fallacy
‘x originates from y, therefore X must have some features in common with y
Usually implied
getting personal
Attacking the character of the person with whom you are arguing rather than finding fault with his or her argument
humptydumptying
Giving private meanings to words in common use
hypocrisy
Advocating for one thing, but doing another; not practising what you preach
Often a form of the ad hominem/getting personal argument
hypothesis
a statement to be confirmed or refuted by evidence or counterexample
differs from an assertion because it puts forward with a view to its being verified/falsified
iff
logicians’ shorthand for ‘if and only if’
ignoratio elenchi
missing the point
Latin name
imply / infer
precise but different meanings to one another
‘all women are mortal’ and ‘you are a woman’ imply* the conclusion
I <infer> the conclusion</infer>
only a person can infer something; a premise cannot
inappropriate precision
giving information or figures to a greater degree of apparent accuracy than suits the context
a form of rhetoric
induction
a method of reasoning in which true premises provide good grounds for believing the conclusion, but not certainty that it is true
can never be valid like deductive arguments can
informal fallacy
any faulty or unreliable type of argument apart from a formal fallacy
may be perfectly valid forms of arguments in terms of their logical structure
irrelevance
shifting discussion away from the point at issue by bringing in matters which don’t relate directly to it
‘it never did me any harm’
common and irritating form of rash generalisation
jargon
specialist terminology associated with a particular profession or area of interest
almost always used in a pejorative sense
knock-down argument
An argument which completely refutes a position
Equivalent of a Knockout punch in boxing
E.g. an argument against relativism that all truths are relative means this true is relative too
kowtowing
Being overly deferential
Uncritical acceptance of other people’s ideas leads to mental stagnation
lawyer’s answer
Responding to direct questions in a way that is factually accurate yet misleading
Deliberately misleading
Similar to being economical with the truth
least worst option
A choice that may not be attractive but is the best of those available
lexical definitions
= dictionary definitions
lying
writing or saying something which you know or believe to be untrue
can undermine the trust between people, making communication harder
modus ponens
affirming the antecedent
Latin name
modus tollens
denying the consequent
Latin name
necessary and sufficient conditions
a necessary condition is a prerequisite
according to some, it is a necessary condition for a work of art to be an artefact, but not a sufficient condition as my shed is not a work of art
newspeak
from George Orwell’s 1984
makes some things unthinkable - sexcrime means you cannot think about any sex as good
no hypotheticals move
a rhetorical technique used to avoid answering awkward questions about what might happen
non sequitur
a statement which does not follow logically from the premises which precede it
Ockham’s razor
a principle of simplicity
the simple explanation is the best
paradox
An unacceptable conclusion derived by seemingly unassailable reasoning from apparently uncontroversial premises
A precise philosophical term
pedantry
A niggling and inappropriate concern with detail, often at the expense of what is really important
Always used in a pejorative sense
persuader words
Words such as ‘surely’ and ‘clearly’ whose main role is to persuade the reader/listener of the truth of what is being asserted
Used for rhetorical effect
persuasive definition
A form of rhetoric
A word is defined in a particularly emotive way
The definition is then used to reach the desired conclusion of the discussion
petitio principii
begging the question
Latin name
poisoning the well
Indirectly denigrating a position by preemptively ridiculing it’s source
Common form of rhetoric: ‘only a fool could believe that’
politician’s answer
A type of irrelevance
Used by public figures in interviews
Avoid giving direct answers to questions they don’t have the answers to
post hoc ergo propter hoc
‘After this therefore because of this’
Latin
e.g. whatever happened after this must have happened because of this
prejudice
a belief held without good reason or consideration of the evidence for or against its being true
premises
suppositions from which conclusions are derived
parts of an argument which give reason for believing that the conclusion is true or false
proof by ignorance
Informal fallacy
A lack of known evidence against a belief is taken as an indication that it is true
provincialism
Generalising about the right way to behave on the basis of how people behave in your locale
The name embodies prejudice against people living in the provinces
pseudo-profundity
Uttering statements which appear deep but which are not
1) stating nonsense statements in a serious manner
2) banal statements by professionals - psychologists
3) leaving rhetorical questions hanging
quibbling
pedantry
rash generalisation
A general statement based on insufficient evidence
rationalisation
Disguising the real reason for acting in a particular way by giving self-serving justification which, even if plausible, is not true
red herrings
A form of irrelevance which leads the unwary off on a false trail
E.g. deliberate introduction of irrelevant topics into a discussion
reductio ad absurdum - technical meaning
In logic, proving a particular statement by supposing for the sake of the argument that it is false, and show that this leads to a contradiction
Rarely used in everyday argument
Reductio ad absurdum - common meaning
Refuting a position by showing that it would lead to absurd consequences if true
refutation
proof that a statement, allegation or charge is untrue
repudiation
denying that a statement is true
does not require evidence
‘research has shown that’
A phrase used to persuade the listener that the speaker can back up what they are saying with firm empirical evidence
Vague
rhetoric
The art of persuasion
Employing techniques to convince the listener/reader that what they say is the truth, rather than giving reasons and presenting arguments to support the conclusion
Nothing intrinsically wrong with it
rhetorical questions
Questions which are asked purely for effect rather than as requests for answers
sentimentality
Inappropriate emotion, or completely disproportionate to the situation
A way of avoiding unpleasant truths
Oscar Wilde: a sentimental person is one ‘who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying for it’
shifting the goalposts
Changing what is being argued for in mid-debate
Very common move to avoid criticism
slippery slope argument
Relies on the premise that if you make a small move in a particular direction, it may then be extremely difficult if not impossible to prevent a much more substantial move in that direction
Some arguments also rely on a logical point about how if one small move in a particular direction is justified, then any number of such moves must also be justified
Denotes a sense of inevitability
Almost always used by critics rather than defenders
smokescreen
a rhetorical trick
an arguer disguises their ignorance behind a screen of meaningless jargon
Socratic fallacy
argument against the fallacy
mistaken belief that if you can’t define a general term precisely, you won’t be in any position to identify particular instances of it
an informal fallacy
no one can define ‘beauty’, but we can all identify a beautiful person
some/all confusion
an ambiguity which arises from the omission of the words ‘some’ and ‘all’ when the context does not make it clear which is intended
sophistry
a display of cleverness which doesn’t respect the principles of good reasoning - reaches conclusions through sham argument
the term is always pejorative
sophists
ancient Greek teachers
supposedly more interested in teaching ways of winning arguments than ways of finding out the truth
sound argument
a valid argument with true premises and thus a true conclusion
spurious ‘therefore’ and spurious ‘so’
an inappropriate use of the words (therefore, so) to persuade listeners or readers that something has been proven when it hasn’t
it gives the superficial appearance of an argument, but is simply an assertion
stipulative definitions
Definitions which are the result of conscious and explicit decisions about how a word or phrase is to be used, rather than definitions based on the analysis of how words are usually used
straw man
A caricature of your opponent’s view set up simply so that you can knock it down
The opposite of playing devil’s advocate
sunk cost fallacy
Self-destructive tendency to carry on investing in a failing project, idea or enterprise on the grounds that you have already invested heavily in it
supposition
A premise assumed for the sake of argument but not necessarily believed
Also known as presupposition
‘that’s a fallacy’
Falsely accusing someone of committing a fallacy
‘that’s a value judgement’
A statement mistakenly used to silence debate, due to the assumption that value judgements cannot be used in rational argument
Value judgement: e.g. ‘a great play’
A self-refuting statement
thought experiment
An imaginary situation, often far-fetched, intended to clarify a particular issue
Pushes you out of your comfort zone
truth by adage
The mistake of relying on familiar sayings instead of thinking
truth by authority
Taking statements to be true because an alleged authority on the matter said they are true
Experts may disagree; they have a narrow area of expertise
truth by consensus
Taking statements to be true simply because they are agreed upon
tu quoque
Latin phrase
Means ‘you too’
A variation of the ‘companions in guilt’ move
universal expertise
Proficiency in one field taken as an indicator of proficiency in an unrelated one
vagueness
Lack of precision
Relative to context
An obstacle to efficient communication
validity
The truth-preserving quality of good deductive arguments
A quality of the structure of arguments
Van Gogh fallacy
A form of wishful thinking
Sharing some relatively common attribute with someone great in no way guarantees your greatness
Takes its name from the case: Van Gogh was poor & misunderstood in his lifetime, yet he is now a recognised artist; I am poor and misunderstood, so I will also be recognused eventually
vested interest
Having a personal investment in the outcome of a discussion: standing to gain if a particular conclusion is reached
weasel words
words that seem to promise more than they can deliver
mere rhetoric
wishful thinking
Believing that because it would be nice if something were true, then it must actually be true
A form of self-deception at its extreme
Can be dangerous
you too
a variety of the companions in guilt move
the equivalent of saying that a criticism applies to your position as well as my position
‘you would say that wouldn’t you’
a particular kind of getting personal
the phrase is used to undermine the credibility of the speaker by pointing out vested interest
zig-zagging
jumping from one topic to another in a discussion as a defence against criticism
the topics tend to be relevant; used as a form of rhetoric to avoid facing criticism
