TEST #1

Question 1

arguments

Answer 1

a groups of statements in which some statements (the premises) are intended to support another statement (the conclusion)

1. the conclusion is what the speaker wants you to accept/believe
2. premises state the reasons/evidence for believing/accepting the conclusion
3. arguments are all around us

Question 2

premise

Answer 2

a statement/reason that is offered as evidence to support a conclusion

Question 3

good argument

Answer 3

a good argument is one that provides good reason for believing its conclusion is true

Question 4

statement/claim

Answer 4

an assertion that something is, or is not, the case

*literally just a declaritive sentence that can be true/false

ex. “Today is Friday” “it is not raining” “She will win the race”

Question 5

proposition

Answer 5

• the idea/thought behind the statement
• either correctly or incorrectly describes the world

lalala me:
- its the context of a declarative sentence
- it is when a declarative sentence can be claimed as either true or false

Question 6

a note about statements + propositions

Answer 6

-all propositions are statements, but not all statements are propositions
-a statement can only be a proposition if that statement can be described as true or false

-it’s possible for different statements to have the same proposition (ex. “il neige” and “It’s snowing both have the proposition/idea that it’s snowing
-it’s possible for the same statements to have different propositions (depending on the CONTEXT; who states it, when, where, etc.) (ex. “im hungry”, “it will rain tomorrow”)

Question 7

conclusion

Answer 7

a statement that is held to be supported by one or more premises

-the claim that the argument is intended to establish / wants you to believe/accept

Question 8

inference

Answer 8

the process of reaching a conclusion based on the evidence/premises

Question 9

the steps of argument analysis + details

Answer 9

0) figure out if it really is an argument or not (the following are NOT arguments)
- A. some texts are merely descriptive (ex. news story, description of a thing)
- B. some texts merely offer the author’s opinion without trying to provide reasons to accept it
- C.an “if-then” statement by itself is not an argument

1) reconstruct the argument
- not all arguments are presented in the clearest way
- means to clarify/interpret an argument

2) evaluate the argument
- evaluating the RATIONAL STRENGTH (premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion as true) of an argument
- we are NOT evaluating LITERARY MERIT (ex. original, interesting, organized, vocabulary, grammar, structure, etc.) nor the RHETORICAL POWER (ex. power of an argument to persuade; confidence, strength in voice, honesty, etc.)

Question 10

critical thinking

Answer 10

the system/analysis/coming up with of arguments by rational standards

-it’s SYSTEMIC (involves distinct and technical procedures/methods)

-used to analyze arguments of others, your own, and to create your own

-it evaluates arguments in terms of their rational strength

Question 11

why should we think critically?

Answer 11

-because we do/should care about the truth and getting things right and gaining knowledge and avoiding false beliefs

-our beliefs (and our habits of argument formation) affect our choices, actions, and the person we are

Question 12

knowledge (3 types) + declarative sentence

Answer 12

*knowledge by acquaintance

*knowledge-how (how to…)

*propositional knowledge (knowledge-that)
- declarative sentences express propositions, unlike interrogative or imperative sentences

Question 13

3 key ingredients in knowledge

Answer 13

1. belief
   - to believe a claim, is to think that it is true/corresponds with reality
   - its me agreeing with the truth of a claim (even though not all beliefs are true)
   - belief is compatible and required with knowledge
2. truth
   - truth is somewhere out there in the world
   - to believe that something is true, and it is true
   - truth corresponds with the way things really are
   - if something is known by you yo be true, then it’s knowledge
3. justification
   - evidence/reason to support a claim
   - not all true beliefs are justified/ based on good reason (ex. you believe every third answer is true, just for fun, and even tho it is true, you dont have good reason for it)

you BELIEVE something, that belief is TRUE, and that belief is JUSTIFIED by good reason

Question 14

ways people respond to arguments

Answer 14

1. the credulous person
   - ready to accept any statement as true without any evidence
   - resigns his own opinion
2. the person of contradiction
   - ready to oppose every thing that’s said
   - agrees with a conclusion that is opposite of what is said to be true
   - judges every opposite premise as weak and isn’t open to its validity
3. the dogmatist
   - believes all their opinions are INFALLIBLE (unable to be proven wrong) and certain, regardless of new reasons/evidence
   - asserts their opinion in an overly confident positive manner
4. the skeptic
   - believes nothing
   - establishes that they believe no conclusion
   - is afraid to agree with anything

(5. relativists )
- insist that different things are true for different people
- therefore insisting that every statement can be both true and false (which is untrue)

Question 15

rational thinkers

Answer 15

evaluate arguments based on the evidence provided, and form conclusions based on that evidence/info

Question 16

abilities and attitudes of rational thinkers

Answer 16

they have the ability to:

• distinguish genuine arguments from others (ones with provided reasons/evidence)
• interpret/understand arguments
• evaluate arguments

they have a willingness to:

• examine arguments with an open mind
• change one’s mind when the argument calls for it
• give up popular beliefs when the argument calls for it
• go along with popular views if the argument calls for it
• form beliefs even when matters are uncertain

Question 17

impediments to good reasoning

Answer 17

1. lack of adequate vocabulary
   - not learning the vocabulary of argument analysis can make it difficult to analyze the argument clearly
2. the desire to be tolerant and open-minded
   - judgment of others opinions/premises is urgent in rational thinking
3. misunderstanding the point of argument analysis
   - debate mindset
   - focusing on the literary merit/rhetorical power of an argument rather than the rational strength
4. misconceptions about truth and rationality
   - “there are no truths, just beliefs”
   - the idea that “no truth can be more reasonable than another”
5. the use of ARGUMENT STOPPERS
   - comments that cut off discussion (“agree to disagree”, “thats your opinion”)

another impediment could be being influenced by our desire to be right in what we believe is true/false, therefore not focusing on relevant evidence

Question 18

realism

Answer 18

involves two claims:

1. there are truths/facts in a given subject area
2. the truths/facts are objective (independent on anyone’s beliefs about them)

Question 19

subject areas we can be realists in vs can’t

Answer 19

CAN:
-ex. we’re all realists about the jellybean scenario (we agree there’s an objective fact about the amount of jellybeans in the jar, and it doesnt depend on what we believe)
- ex. mathematics, mortality

CAN’T:
-morality
-religion
-love

Question 20

Pros and cons of realism

Answer 20

PROS:
- when unable to figure out the truth about something, an objective truth is a good default
- can facilitate decision making

CONS:
- ignores subjectivity
- you can’t 100% say something is really wrong

Question 21

Nihilism + Moral nihilism

Answer 21

there are just no truths whatsoever in that subject area

the view that moral statements have no truth-value (they are neither true nor false)

Question 22

Pros vs Cons of nihilism

Answer 22

PROS:
- in some areas its difficult to know whats true/false (ex. beauty)

CONS:
- self-contradictory (if you’re saying there is no facts about anything, then you’re also saying its a fact that there are no facts/that nihilism is true)
- extremely implausible in many subject areas (propositions in many subject areas do have truth values) (ex. implausible to think there’s zero truth in math, science, history, etc.) (ex. it is a 100% given fact that people are hungry sometimes, so….)

Question 23

Relativism (subjective + social)

Answer 23

1. there are truths in that subject area
2. what the truths are depend upon what someone believes them to be (subjective)

-ex. “its true for you that… but its true for me that…”

SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM=
-what the truths are depend upon individuals
-“thats true for me”

SOCIAL RELATIVISM=
-what the truths are depend upon what a society or culture believes
-“thats true for us”
(ex. its true for you that men and women are equal before the law, but not for us)

Question 24

Pros vs Cons of relativism

Answer 24

PROS:
- makes it easier to co-exist and tolerate other views on ethics and morality (settle that everyone has individual truths is better than fighting about what the objective truth is)
- subjective matters such as humour, perception of beauty, taste in food, etc.

CONS:
- there are truth values not subjective to individuals or societies feelings/thoughts
- there are counter-examples (ex. teacher feels its their truth to give out F’s when the students deserved A’s) (ex. “it’s tuesday”, criminal justice system)
- isn’s as tolerant as it sounds (in examples such as social relativism about racism, how are we supposed to solve it without a broader appeal?)
- suggests individuals are infallible (there’s no benchmark to say which is wrong and which is right)

Question 25

philosophical skepticism

Answer 25

1. statements have truth-values but…
2. we dont know what most or all of them are

• we lack knowledge / knowledge is impossible
• this doesn’t deny that there is truth or belief, it just denies that there’s justification

-a skeptic shows that if your beliefs arent justified, you dont have knowledge

ex. according to a skeptic, your belief that it’s tuesday is not justified

Question 26

why hold the philosophical skepticism view

Answer 26

a. dream hypothesis

b. evil genius hypothesis

-skeptics claim that any criteria/evidence that distinguishes dream from reality is not good evidence at all (ex. pinching yourself can just be a part of the vivid dream)

Question 27

the argument for philosophical skepticism

Answer 27

P1= UNLESS i am completely certain that im not a) dreaming, or b) being deceived by an evil genius, all my BELIEFS lack JUSTIFICATION (they don’t count as knowledge)

P2= I am not completely certain that im not a) dreaming or b) being deceived by an evil genius

C= Therefore, all my BELIEFS lack JUSTIFICATION (they don’t count as knowledge)

Question 28

CONS about skepticism

Answer 28

• there ARE truth values in many subject areas that can be known
• requiring absolute certainty for a belief to count as knowledge seems to be asking too much
• self-defeating (a skeptic can’t really say that P1 and P2 justify believing the Conclusion, because according to him, we don’t really know anything)

Question 29

interrogative sentence

Answer 29

used to ask a question

Question 30

sentences

Answer 30

statements used to ask questions, give commands, and describe things

Question 31

imperative sentence

Answer 31

used to give a demand

Question 32

declarative sentence

Answer 32

used to describe things

-the only ones that can be true or false

Question 33

truth

Answer 33

when things really are the way the sentence says they are / the sentence corresponds with the facts

Question 34

falsity

Answer 34

when things are not the way the sentence says they are

Question 35

correspondence model of truth

Answer 35

CP1- a proposition is true only, and only true, when it corresponds with the way things are

CP1- a proposition is TRUE just in case it describes things as they actually are/ corresponds to the facts. A proposition is FALSE just in case it fails to describe things the way they really are/correspond with facts.
- a declarative sentence/statement is true only when it corresponds with the facts as they actually are / it correctly describes the world as it is

Question 36

correspondence model of truth cons + pros

Answer 36

PROS:
- simple
- intuitive
- avoids the drawbacks of the coherence model of truth

CONS:
- One Truth Value principle claims that every proposition has exactly one truth value. it’s either true, false, not both nor neither.

• 1) certain propositions don’t seem to fit this model, even if we think they really are true or false.
• there are no facts in the present moment about these propositions to deem them true or false.
• ex. “if Hitler had died, WW2 would never have happened.”
• ex. “you will have a hamburger tonight”
• 2) there’s no way to fact check that our whole system of beliefs corresponds to the facts.
• there’s no vantage point outside of our beliefs/propositions that would allow us to check whether our beliefs correspond with reality and if they are true or false.
• saying your beliefs correspond with reality just becomes another belief, and hwo can you fact check that?

Question 37

response to the “true for” objection principle to the correspondence principle

Answer 37

• “true for” is a form of relativism
• “true for” talk leads people to believe that a statement can be both true and false at once

-“true for” talk means that 2 people disagree about something- one believes it, one does not. This mixes up belief with truth. To believe something or not believe something, doesn’t make it true that it is or isn’t that way (beliefs can be false)

• “true for” talk obscures the fact that the point of an argument is to establish the one truth

Question 38

sentence token vs type

Answer 38

TYPE=
- the pattern the sentence token follows

TOKEN=
- individual example of a sentence

*SAME TYPE, DIFF TOKEN:
- “I am hungry” says Abba
- “I am hungry” says Jake

Question 39

One truth value principle

Answer 39

-every proposition has exactly ONE truth value. It’s either false or true, not both or neither.

• truth value depends on whether or not the proposition describes the world correctly

Question 40

consequences (2) of One truth value principle

Answer 40

1. In some instances, like historical, we cannot know the truth value
2. Although most propositions’ have a truth value independent of people’s opinions, there are some propositions that are dependent on people’s thoughts/feelings (ex. the likeability of a person, or the scariness of a horror movie)

Question 41

context

Answer 41

the who, when, and where of a proposition

Question 42

different sentences, express same proposition

Answer 42

S1: John is Paul’s brother
S2: Paul is the male brother to John
P: same premise that Paul and John are brothers

S1: Il neige
S2: It’s snowing
P: same proposition, it is snowing

Question 43

no knowledge vs truth value

Answer 43

• just because the truth value of a proposition us unknown, does not mean there is no truth value at all

-ex. “idk what the # is, but im guessing the # of pebbles in a pond are odd.” even though it’s unknown what the truth value is, it is true in case there is an odd number, and it is false in case it is an even number.

Question 44

belief

Answer 44

to think something is true / corresponds with facts

Question 45

disbelief

Answer 45

to think something is false/ fails to correspond with facts

Question 46

suspension of judgment

Answer 46

can’t decide whether proposition is true or false

Question 47

Principle of belief

Answer 47

Whenever a person considers a proposition, they have three options:

• believe it (think its true)
• disbelieve it (think its false)
• suspend judgement (neither think its true or false)
• these options are mutually exclusive at a given time (a person cannot at any time have more than 1 of these attitudes toward a proposition)

Question 48

we are not using the term belief to refer only to:

Answer 48

• 1) particularly important personal thoughts/feelings/attitudes
• even though some of what we believe is important to us, a lot of the propositions we believe are not momentous
• 2) controversial claims which cannot be known (e.g. “thats just your belief”)
• even though we have beliefs about controversial matters, we do believe many noncontroversial propositions too (e.g. “it’s hot today”, “im wearing sandals”)
• beliefs really CAN be KNOWN; you know them (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4)

Question 49

degrees of belief

Answer 49

not every belief is certain:

-i THINK
-i FEEL
-i HOLD the truth to be that

-ranges from feeling certain to limited belief

Question 50

belief + truth

Answer 50

• whether a belief is true has nothing to do with how STRONG the belief is, but rather with how the world is

(ex. you strongly believe the earth is flat, but your belief is still false)

Question 51

using the same sentence to express different propositions

the illusion of disagreements with 2 propositions

Answer 51

• the same sentence can be used to express different propositions
• this can create an illusion of disagreement, but there really isn’t one, since they aren’t discussing the same proposition
  -ex. “The store is past the bank”
  -P1 may refer to the bank as the financial institution, P2 may refer to the bank as the water bank
• People have genuine disagreements when and only when there is some proposition that one believes and the other does not
• Sometimes people use sentences in ways that make it seem that they disagree, but they are just using words in different ways and there is no proposition about which they really disagree.
• Similarly, sometimes people seem to agree because they agree that some sentence is true, but they may be using that sentence to express different propositions and they may disagree about these propositions
  -arguments only make sense when there’s a potential for disagreement about the truth value

Question 52

Principle of R/J/R Belief (rationality + evidence)

Answer 52

PRINCIPLE OF RATIONAL BELIEF: this principle tells us what we should do with our beliefs when regarding evidence.

1) if a person’s evidence concerning a proposition supports that proposition, then it is r/j/r to believe the proposition
- ex. evidence for your grade

2) if the person’s evidence goes against the proposition, then it is r/j/r to disbelieve the proposition
- ex. disbelieving someone was sick for a test because there is no evidence of being sick

3) if the person’s evidence is neutral, then it is r/j/r for the person to suspend judgement about the proposition
- either no evidence (ex. # of stars in the universe)
- or evidence on both sides (ex. equal amounts of evidence to believe/disbelieve God)

Question 53

evidence

Answer 53

information indicating the truth or falsity of a proposition

Question 54

difference and change in evidence

Answer 54

1) two people may have different evidence available to them, so it may be rational for them to disagree about the truth of that proposition
- there is still only one truth though
- ex. two different detectives

2) an individual person’s evidence may change overtime, therefore different beliefs can be rational at different times
- ex. belief about someone’s character

Question 55

fallibilism

Answer 55

FALLIBILISM: the view that R/J/R beliefs can be false beliefs

• one can be R/J/R in believing a proposition (based on available evidence) can, but it doesn’t guarantee that the belief is true
• there’s an important difference between whether something is true and whether there are good reasons for believing it

-ex. believing someone will win an election because the polls show they are far ahead
- ex. believing bus will come at 10 am due to good reason (the bus schedule, routine), but it doesn’t
- ex. in the past thinking the world is flat, even though it isn’t

Question 56

how much evidence is needed for a belief to be R/J/R ?

Answer 56

• to be R/J/R, beliefs have to be based on ENOuGH of the RIGHT KIND of evidence
• what kind of evidence that is appropriate and how much evidence is enough depends upon the context

the higher the “stakes,” the more evidence is required for a belief to be R/J/R

• ex. OJ Simpson case (stakes were lower for civil trial so he was found guilty of wrongful death of 2 people (not a lot of evidence was needed), buthe was found innocent for the murder of 2 people because the stakes were higher and rewuired more evidenceƒmo)
• ex. your friend will believe you if you say youre sick, but your professor wont (simply based off word of mouth) because the stakes are higher for missing a test in school and more evidence is required

Question 57

contrast to fallibilism (conclusive evidence)

Answer 57

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE:
- strong evidence that guarantees the truth of a belief (never leads to false beliefs)

-some people counter fallibilism as to say if evidence isn’t conclusive then it’s irrational to believe it, but, if we were only to believe things when their evidence guaranteed their truth, it wouldn’t be rational to believe many propositions such as our name or our birth date

-fallibilism is too restrictive and will lead people to just suspend judgment about everything

Question 58

Principle of Proportional belief (strength of evidence)

Answer 58

PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONAL BELIEF:
- the rational thing to do is to proportion the strength of your belief to the strength of the evidence

• The stronger the evidence, the stronger the belief should be
• a belief is still rational even when the evidence supports it only very slightly (in this case, your confidence in the belief should also be very slight)

-small degree of evidence for the proposition = small degree of confidence in that proposition

-strong degree of evidence for the proposition = strong degree of confidence in that proposition

• “its rational to believe the proposition with a strong degree of confidence because it is proportional to the strong degree of evidence”
• “its rational to believe the proposition to a small degree because the evidence itself supports the claim to a small degree”

-this principle goes along with the principle of rational belief

Question 59

3 ways beliefs can be irrational, unjustified, or unreasonable

Answer 59

1. motivational errors:
   - being influenced by what we WANT to be true/false (desires and feelings) rather than the relevant evidence
   - ex. hope you’ll win the lottery even though there’s no evidence
   - ex.
   - ex. knowing ur gonna get a bad grade based off ur marks, but fear makes u believe for a while to feel better, that u will not
2. failing to weight all the evidence properly:

• a) ignoring some of the available evidence entirely
• ex. detectives don’t look at part of evidence
• b) under-valuing contrary evidence (disconfirmation bias)
• giving less value to evidence that opposes your view
• ex. not valuing evidence that confirms God exists because you disbelieve his existence
• c) over-valuing confirming evidence (confirmation bias)
• giving more value to evidence that confirms your view
• ex. valuing evidence that God doesn’t exist because you disbelieve he exists
• d) over-valuing “psychologically available” evidence
• giving too much weight to memorable or vivid experience
• ex. fear of flying is based on vivid stories of catastrophic plane crashes, even though there’s more evidence showing planes are safe
• ex. misconception about shark attacks

Question 60

self-evident proposition

Answer 60

a proposition that when you understand the concepts/words involved, you obviously know the truth value becomes evident (ex. all bachelors are unmarried)

Question 61

Coherence model of truth

Answer 61

• a proposition is true if, and only if, it is coherent with a system of well-supported propositions
• otherwise, it is false, and fits with other beliefs
• it describes things as they appear to YOU (subjective)

-ex. “SSH 105 has more than six students” -> my propositions suggesting i saw many people walking in, the class has high enrollment, and the classroom is big, make this statement TRUE

Question 62

drawbacks of coherence model of truth

Answer 62

1. coherence with a well-supported system isn’t sufficient for truth
   -ex. mental illness, hallucinations (their thoughts may be coherent and allow them to think there is a monster, but that is false)
   - ex. you think you’re in the matrix because your beliefs may be coherent/consistent, but do we really want to say that they’re all true?
2. coherence with a well-supported system isn’t necessary for truth
   - ex. you have many coherent beliefs that your partner is loyal and will never cheat, but evidence contradicts that cause he cheated

maybe coherence isn’t enough.

Question 63

Justification

Answer 63

aka rational belief, justified belief, reasonable belief