Unit One - Intro to Critical Thinking Flashcards
What is logic?
- technique of reasoning or providing reasoned accounts
- foundational field in traditional models of education
- field concerned w/ improving one’s own character + abilities
- field of study concerned w/ understanding, analysis, + communication of info
- field concerned w/ skills of analyzing, synthesizing, organizing + assessing info
Models of Persuasion
3 general ways of motivating ppl to accept your claims
Logos
Persuade ppl by offering compelling reason for ur claim
Ethos
Persuade by establishing ur character as one that ppl will place trust in
Pathos
Persuade by appealing to ppl’s emotions in a way that makes them emotionally committed to ur claim
Rhetoric
Art of reasoning
- involves studying how to make use of all 3 models of persuasion
Logic
Art of reasoning
-studying how to make use of one model of persuasion = logos
Epistemic Significance
Standard which provides a reliable guide for understanding what is objectively true about world
Practical significance
Provides us w/ the means of coming to agreements that are not based on coercion
Coercion
Persuading ppl by virtue of power you have over them
-claims that ppl assent to will be those claims which are supported by ppl w/ most power
Logos
Persuading ppl by virtue of sharing w/ them a recognition of external standard of belief providing by reasoning
-claims that ppl assent to will be independent of Qs of who has most power
Personal significance
Provides the means of forming one’s own beliefs in a way that is independent of power + exercised over one’s thinking by culture, society, etc
Critical thinking
Systematic evaluation/formulation of beliefs/statements by rational standards
Systematic
Proceeds according to particular standards + methods
Evaluative + formative
Aims to assess beliefs + to form/revise beliefs
Rational standard
Rule guiding C.T is that beliefs ought to be supported by good reasons
Descriptive approach
Describe situations + causes that led to a given belief being formed
Normative approach
Assess beliefs based on whether they are reasonable
Analytic interpretation
Act of translating piece of natural language into a clearly understood argument
Natural language
Describes the presentation of info as we normally encounter it in written + spoken sources
Statement
Assertion that something is or is not that case
Rhetoric question
Natural language written as if were a question but intended to make a statement
Thesis
Claim trying to establish
Justification
Claim offer as a reason for thesis
Argument
Group of statements in which some of them are intended to support another of them
Premise
Statement that give rational support in argument (justification)
Good premise = true/acceptable
Bad premise = false/unacceptable
Conclusion
Statement that is rationally supported in argument (thesis)
Good conclusion = true/acceptable
Bad conclusion = false/unacceptable
Inference
Relationship of rational support which connects statements that give this support to statement that is supported by it
Good inference = valid/strong
Bad inference = invalid/weak
Argument
Good argument = sound/cogent
- only if:
1) all premise true/acceptable AND
2) it’s inference = valid/strong
Bad argument = unsound/un-cogent
- only if:
1) any premise false/unacceptable OR
2) it’s inference is invalid/weak
Standard form
standardized way of presenting an argument
makes it clear what statements are involved, and which statements are premises while which statements are conclusions.
Simple arguments
arguments that do not contain any intermediate conclusions
Complex arguments
arguments that contain one or more intermediate conclusions
Intermediate conclusion
statement which functions as conclusion of one simple argument - also function as premise of another simple argument
Dependent premises
premises support conclusion jointly
any premise is set of dependent premises offers support to conclusion when combined w/ other dependent premises in the set
Independent premises
premises support conclusion individually
any premise which is independent offers support to conclusion regardless of the presence/absence of any other premises
Deductive inferences
conclusion is meant to necessarily follow from the premises
good deductive inference
valid
- valid when conclusion must be true if premises are true (else; invalid)
good deductive argument
sound
- sound when;
1) inference = valid and
2) premises = true/acceptable
Inductive inferences
when conclusion is meant to probably but no necessarily follow from the premises
good inductive inference
strong
- strong when conclusion is prob true if the premises are true (else weak)
good inductive argument
cogent
- cogent when;
1) inference is strong and
2) premises are true/acceptable (else un-cogent)
implicit premise
statement which functions as premise in given argument but hasn’t actually been written/spoken when argument is given
implicit conclusion
statement which functions as premise in given argument but which hasn’t actually been written/spoken when argument is given
enthymeme
argument that contains one/more implicit premises/conclusions
principle of charity
methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view
whereby we seek to understand it in its strongest, most persuasive form before
subjecting the view to evaluation
principles of coherence
should try to interpret the arguer as espousing a logically consistent position
principles of correspondence
We should try to interpret the arguer as arguing about the same phenomenon we
would be expect a generally reasonable person to be concerned with in their
situation.
humanity principle
We should try to interpret the arguer as having the beliefs about the phenomenon in
question that would be held by a generally reasonable person in their situation
straw man fallacy
distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone else’s position so it can be more easily attacked or
criticized
When our interpretations of arguments are not consistent with the principle of charity
Subjective relativism
Thesis that what is true can always vary from person to person as depends on what they believe
Social relativism
Thesis that what is true can always vary form society to next as depends on what society recognizes
Philosophical relativism
Thesis that rational standard don’t provide us w/ the grounds for assessing, forming, or revising our beliefs
