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
