Test 1 Flashcards
What is critical thinking?
Thinking logically and rationally to arrive at the truth
Branches of Philosophy?
- Metaphysics
- Ethics
- Epistemology
- Logic
What is truth?
Aristotle: “Truth is saying of what is, that it is and of what is not, that it is not”
Simply = truth is where the statement made corresponds to reality
Subjectivism (relativism)
“X might be true for you, but X is certainly not true for me”
Relies on a singular objective reality accepted by arguing parties
Why think critically?
We want our beliefs to be true. Beliefs = map of reality, therefore want the map to be as accurate as possible.
Sources of Evidence?
- Sensory experience
- Memory
- Testimony
- Arguments
Arguments: Definition?
Sequence of statements (premise(s) and conclusion) intended to establish the truth of a statement
Include reasons and rely on our ability to evaluate evidence.
Difference between argument and rhetoric?
Difference b/w an argument and rhetoric is that a successful argument is an aid to understanding, while successful rhetoric produces a desired action
Principle of Charity
Should prefer good reconstructions of arguments, as the ultimate goal is truth.
Reconstructing an argument in a negative light to look like a bad argument is pointless, as you are no closer to knowing whether that claim is true or false.
Methods for evaluating evidence
- Look for a vested interest
- Watch for weasel words
- Question surveys
- Caution when dealing with surveys, percentages, numbers, anecdotes, stats and graphs
- Retain a sense of the big picture and proportion
Validity and valid arguments?
Validity = where premises guarantee the conclusion
Validity concerns the structure of the argument, not it’s truth or content (arguments can therefore be valid even if the premises are false)
Soundness
Sound arguments = valid arguments with premises that are actually true
All sound arguments are valid
Formal fallacies and types?
Fallacy = error in reasoning
Types:
Formal (form of argument)
Informal (content of argument)
Proper form:
P1: IF G, then F
P2: G
C: therefore F
G = anticedent, F = consequent (form of modus ponens)
Post Hoc Fallacy
“After this, therefore, because of this”
Claims that certain events are caused by previous events with no causal link
Informal Fallacy: Formalising argument?
Can’t identify an informal fallacy by formalising argument
Appeal to majority
Informal Fallacy
Uses popular belief in a proposition as evidence that the proposition is true
Ad Hominem
Informal Fallacy
Attacks trait of arguer to undermine arguers point
Appeal to Authority
Informal Fallacy
Uses claim of authority on facts that aren’t relevant to the argument to add credibility to the argument
False Dichotomy
Informal Fallacy
Presents a limited set of alternatives as though they are the only ones, when there may be others
Appeal to Ignorance
Informal Fallacy
Uses lack of evidence for the opposing proposition as evidence that the presented proposition is true
Straw Man
Informal Fallacy
Wilfully misrepresenting an opponent’s argument so that it looks superficially similar but it is much easier to attack
Slippery Slope
Informal Fallacy
Sliding from one likely event to progressively less and less likely events in ways that make the causal chain seem inevitable
Post Hoc (False Cause)
Informal Fallacy
Claiming that certain events are caused by previous events with no causal link