Test #1 Flashcards
Critical Thinking
System evaluation of beliefs by rational standards
Arguments
Group of statements, support conclusion. String of assertions
Premise
Statement given in support of conclusion in argument
For, since, because
Conclusion
Statement that premises support in argument
So, therefore, thus
Inference
Process of moving from premises to conclusion
Explanation
Statements intended to tell why/how something is the case
Assertion
Truth-apt
Express proposition= way world MAY be
Building blocks of arguments
Conditional proposition
If p then q
Negation
Not p
Conjunction
P and Q
Disjunction
P or Q
Sentence types
Statements and assertions
Questions
Imperatives and commands
Exclamations
When 2 premises are true
Conclusion follows necessarily
Deductive arguments
Argument intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion
Truth preserving
Valid or invalid
Validity
Follows formal logic, succeeds in providing conclusive support for conclusion
Soundedness
True premises and valid logic
Guarantees truth of conclusion
Inductive argument
An argument in which premises are intended to provide probable
Not truth preserving
Generalize in basis of our experience
Strong
Abductive argument
Inference to best explanation (IBE)
Observation premise and then consider best explanation
Strong
Succeeds in providing probable, but not conclusive
Support for its conclusion
Weak
An inductive argument that fails to provide strong support for its conclusion
Cogent
Strong inductive argument with all true premises
Explanation vs argument
Why x is the case vs. Whether X is the case
Why use inductive and abductive reasoning?
Ampliative forms of reasoning. Add new info
Antecedent
First part of conditional statement
Consequent
Second part of conditional statement
Modus ponens
Affirming the antecedent
If p then q
P
Therefore q
Modus tollens
Denying the consequent
If p then q
Not q
Therefore not p
Hypothetical syllogism
Valid argument made up of three hypothetical/conditional statements
If p then q
If q then r
Therefore is p then r
Syllogism
deductive arguments made up of three statements: 2 premises and 1 conclusion
Two types of valid
Denying antecedents
Affirming consequent
Disjunctive syllogism
Either p or q
Not p
Therefore q
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Use the fact that Y followed X to establish that X caused Y
Diagramming arguments
Premises boxed Conclusion circled Arrows to indicate support Sub conclusion as box and circle Underline premises that lead to conclusion
Independent premise
Doesn’t rely on support of other premises
Dependent premise
Depends on other premises
Motivated belief
Belief formed bc resonates with our desires
Obstacles to human reasoning
Motivated belief
Social pressures
Optimism bias
Lousy mental design
What to do to avoid self interest issues
Outsourcing
Critical conversations
Engineering environment
Descriptive
Describe the way the world is
Evaluative
say something about what’s valuable
Normative
Say what SHOULD be
Nihilism
Say there aren’t facts so don’t believe
Subjective realism
Truth depends solely on what someone believes
Self defeating if generalized
Each of us would be infallible
Skepticism
No knowledge about domain
Social relativism
View that truth is relative to societies
Philosophical skepticism
Doctrine that we know much less than we think we do
Conflicting claims
If conflicts with claim we accept
Reason to doubt
Background information
Large collection of well supported beliefs that we rely on- if claim conflicts with background then reason to doubt
Expert
Someone more knowledgeable in area than most
If claim conflict then reason to doubt
If experts conflict then suspend judgement
Personal experience
Reasonable to accept evidence of personal experience if no reason to doubt
Common mistakes when evaluating claims
- Resisting contrary evidence
- Looking for confirming evidence
- Preferring available evidence
Fallacies
Argument form that is both common and defective
Recurring mistake in reasoning
2 types
2 types of fallacies
- Irrelevant premises
2. Unacceptable premises
Genetic fallacy
Irrelevant premises
Arg is true or false solely based on its origin, unreliable source
Ad hominem
Irrelevant premises
Appeal to person
Reject claim by criticizing person who makes it
Mentions and attacks origins
Tu quoque
Type of ad hominem
Irrelevant premises
Accused speaker of hypocrisy, reject claim on that basis
Fallacy of composition
Irrelevant premises
Arguing what’s true of parts is true of whole
Fallacy of division
Irrelevant premises
Arguing what’s true of whole is true of parts
Fallacy of equivocation
Irrelevant premises
Use word multiple times in different senses
Appeal to popularity/common practice
Irrelevant premises
Arguing claim must be true because substantial # of people believe it, what people generally do
Appeal to tradition
Irrelevant premises
Argument claims must be true because it’s part of tradition
Appeal to ignorance
Irrelevant premises
Lack of evidence proves something
Thinking claim true bc not shown false or argue claim false bc not proven true
Burden of proof
Weight of evidence/argument required by one side in disagreement
Appeal of emotion
Irrelevant premises
Fallacy of using emotions in place of relevant reasons as premises
Red herring
Irrelevant premises
Deliberately raising irrelevant issue/premise to push conclusion
Straw man
Irrelevant premises
Distorting, weakening, oversimplying someone’s position so it can be more easily attacked
Begging the question
Unacceptable premises
Establish conclusion by using conclusion as premise
False dilemma
Unacceptable premises
Asserting there are only two options or options aren’t mutually exclusive
Slippery slope
Unacceptable premises
Arguing without reason that taking particular step will cause sequence of steps
Hasty generalization
Unacceptable premises
Drawing conclusion about target group on too smalll sample
Faulty analogy
Unacceptable premises
Analogy doesn’t fit the context
