Test #1, #2, #3 Flashcards
What is an Argument and its purpose?
An Argument, is a set of statements, where one of them (the conclusion) is meant to be supported by the remaiming statements (the premises)
points and reasons provided are intended to establish and from arguments
What is a Premise?
It’s a statement (reasons and support) that is offered in support of a conclusion
ex: “why tmu is a great school - and the reasons that follow are premises”
premises are attempting to support conclusion
the reasons that are supposed to support the conclusion are the premises of the argument
What is a conclusion?
A conclusion is a statement that is held to be supported by one or more premsises
the claim the arguments are intending to make is it’s conclusion
premise: all universities are great places to learn
premise: TMU is a university
conclusion: TMU is a great place to learn
What is an assertion?
An assertion is something that is IS or IS NOT the case
simply when you have a true or false statement
Assertions are declarative sentences used to convey a
point/message of an argument.
Examples:
“Today is Friday”
“it is not raining”
“she will win the race”
What is a proposition?
The specific thought or idea that the statement expresses
Propositions are the ideas behind a statement, or the thought that said statement represents.
Propositions can be expressed
through different statements but still convey the same meaning, for example, language– “It’s
snowing” has the same meaning as “Il neige” (French)
It is possible for the same statement to express different propositions depending on who states it, and when and where etc (the context)
At the same time, the same words can express a different
proposition. For example, “There’s a bank on the left”, is it a money bank, or a fishing bank, also who’s left?
What are the 2 main points that makeup an argument?
the 2 main pieces of your argument,
these being the Premises and the Conclusion. When working with an argument we must give
the reader a logical reason to believe our proposition, this is done through Premises.
Premises are statements that are offered in support of the argument’s conclusion.
In simple
terms, this is the evidence that backs the claim we are trying to make, for example, you’re
trying to explain to your friend why Burger Legend has the best chicken sandwiches around:
“Yeah man, I love burger legend because….”. In this example, any reasoning we use
in support of our claim is the premise of our argument.
The Conclusion is what our
aforementioned premises are supporting. Using the same example, our conclusion/point
we’re trying to make would be the fact that Burger Legend is the best burger place in town.
The Conclusion is the main point, while the premise supports it.
What is an infrence?
It is the mental step of accepting the conclusion on basis of reasons/evidence
an infrence is a process of reasoning from a premise or premises to a conclusion, based on those premises
example: lawyer asking the jury to make an infrence
poor infrence is making a conclusion based on lack of evidence
What are the 3 steps of argument analysis? and explain each step
Step 0 - Figure out if it is really an argument or not
- Not all texts or passages contain arguements
a) some texts are just descriptive (eg; a newspaper story of a car acident, a description of a thing) these are NOT arguments
b) some texts just are there to offer an authors opinion, without trying to provide reasons to accept it. these are NOT arguements
- opnion by itself is not an argument
- if an opinion is not supported by reasons it is rationally worthless
c) an “if-then” statement by itself, is not an arguement
- “if it is raining, then the party will be cancelled” - this is not an arguement no supporting evidence, no premise just a statement
step 1 - reconstruct the arguement
- arguments are not always presented or written in the clearest way.
- figure out how to identify and clearly display the underlying logical structure of an argument
- process of interpreting and clarifying an arguement is reconstructing
- example: polititan making a speech, the arguement is hidden within
step 2 - evaluate the argument
- Thinking if an arguement is good or not
- this is NOT evaluating literary merit or rhetorical power
- use literary merit, rhetorical power, and rational strength to evaluate arguement
What are the 3 tools for having a strong arguement?
- Literary Merit
- Rhetorical Power
- Rational Strength
Explain Literary merit
a passage has literary merit when it is well-written. orginal, and interesting
Explain Rheotical power
an arguement has rhtorical power when it is has a tendency to convince or prsuade
Explain rational strength
An arguemnt has rational strength when the premises provide good reasons to think that the conclusion is true
This tool uses our human rationale, things like “Hitting people is bad because
of….” the conclusion that hitting people is bad usually clicks in our head, because yeah, assault is bad
What is Critical Thinking?
Critical Thinking is a system for analysis of arguments
via a rational standard”.
- it is systematic because it involves sistinct procedures and methods (no gut feelings)
- it is used to analyze existing arguments of other people and your own and to formulate new ones of your own
- It’s basically the evaluation of
arguments based on how well their premises support their conclusions.
Why should we think critcally?
- Because we really do care about the truth; about gettig things right and about gaining knowledge; about avoiding false beliefs etc
Our beliefs affect our efforts and how our lives
unfold, beliefs shape who we are and by critically thinking we can “optimise” how we’re shaped in a
way.
What is knowledge?
- knowledge by acquintance - opprtunity cost
- knowledge how
- propositional knowldege
Knowledge, This is simply the belief that something is true and supported by good reason
Knowledge is the understanding or awareness of something that is true. It involves having justified beliefs about facts or concepts. To “know” something typically means:
Belief: You believe it.
Truth: What you believe is actually true.
Justification: You have good reasons or evidence to believe it.
What is the 3 Key Ingrediants for knowledge? explain each one
- BELIEF - To think something is true (ex: believing in god)
- belief is compatible for knowledge and required
- believing = knowing something & knowing = believing something
- to truly be knowledgeable about something we must actually believe it’s true
- TRUTH - For something to be true
- if something is or is not the case in reality.
- not everything is known
- if it is known by you then it is true
- ex; (2 + 2 = 4)
- Objective truth - where it isnt based on perception it’s just true (mostly in science based topics)
- JUSTIFICIATION - Good reason to believe that the claim being stated is true
- Plato agreed that true belief was not knowledge
- truth and beliefs are not always there for good reason
- Believe stuff for GOOD reasons
- ex; go train leaving at 4:15 you believe it leaves at 4:15 but that is not a good reason for belief
What are the 4 different views on truth?
- Realism
- Nihilism
- Relativism
- Philosophical Skeptic
What is Realism?
Realists believe that there is TRUTH in some subject area (ex: math, morality, religion)
- It involves TWO claims:
i) There are truths in that subject area AND -
ii) What these truths are does NOT depend upon anyones beliefs about them in other words (objective)
In other words, something is true if it matches the way things actually are, even if no one believes it or knows it yet. For example, if a tree exists in a forest, it’s real whether or not anyone is there to see it.
What is Nihilism?
Nihilits believe that there is NO TRUTHS about anything
i) there just are no truths in any certain field, or area of topic
In short, nihilism denies that there are any absolute truths or higher purposes to life.
What is Moral Nihilism
the view that moral statements have NO truth-value, they are neither true nor false
Moral nihilism is the belief that there are no objective moral truths—no actions are inherently right or wrong. According to moral nihilism, ideas of “good” or “bad” are just human-made concepts, and there’s no universal moral standard that applies to everyone.
In short, moral nihilists think that morality is meaningless or subjective, and nothing is truly right or wrong on its own.
What is some pros and cons to realism?
The main drawback to realism is that it is implausible; does not work well in some areas (humour, beauty) relativism would be more plausible
Pros of Realism:
- Grounded in facts: Realism is based on the idea that truth exists independently of our beliefs, which encourages evidence-based thinking and objectivity.
- Reliable view of the world: It helps us understand the world as it really is, which can be useful for science and everyday life.
- Consistency: Since realism believes in an objective reality, it promotes stability and consistency in how we view and interact with the world.
Cons of Realism:
- Overlooks personal experiences: Realism focuses on external truths and may ignore how individuals experience the world differently, which can be limiting in areas like art, culture, or subjective experience.
- Rigid thinking: It can lead to a rigid view of the world, not allowing for flexibility or different interpretations of reality.
- Difficulty in moral issues: Realism struggles to account for subjective areas like morality, emotions, and personal values, where objective truths might not be clear.
We should be realists only in certain fields such as:
- Science
- History
We should not be realists in areas such as:
- Morality
- Art & Literature
- Personal Beliefs & Values
What is some pros and cons of Nihilism?
Pros:
- freedom from societal expectations
Cons:
- Self Defeating/Contradictory - deny’s and claims no truth of everything but finds truth and believes in Nihilism)
What is Relativism?
Relativists agree that there is truth in some domains
i) there are truths in the subject area but -
ii) what the truths are depends upon (relative to) what we (for someone) believes them to be
this is by far the most common way of thinking. A
prime example of this is religion, some people believe that it has truth while some don’t.
there are 2 types of relativism -
- Subjective
- “that’s true for me”
“thats my truth”
Subjective is based on an individual person’s beliefs,
for example the belief that stealing from large enough companies is okay, or lying is good in certain
circumstances (stuff like morals and ethics).
-social
“thats true for us”
“thats our truth”
Social Relativism is based on the thoughts of a
community/society (similar topics)
For example, what one culture thinks is morally right might be seen as wrong in another culture, and relativism says both perspectives can be valid.
In short, relativism means that truth and values are flexible and change depending on different viewpoints or contexts.
What is the pros and cons of relativism?
Pros:
- Makes it easier to co-exist
- Flexibilty
Cons:
- Implausible - implies that people can’t be wrong about anything
- Easy to contradict yourself
What is Philosophical Skepticism?
Not a view about truth, primarily about knowledge.
someone who thinks truth exists and they are objective
i) statements have truth-values but -
ii) we don’t know what most or all of them are
in other words, we know a lot less than we think, or nothing at all
skeptic believes in truth, and belief but skeptic does not believe in justification
unless all your beliefs can be proved that it is not a dream or simulation, skeptic says belief is not justfified
why do people hold the view of philosophical skepticism?
- Dream Hypothesis
- Evil Genius Hypothesis
Explain the dream hypothesis
The dream hypothesis is the idea that we could be dreaming at any given moment and that our current experiences might not be real. It suggests that, just like in dreams, what we perceive could be an illusion, making it hard to tell the difference between dreaming and waking life.
“how do we know i really went to class this morning? i couldve been dreaming”
Explain the Evil Genius hypotheis
The evil genius hypothesis (or evil demon hypothesis) is a thought experiment by philosopher René Descartes. It suggests that an all-powerful, deceptive being (an “evil genius” or “evil demon”) could be tricking us into believing that the world around us is real when it’s actually an illusion. This being could manipulate our thoughts and senses, making us doubt everything we think we know.
In short, the evil genius hypothesis questions whether we can trust anything, as a powerful deceiver could be controlling our perceptions and thoughts, making reality itself uncertain.
Explain the cohernce model of truth, and it’s drawback
This model of truth states that propositions are only true if it is Coherent/Consistent with
known beliefs/systems of well supported statements, hence the name Coherence Model.
For example,
you’re in Kray Klasses 500 man lecture hall and you propose that the class has more than 6 people in
via the Coherence Model you would be spreading a truthful statement due to the fact it is inline
with A: What we see and B: fits coherently with beliefs we already have.
Despite how clear and easy this theory is, its main drawback is that when it comes to developing new things/theories they won’t pass the test due to their lack of consistency with currently
existing theories, does that mean that they’re not true, of course not but the theory says so.
Another
main drawback is the idea that just because something is coherent with current views means that it’s
“true”, for example things like conspiracy theories.
What is Issac Watts 4 types of argument respondents
- Contradiction person
- Dogmatist
- Skeptic
- credulos person
Explain the Credulos Person
A credulous person is someone who is very gullible and easily believes things without questioning them or looking for evidence. They tend to accept what they are told at face value, even if it might not be true.
as long as it sounds convincing enough
explain the contradiction person
person of contradiction is someone whose beliefs, actions, or statements often conflict with each other. They may say one thing but do the opposite, or hold views that don’t logically fit together.
They argue with everything they hear, and disagree
explain the dogmatist
dogmatist is someone who holds strong, rigid beliefs and refuses to change them, even when presented with new evidence or arguments. They are very certain they are right and are not open to considering other viewpoints.
Explain the “issac watt” skeptic
The issac watt skeptic “believes nothing” and is afraid to give assent to anything”
sceptic of everything, doesn’t
believe anything out of fear of being mistaken.
Explain what an Arguement stopper is
Variety of quick responses to arguements that have the effect of cutting off discussion and preventing careful analysis
ex:
- “thats a matter of opinion”
- “Let’s agree to disagree.” (avoids resolving the issue)
Explain the One truth value theory
Propositions is true if it describes things as they actually are, this would deem it a True proposition, while the opposite would be a False propositions.
These are truth values and according to
the One Truth Value Theory, it’s basically the idea that a statement can only have one truth value, things are either True or False.
what are the drawbacks of skepticism?
- requiring absolute certainty for a belief to count as knowledge seems to be asking too much
- skepticism about everything is self-defeating.
Explain Belief
Belief is a key part of knowledge, before we can even start trying to understand if a statement is considered knowledge, we need to understand belief.
There are 3 main points when believing a
proposition
1- Believe what is being offered
2- Disbelief what is being offered
3- Suspend Judgement (neither)
At a given time, only one of these 3 options can be pickled. Belief can generally be referred to as 2 main things.
Firstly, personal thoughts and personal feelings, for example there are things we
believe in more than others, some people have stronger belief in something like politics than what they’re gonna have for lunch today. Secondly controversial things that aren’t particularly known yet/
things that can be known
Explain the rational thinker
They try their best to understand the information they recieve and form conclusions based on that information
they do 3 things.
Distinguish genuine arguments
Understand and interpret arguments
Evaluate Arguments
What are the 5 things that get in the way of argument analysis
- Inadequate Vocabulary
- Fear of tolerence & open minded roles
- Misunderstanding the point of argument analysis
- misconceptions about truth and reality
- reliance on argument stoppers
Explain what an Interrogative sentance is
To ask questions we use interrogative sentences such as:
- Whatb time is it?
- Did you feed the dog?
Explain what a imperative sentence is?
To give commands we use imperative sentences
- Tell me the time!
- Feed the dog!
Explain what a declarative sentence is
To describe things, we use declarative sentences
- Some gardeners do not use pesticides
- I fed the dog
- Nixon resigned from president in 1974
DECLARATIVE SENTENCES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS THE ONES WE USE FOR ARGUMENTS
Explain the truth and correspndence to the facts “Basic Idea”
To say something is “true” is to say something is the same as the sentence describes. For example in
(7) in the textbook, the statement “Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974” is made, this
statement would be “true’ if Nixon truly did resign in 1974. And if Nixon truly didn’t resign in 1974
then the statement would be “false”.
Explain the correspondence principle
Sentence is only true when it corresponds to the facts (of the world)
Sentence is only false when it fails to correspond to the facts
Some issues/examples lead people to reject CP
Sometimes some details of its formulation can cause misunderstandings/fail in argument analysis
Explain the mistaken objection
-Example: “The Earth is flat” (believed by people during ancient times)
- Believed this because the Earth looked flat, and experts agreed
- Even though we know it is not true (based on scientific evidence), during their times it was definitely true for them
When it comes to discussion like this, people tend to say different POVs are “true for” the various participants in the controversy
n the case of people once believing the Earth was flat:
The belief was based on what they could see and what experts of the time agreed on, making it their “truth.”
From their perspective, this made sense, and it shaped how they understood the world.
However, with scientific advancements (like discovering the Earth’s curvature through exploration and later space travel), we now know the Earth is round, so the old belief is false from an objective standpoint.
This example illustrates how “truth” can be seen differently depending on knowledge, context, or available evidence. What was “true for” ancient people was based on their limited understanding, but science corrected this mistaken principle. It shows how people’s perspectives are shaped by the knowledge and consensus of their time, even when later shown to be incorrect.
Explain improving upon the basic idea
- A declrative statement is only true provided it correctly describes the world
- To understand how to modify the correspondence principal we need to make two points:
- A distinction between sentence tokens and sentence types
- sometimes two sentence tokens of the same type are used to express the very same thought or idea
explain what a sentence token is
sentence tokens are specific utterances or inscriptions such as marks on paper or the chalkboard
in other words Sentence tokens refer to specific instances where a sentence is either spoken (an utterance) or written down (an inscription, like marks on paper or on a chalkboard). Each time you see or hear the sentence, that’s a different sentence token, even if the words are the same.
A sentence token is just a single instance of a sentence. Think of it like a copy of a sentence that is actually spoken or written down. If you say or write the same sentence multiple times, each time it’s said or written, it counts as a different “token.”
For example:
“The dog is happy.”
If you say or write this sentence five times, each one is a separate sentence token, even though the words are the same.
What is a sentence type
Sentence types are the patterns that tokens follow; they are kinds, or types of sentence
In other words A sentence type is like the idea or plan for a sentence. It’s the same no matter who says it or writes it. For example, the sentence “I like ice cream” is a sentence type, and anyone can say it or write it, but it stays the same idea.
In short, a sentence type is the basic plan for a sentence, no matter how or when it’s used.
What are the 3 main types of cognitive attitudes you can take towards a proposition?
- Belief
- Disbelief
- Suspension Of Judgement
Explain Belief and Truth
When a person believes a proposition, they believe that the world is a particular way - the way the proposition says it is.
The belief can be considered true if the world is actually the way the proposition says it is, when the world isn’t the way they believe it to be, then the belief is therefore false
The crucial point is that whether your belief is true depends NOT at all on how strong your belief is. It depends entirely on whether your belief accurately describes the world
Explain Belief and Disagreement
To believe a proposition is the same as to believe that it is true Ex: Believing that there is truth on Mars is the same thing as believing that it is TRUE that there is life on Mars
To believe a proposition is to believe that the world is the way that the proposition says it is. It is not to think that it would be good if the proposition were true or to hope that it is true
Explain to believe and disbelieve a proposition
To BELIEVE a proposition: is to believe that it really is true and things are the way the proposition says they are
To disbelieve a proposition is to believe that the proposition is false and that the world really isn’t the way the proposition says it is
What is the standard form of arguements?
listing each premise on a separate numbered line
- First premise
- second premise
- ## Third premise*4. Conclusion
What are the 4 main reasons for using the standard form?
- Writing in standard form helps you avoid including steps in the argument
- Sometimes people don’t bother to write down all of their assumptions, and reasons in arguments
- People often state their premises and conclusions in obscure, misleading, or imprecise ways
- When argument’s are written in standard form, you can easily refer to the premises and conclusion
Explain argument analysis
The whole project of extracting arguements from prose passages and putting them in standard form, and then deciding whether these arguements are good arguements is arguement analysis
What are the 2 main steps of argument analysis
Arguement Analysis can be brocken down into two Main steps:
- Reconstructing the arguement - process of taking a prose passage and rewriting the arguement it contains in Standard form.
- Evaluating the arguement - you decide whether the arguement Outlined during the first Stage is a good arguement
Explain a well-formed argument
Any argument whose concusion does follow from its premises is a Well formed arguement.
There are 2 kinds of well-formed arguments
What are the two kinds of Well-formed arguments
- Deductively Valid - impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This is known as a simply valid argument
- Inductively Cogent - Premises merely make the conclusion probable. This is simply known as a cogent argument
Explain validity simply
An arguement is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises of the arguements all to be true, and the conclusion of the arguement to be false
OR
An arguement is valid if and only if the following condition holds: necessarily, if the premises of the argument are all true, then the conclusion is true as well.
By either definition, in a valid argument the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion
For the following example state:
- the conclusion
- the validity of the argument
- explain why
- Bob is a student at TMU
- All Students at TMU Voted
—————————————- - ?
*3 Bob voted (from #1,2)
Argument #4 is valid, it’s impossible for premises 1,2 both to be true and conclusion 3 to be false
Why should you not sneak in additional information that connects premises to the conclusion even if the info is obvious?
Use the following example to explain this:
Argument 5:
- Pluto is a planet
—————————
*2. Pluto is more than two feet in diameter
It might be obvious that all planets are more than two feet in dimeter, and thus if (1) is true, then (2) is also true. However (1) by itself does not guarantee that (2) is true, so argument #5 is NOT VALID
An expanded version of argument 5 would be VALID:
Argument 5a:
- Pluto is a planet
- All Planets are more than 2 feet diameter
——————————————
*3. Pluto is more then 2ft in diameter
Although #2 is obvious, it needs to be stated to make the argument valid
Explain Patterns of arguments
A pattern of arguement dispiays: the under/ving form or logical Structure of an arguement. It is the pattern of an arguement that it follows that determines lineter or not it is valid
Argument 4 pattern:
1, x is an A
2. All As are Bs
- X is a B
Exampie 4: Biz-E makes a phone call but hears someone on the line either it’s his Wife or child, but sees the child outside so he concludes its his wife.
Arguement 6:
- Either My son is on the phone or My wife is
- It is not the case that My 500 is on the phone
*3. My wife is on the pinone
The pattern for the arguement looks like:
1. Either p or Q
2. ~P (P isn’t true)
*3. Q
Explain Predicate logic
Thus in the pattem for Arguements 4 and 5a we had a letter for standing for the names “Boris and Pluto” X, and the letters. A and B Standing for the predicates (descriptive phrases) “ is a Student “ “is a planet” and so on. This Sort of arguemont represents “predicare logic”
OR
Predicate logic is a way to describe how objects (things) relate to each other or have certain properties.
Here’s a simple breakdown:
Objects: The things or people we are talking about.
Predicates: The properties (descriptions) or relationships between those objects.
Explain the principle of proportional belief
Proportion your beliefs to the evidence, the more evidence you have in favour of a proposition being true, the more confident you should be that it is true
It is rational to proportion the strength of one’s beliefs to the strength of one’s evidence. The stronger one’s evidence for the truth of a proposition, the stronger one’s belief in it should be (and vice versa)
Explain Fallibilism
The view that a belief can be Rational, justified, reasonable even though it is false
Ex: good reason for believing the bus will come at 10am, looked at the schedule, but the bus came at 11am, had good evidence but the bus did not come when you believed it - therefore your belief was false but there was good reasons to have that belief and it was R/J/R
Important difference between believing whether something is true, and whether there are good reasons for believing it, you could have good reasons for believing something that is actually false
Explain the differences in evidence/changes in evidence
- Two people may have different evidence available to them (about some proposition) and so it may be rational for them to disagree (about whether that proposition is true)
might have different evidence, so it’s rational to believe different things ex: toast for breakfast one knows it from memory, another might suspend judgement, because theres no way for them to know
ex: two detectives look at different evidence so they could come to different conclusions and beliefs - different evidence may make different beliefs rational - although in a disagreement there can be one person right but it’s rational to disagree
- An individual person’s evidence may change over time, and so different beliefs may be rational for them at different times
ex: earth is flat, but new evidence surfaces to change beliefs
ex: sue’s belief about Jone’s character
Tuesday: she sees jones being a good person
Wednesday: She sees jones being a bad person
Sue got new evidence, so the rational thing for her to do is revise her beliefs about Jones character
Base your beliefs on the evidence, so if evidence change’s it’s rational for your beliefs to change as well
How much evidence is needed for a belief to be R/J/R?
In general to be R/JR beliefs have to be based on enough of the right kind of evidence
What kind of evidence depends upon the context
ex: telling someone you were sick over the weekend, it is reasonable to take them on their word and believe they were sick - Now a student telling a prof they were sick and missed a test, in this case that is not enough evidence the university and prof expects some evidence to prove that. Therefore the evidence needed depends on the context.
^ That situation can be used to explain the “the higher the stakes rule”
basically, the higher the ‘stakes’ the more evidence is required for a belief to be rational, justified, reasonable.
Ex: OG simpson murder trial = high stake which needs more evidence, while a civil stake is low stakes which requires less evidence - found innocent on murder trial but found guilty in civil court
Explain some of the ways that beliefs can be Irrational, Unjustified, Unreasonable (I/U/U)
(A & B) (4 reasons for it)
A. Motivational Errors - Being excessively influenced by what we want to be true or false, rather than focusing on the relevant evidence
eg: lottery ticket; really hope to win - desire. Believing that you will win just because you want to win is irrational, unjustified, unreasonable - why? because not evaluating all the evidence (lottery ticket odds low) extremely high chance you will lose
B. Failing to weigh all the available evidence properly
- Ignoring some of the available evidence entirely - if we know about the evidence we MUST factor it in, it is Irrational, unjustified, unreasonable to simply ignore it
eg: calculating grade ignoring final exam mark - why? final exam is needed to determine grade Ex: detective ignoring evidence
2.. Failing to weigh all the available evidence properly (aka: disconfirmation bias) - looking at all the evidence but not giving it it’s proper weight.
eg: got a bunch of evidence for and against a proposition, tendency to think true, see contrary evidence but don’t hold it to much regard because it goes against what you think or what you want to think - to place less value then you should on the evidence that is against your view
3.. Over-valuing contrary evidence (aka: confirmation bias) - it is to give too much weight to the evidence that supports your view that you already hold or the view that you want to be true - overvaluing confirming evidence bias in favour of evidence that confirms your view, under-valuing or being excessively critical of contrary evidence
4.. Over-valuing “Psychologically available” evidence - Human tendency to put too much evidence that is easy to get , or that is vivid or memorable. Some evidence is harder to hold before our minds/harder for us to get and it might count for just as much but we tend to prioritize or give more weight to the evidence that is vivid or easy to understand or remember - not rational - giving too much weight to memorable or vivid evidence
eg: scared of flying because you seen terrible plane crash on the news, but the % of plane crashes to successful flights is low, so it is not rational to be scared just based on that
Explain the Truth and rational strength of arguments
An argument is a set of statements, one of which the conclusion is taken to be supported by the remaining statements (the premises) premises and conclusions may be true, or they may be false
Based ON that
Evaluating the truth-value of premises and conclusions is distinct from evaluating the rational strength of arguments - It’s one thing to ask if these statements are true or false, it’s another thing to ask the more subtle question - if those statements were true what would that mean for the third? what’s the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion
Example:
- TMU is located in Guelph, ON
- ## Kerr Hall is located on the campus of TMU*3. Kerr Hall is located in Guelph, ON (from #1,2)
^^DEDUCTIVELY VALID ARGUMENT
- There is an important connection between the premises and the conclusion
- IF #1,2 ARE TRUE, #3 WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE
- This argument is in standard form, to put an argument in standard form, is to take an argument figure out what the reasons are, what conclusion its supporting and put it in that above ^ format. That process is known as reconstructing the argument
What are some advantages of using standard form?
- Excludes logically irrelevant material - set aside everything else
- Allows us to make assumptions explicit
- Provides clarity and ease of reference
In short; it provides a clear reconstruction of the argument, and this is essential to properly evaluate the argument
What are the 2 kinds of arguments?
- Deductive
- Inductive
What is a deductive argument
It is an ambitious type of argument that attempts to show that the conclusion MUST be the case. Tries to show if the premises are TRUE, then the conclusion has to be true as well.
show the truth, max logic more ambitious
Explain Deductive Validity
An argument is deductively valid if and only it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
ex; TMU Kerr hall in guelph
In other words
If all the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true too
the conclusion logically follows from the premises
Validity is just a feature of arguments - Conclusions, premises, statements can be neither valid or invalid, validity does not apply to those
Validity = to a specific feature that arguments either have or lack, arguments as a whole
validity does not equal true premises, argument is considered valid if the premises were true the conclusion would have to be true - more about the connection between the premises and the conclusion then wether or not the premises and conclusion are actually true or false
EXAMPLE OF A VALID ARGUMENT
- All bachelors are unmarried
- ## Ivan is a bachelor*3 Ivan is unmarried (#1,2)
If BOTH #1,2 are true then it only makes sense the conclusion must be true. That is what makes this argument valid.
You arent trying to identify if both premises are true individually, but rather if they were true, what would that tell us about the conclusion
Validity is about the logical connection between premises and a conclusion. Arguments as a whole are either valid or invalid