50 terms

Philosophy 1100 Exam 3

STUDY
PLAY

Terms in this set (...)

Structure
-10 truth/false questions (2 points each)
-Written answer questions (80 points in total)
-One bonus question (15 points)
-Assessment: 20% of your final grade.
Categorical Sentence
A categorical sentence is a sentence asserting that all, or some, of one category of things either belong to or do not belong to another category of things
Standard Categorical Sentences
Type-A: All S are P (affirmative quality, universal quantity)
Type-E: No S are P (negative quality, universal quantity)
Type-I: Some S are P (affirmative quality, particular quantity)
Type-O: Some S are not P (negative quality, particular quantity)
4 Parts of Categorical Sentence
-The first term in a standard categorical sentence is called the subject
-The second term is called the predicate
-'All' and 'some' are called quantifiers
-'Are' and 'are not' are called copula.
Quality of Categorical Sentences
The quality of a categorical sentence is either affirmative or negative depending on whether it affirms or denies class membership
-All S are P" and "Some S are P" have affirmative quality, and "No S are P" and "Some S are not P" have negative quality
Quantity of Categorical Sentences
The quantity of a categorical sentence is either universal or particular, depending on whether the statement makes a claim about every member or just some member of the class denoted by the subject term
-All S are P" and "No S are P" each assert something about every member of the S class and thus are universal sentences. "Some S are P" and "Some S are not P" assert something about one or more members of the S class and hence are particular propositions.
Existential (or Aristotelian) Import/ Standpoint
A sentence has this if its subject term refers to a non-empty class (Assume Type A & E imply existential import)
Hypothetical (or Boolean) Standpoint
To adopt the hypothetical standpoint is to not assume that sentences of type A and E implies existential import
-Note that using the hypothetical standpoint does not mean assuming that Type-A and Type-E sentences do not have existential import
Categorical Argument
A categorical argument is an argument composed entirely of categorical sentences
Immediate Interference
A immediate inference is a categorical argument with one premise and one conclusion
Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism is a categorical argument with two premises and a conclusion
Sorties
A sorties is a categorical argument with more than two premises
Inductive Argument
An inductive argument aims to show that if its premises are all true, then its conclusion is probably true
-A inductive argument can be stronger or weaker than another inductive argument
Strong vs. Weak Inductive Argument
-An inductive argument is strong if the truth of the premises provide strong reasons for the conclusion
-An inductive argument is weak if the truth of the premises provide weak or no reasons for the conclusion
Cogent
A strong inductive argument with true premises
Monotonic Sentences
-Deductive arguments are monotonic in the sense that adding new premises to a valid deductive argument can never make it invalid
-Inductive arguments are not monotonic: adding a new premise to an strong inductive argument can weaken it
Deductive Argument
-Monotonic in the sense that adding new premises to a valid deductive argument can never make it invalid
-Either valid or invalid. The strength of inductive arguments do come in degrees
-A sound deductive argument must have a true conclusion
-A cogent inductive argument can have a false conclusion
Analogy
An analogy is a resemblance or similarity between two things
Analogical Argument
A and B are similar in some aspects (they share some common features), there is a further feature X that A has but B is not known to not have, therefore B probably has the feature X too
Primary Analogates
Primary analogates are the objects being compared that appear only in the premises
An enumerative induction is an argument where...
1) the premises enumerate information about a series of individuals or cases
2) a pattern is observed from the enumerated information
3) as a conclusion, the pattern is extended over to other individual or cases or a whole class of individuals
Statistical Induction
A statistical induction draws conclusion about a entire group of objects from information about a part of the group (called the 'sample')
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)
We make an inference to the best explanation (IBE) when we observe some facts that are in need of explanation and conclude that the best hypothesis that explains the observed facts is probably true
Necessary Condition
A condition N is called a necessary condition for an event E just in case event E is not possible without N
Sufficient Condition
A condition S is called a sufficient condition for an event E just in case S is all that is required for E to occur
Method of Agreement
The method of agreement is a logical process in which one attempts to find a common factor to several events for the purpose of identifying that factor as the cause of an effect E present in the events
Method of Difference
If an effect E is present in one event, and a closely similar event doesn't exhibit, we look for the difference between the two events in order to find the cause. This method is called the method of difference
Method of Concomitant
The method of concomitant variation looks for changes in one phenomenon that vary with or correspond to changes in a second phenomenon. If such changes are found, then it is probable that the two phenomenon are causally related.
Tell whether a categorical statement is in the standard form...
Subject- 1st Term
Predicate- 2nd Term
Qualifiers- 'All' or 'Some'
Copulas- 'Are' or 'Are not'
Subjects should be nouns
Identify the type, quality and quantity of a standard categorical statement...
1. No stressful jobs are occupations conducive to a healthy lifestyle
-Type E Sentence
-Quantity- Universal
-Quality- Affirmative
-Subject- Stressful Jobs
-Predicate- Jobs

2. All trials in which a coerced confession is read to the jury are trials in which a guilty verdict can be reversed
-Type A Sentence
-Quantity- Universal
-Quality- Affirmative
-Subject- Trials with false confession
-Predicate- Trials with reversed verdict

3. No labor strikes are events welcomed by management
-Type E Sentence
-Quantity- Universal
-Quality- Negative
-Subject- Labor Strikes
-Predicate- Events welcomed by management
Translate categorical argument into standard form so that terms are used consistently in all sentences in the argument...
1. Any bank that makes risky loans will fail
-All banks that make risky loans are banks that will fail
2. Every Jazz fan admired Duke
-All jazz fans are fans that admire Duke
3. She gains weight whenever she's depressed
-All times she gains weight are time when she's depressed
Draw a Venn diagram to represent information in a categorical sentence...
To test a categorical argument:
1) Translate all sentences in the argument to standard forms
2) Replace subject and predicate terms in the argument consistently with single letters
3) Draw overlapping circles, one for each category. Label the circles with their single letter abbreviations
4) Represent all information in the premises on the Venn diagram
5) If using the existential standpoint, put a X on a region of a subject term circle if all other regions are shaded
6) The argument is valid if and only if all information contained in the conclusion is already represented on the diagram
*See homework or homework 3.4, 3.5 for examples
Know when to adopt the existential standpoint and when to adopt the hypothetical viewpoint...
-Existential import is saying the subject refers to a class that is NOT empty

-Hypothetical standpoint says subject is empty or debatably empty
Test the validity of a categorical argument with Venn diagram...
*See Section 3 Lecture 4/5 Notes
Identify the primary analogates of an analogical argument...
They are the objects being compared that appear ONLY in premises (Support conclusion)
Evaluate the strength of an analogical argument...
1. More relevant similar characteristics are to the characteristic in the conclusion -> stronger analogy -> stronger argument
2. More characteristics in common -> stronger analogy -> stronger argument
3. More relevant dissimilarities -> weaker argument
4. More primary analogates -> stronger argument
5. More diverse primary analogates -> stronger argument, provided the diversity concerns features unrelated to the feature cited in the conclusion
6. More specific conclusion -> weaker argument and more general conclusion -> stronger argument
Evaluate the effect of adding/changing a premise on the strength of an analogical argument...
&
Construct new premises that strength/weaken an analogical argument...
1. Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument?

a. Veronica hired Ajax several times, and Ajax always did an excellent job.
-Argument stronger; more primary analogates

b. Veronica's rugs are wool, whereas Harold's are nylon.
-Argument weaker, different dissimilarity

c. Veronica's carpets never had any stains on them before they were cleaned, but Harold's have several large stains.
-Argument weaker, different dissimilarity

d. Veronica always had her rugs cleaned in mid-October, whereas Harold wants his done just a week before Easter.
-Argument doesn't change; Irrelevant

e. Harold knows of six additional people who have had their carpets cleaned by Ajax, and all six have been very pleased.
-Argument stronger; same as A but even stronger because it is more diverse

f. All six own rugs made of different materials.
-Argument stronger, more analogies and more diverse

g. All six additional people were born in Massachusetts.
-Statement has no impact on strength of argument

h. Ajax has recently undergone a change in management.
-Argument weaker, relevant dissimilarity

i. The Environmental Protection Agency recently banned the cleaning solution Ajax has used for many years.
-Argument weaker, relevant dissimilarity

j. Harold changes his conclusion to state that Ajax will get his carpets approximately as clean as it has gotten Veronica's.
-We now have a weaker conclusion. Argument stronger
Identify the sample and the population in a statistical induction...
Sample- Part of population drawing inference from
Population- Larger, more representative sample size
Evaluate the strength of an enumerative induction...
The strength of an enumerative induction is determined by:
1) Sample size: larger sample size (as a percentage of the entire group) generally makes the sample more representative and the argument stronger.
2) Sample variation: a more varied sample is more likely to be representative of the group, which makes a stronger argument
3) Randomness: in general a more randomly chosen sample makes the argument stronger
Evaluate the effect of adding/changing a premise on the strength of an enumerative induction...
Always want a more large, diverse, random sample
Construct new premises that strength/weaken an enumerative induction...
In general, more representative sample = stronger argument
Examples:
1. All observed emeralds have been green. Therefore, the next emerald to be observed will be green.
2. The 1st observed emerald was green.
The 2nd observed emerald was green....
The last observed emerald was green.
Therefore, the next emerald to be observed will be green.
Evaluate an explanation... (& its strength)
1. Internal consistency: not self-contradictory
2. External consistency: consistent with already established facts and theories
3. Large explanatory scope: explains the widest possible range of relevant data
4. (for empirical explanation) testability: the explanation should be testable
5. Simplicity: Simpler explanation are preferred over more complicated ones (all else being equal).
Translate an inference to the best explanation into the general form...
Ex: If overcrowding is cause of sickness then first part will be more sick than second.
First isn't more sick than second.
Therefor, not due to overcrowding
Construct an explanation/hypothesis that explains an observation...
1. Fact in need of explanation: Many women are likely to die if assisted by doctor
2. Proposed hypothesis: There is something on doctor's hands
3. Predictions Made Under Assumption that Hypothesis is True: If you wash your hands, less women will die
Design an experiment/observation to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis...
DISCONFIRM:
1. If hypothesis is true, then the prediction will be observed
2. Prediction is not observed
3. Thus, hypothesis is probably false

(If overcrowding is cause of sickness then first part will be more sick than second.
First isn't more sick than second.
Therefor, not due to overcrowding)

CONFIRM:
1. If hypothesis is true, then the prediction will be observed
2. Prediction is observed
3. Thus, hypothesis is probably true

Ex: Formulate at least three hypotheses aimed at explaining the following event. Describe inquiries that would confirm or disconfirm each of hypotheses
-A close friend calls you on the phone and confides a personal secret. That night you write the secret in your diary. A few days later your friend is furious with you because the friend overheard someone on campus talking about the secret
Identify which of the Mill's methods (if any) a piece of causal reasoning uses...
1. Throwing a brick through a window will cause the window to break.
-Sufficient
-Not Necessary because a lot of things can break a window

2. Heating an iron rod causes it to expand.
-Necessary and Sufficient, metal always expands when you heat it

3. Slashing an inflated automobile tire with a knife will cause it to go flat.
-Not Sufficient,?
-Not Necessary, tire could pop on its own
-So Neither

4. Releasing the shutter of a digital camera causes an image to appear on the sensor.
-Not Sufficient, camera has to be on and have battery
-Not Necessary, camera could be taken with timer
-So Neither

*A condition S is called a sufficient condition for an event E just in case S is all that is required for E to occur.
*A cause of an event can be a necessary condition, a sufficient condition, or a necessary and sufficient condition for the event.
Apply Mill's methods to identify causal relations...
Cause relations are the necessary and sufficient conditions
-A condition N is called a necessary condition for an event E just in case event E is not possible without N
-A condition S is called a sufficient condition for an event E just in case S is all that is required for E to occur

1. Throwing a brick through a window will cause the window to break.
-Sufficient
-Not Necessary because a lot of things can break a window
2. Heating an iron rod causes it to expand.
-Necessary and Sufficient, metal always expands when you heat it
3. Slashing an inflated automobile tire with a knife will cause it to go flat.
-Not Sufficient,?
-Not Necessary, tire could pop on its own
-So Neither
4. Releasing the shutter of a digital camera causes an image to appear on the sensor.
-Not Sufficient, camera has to be on and have battery
-Not Necessary, camera could be taken with timer
-So Neither
Identify misapplications of Mill's methods...
?
Page 669 Exercise 33.7
1. Two engines (1 with additive, 1 without); Difference
5. As employment increased, shoplifting decreased and vise versa; Method of concomitant variation
Page 672 Exercise 33.8
3. Divorce rates rose in 1980's then fell in the 1990's, why?
-Method of concomitant variations: Search for possible cause that also rose by a similar amount during the 1980's and fell by a similar amount during the 1990's. Use common sense to identify possible casual factors that might fit the bill
7. You bake cherry pie 3 times, and twice the pie turns out lousy, why?
-Method of difference: What was the difference between the two lousy pies and the one good pie? More specifically, what factor was present in the case of the good pie but completely absent in the cases of the lousy pie?
9. Two people on a group camping trip become sick. Why?
-Method of agreement: Search for common factor. What did they eat? What did they drink?