Get ahead with a $300 test prep scholarship | Enter to win by Tuesday 9/24 Learn more

Terms in this set (34)

-Supporting statements are called premises.
-Statements that are supported are called conclusions.
-Taken together, these are arguments.
-Can a premise be valid? NO
-Also can't be sound. Premises are JUST statements that can either be true OR false.
-Sentences are NOT statements.
-Ie commands, these are NOT true or false.
-Statements HAVE to be true or false. Ie not an exclamation etc.
"The argument Sketch"
-Is this the right room for an argument?
An argument is NOT a series of contradictions.
-Truth and falsity

-> Reasons provide support for a statement. (They provide grounds for believing a statement is true.)
-> The combination of statements providing reasons for accepting another statement is known as an ARGUMENT.
-> The statements given in support of another statement are called PREMISES.
-> The statement the premises are intended to support is the CONCLUSION.
-> The process of reasoning from a premise to a conclusion is called INFERENCE
-> An argument gives us reasons for believing that something is the case - that a claim is true.
-> An EXPLANATION tells us why or how something is the case.
-> Arguments have something to prove, explanations do not.
-> Example 1: People have a respect for life because they adhere to certain ethical standards. EXPLANATION.
-> Example 2: People should have a respect for life because their own ethical standards endorse it. ARGUMENT.

-> Critical thinking is the systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards. Critical thinking is systematic because it involves distinct procedures and methods. It entails evaluation and formulation because it's used to both assess existing beliefs (yours or someone else's) and devise new
ones. And it operates according to reasonable standards in that beliefs are judged according to the reasons and reasoning that support them.
-The black and blue dress ???
-Confirmation Bias, Standards, Objectivity
-Subjective relativism, making truths out of opinions and cultural relativism
-Important because ONE problem when teaching is people think "hey just your opinion" NO we have standards that we can apply to evaluate arguments
-Standard demeanour, demeanour ??
-Subjective relativism, DO NOT use it.
-Critical thinking is about using tools selectively to arguments around us.
-Know what relativism IS
-Standards of objectivity, confirmation bias IMPORTANT

-> Confirmation Bias. Looking for confirming evidence only. Must also seek out dis confirming evidence (White swan example)
-> Social Relativism. Truth is relevant to societies. Truth depends on a society's beliefs.
-> Subjective Relativism. Truth depends solely on what someone believes - which may make critical thinking look superfluous as it means we are all infallible. It also is a logical problem a it is self defeating. Its truth implies falsity.
-> Philosophical Scepticism. The ideology that we actually know much less than we think we do - and we cannot know anything unless the belief is beyond all possible doubt. But this is not a plausible criterion for knowledge. Knowledge only needs to be beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

-> The idea that truth depends on what someone believes is called subjective relativism, and if you accept this notion or use it to try to support a claim, you're said to commit the subjectivist fallacy. This view says that truth depends not on the way things are but solely on what someone believes. Truth, in other words, is relative to persons. Truth is a matter of what a person believes-not a matter of how the world is. This means that a proposition can be true for one person, but not for another.

But there are ways to (1) detect errors in our thinking (even subtle ones), (2) restrain the attitudes and feelings that can distort our reasoning, and (3) achieve a level of objectivity that makes critical thinking possible.

We can sort the most common impediments to critical
thinking into two main categories: (1) those hindrances
that arise because of why we think and (2) those
that occur because of what we think. There is some
overlap in these categories; how people think is often a
result of what they think and vice versa. But in general,
category 1 obstacles are those that come into play because
of psychological factors (our fears, attitudes, motivations,
and desires), and category 2 impediments are
those that arise because of certain philosophical ideas
we have (our beliefs about beliefs). For example, a category
1 hindrance is the tendency to conform our opinions
to those of our peers.
-Argument Patterns
-Deductive (valid/invalid)
-Inductive (strong/weak)
-VERY important.
Valid "when the premises are true, the conclusion is always true."
Invalid "When the premises are true, the conclusion might not be true."
IF the premises are true the conclusion MUST be true.
-We assume the premises to be true and then ask whether the conclusion is always true.
-We call valid arguments "truth preserving" VERY IMP.
-Truth preserving means when premises are true, conclusion is true and it HAS to be this way.
-Valid is a formal evaluation.
-IF premises are true, conclusion WILL be true.
-BUT the premises might NOT actually be true.
-Validity is a "formal evaluation" NOT an evaluation of the content of the premises.
-"If brian drinks a bottle of vodka he can fly"
-"HE drank a bottle of vodka"
-"HE can fly"
-VALID argument. If A then B. A. Therefore B.
-Valid but NOT sound because you can't fly if you do that.
-The premises are false, although it IS a valid argument.
-Conditional - "If THIS then THAT"
-Antecedent "This"
-Consequent "That"
-Syllogism: "A deductive argument composed of two premises and a conclusion" ONLY 2 premises.
Strong - Provides probable support for the conclusion.
Weak - Fails to provide probable support for the conclusion.
Example of inductively weak argument:
"One out of four people report seeing the dress black and blue. Brian will see it black and blue"
-This one premise doesnt give good reason to think brian will see the dress black and blue.
Can we add more premises?
(Its OKAY to add more premises - these are implicit premises) WEEK 7 LECTURE 2
Sound - A deductively valid argument whose premises are true
Cogent - A strong inductive argument whose premises are true.
Deductive - Valid - Sound
Inductive - Strong - Cogent
(P1) IF Marla buys a house in the suburbs THEN she will be happier and healthier
(P2) She is buying a house in the suburbs
SO (C) She will be happier and healthier
P1 + P2 --> C
Diagrams show their relationship between the premises and conclusion
Plus sign indicates the premises are dependent rather than independent
Have no baring on the truth. Include the following fallacies: Genetic Fallacy; Composition; Division; Appeal To The Person; Tu Quoque; Equivocation; Appeal To Popularity; Appeal To Tradition; Appeal To Ignorance; Appeal To Emotion; Red Herring; Straw Man; and 2 Wrongs Make A Right

Arguing a claim is true or false solely because of its origin.

1. You can safely dismiss that energy conservation plan. It's the brainchild of a liberal think tank in Washington
2. We should reject that proposal for solving the current welfare mess. It comes straight from the Republican party.
3. Russell's idea about tax hikes came to him in a dream, so it must be bunk.

Arguing what is true of the parts must be true as a whole

1. The atoms that make up the human body are invisible. Therefore, the human body is invisible.
2. Each member of the club is productive and effective. So the club will be productive and effective.
3. Each note in the song sounds great. the whole song will sound great.
4. Every part of this motorcycle is lightweight; therefore, the whole motorcycle is lightweight.

Arguing what is true of the whole or is true of a group is true for the individuals

Rejecting a claim by criticising the person who makes it. Also called Ad hominem.

1. Jones has argued for a ban on government-sanctioned prayer in schools and at school-sponsored events. But he's a rabid atheist without morals of any kind.
2. Anything he has to say on the issue is bound to be a perversion of the truth.
3. We should reject Chen's argument for life on other planets. He dabbles in the paranormal.
4. You can't believe anything Morris says about welfare reform. He's a bleeding heart liberal.

A form of appeal to the person. It means "you're another" - rejecting a claim though charges of hypocrisy. The fallacious reasoning goes like this: Ellen claims that X, but Ellen doesn't practice/live by/condone X herself-so X is false.

1. A lot of Hollywood liberals tell us that we shouldn't drive SUVs because the cars use too much gas and are bad for the environment. But they drive SUVs themselves. What hypocrites! I think we can safely reject their stupid pronouncements.

The use of words in 2 different ways within an argument. Eg Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational. = Man is used twice: in the first instance to be "human kind", the second, to mean "male".

1. The end of everything is its perfection. The end of life is death. Therefore, death is the perfection of life
2. Laws can only be created by law-givers. There are many laws of nature. Therefore, there must be a Law-Giver, namely, God

Arguing a claim must be true simply because a substantial number of people believe it.

1. Most people approve of the government's new security measures, even though innocent people's privacy is sometimes violated. So I guess the measures must
be okay.
2. Of course the war is justified. Everyone believes that it's justified.
3. The vast majority of Americans believe that there's a supreme being, so how could you doubt it?

Arguing a claim is true or good just because it is part of a tradition

1. Acupuncture has been used for a thousand years in China. It must work. Of course publishing pornography is wrong. In this community there's a tradition of condemning it that goes back fifty years.

Arguing that a lack of evidence proves something

1. No one has shown that ghosts aren't real, so they must be real.
2. It's clear that God exists because science hasn't proved that he doesn't exist.
3. You can't disprove my theory that IFK was killed by LEf. Therefore, my theory is correct

The use of emotion as premises in an argument

1. You should hire me for this network analyst position.
I'm the best person for the job. If I don't get a job soon my wife will leave me, and I won't have enough money to pay for my mother's heart operation. Come on, give me a break.

The deliberate raising of irrelevant issues in an argument

1. woman should have the right to an abortion on demand. There's no question about it. These anti-abortion activists block the entrances to abortion clinics, threaten abortion doctors, and intimidate anyone who wants to terminate
a pregnancy.
2. The legislators should vote for the three-strikes-and-you're-out crime control measure. I'm telling you, crime is a terrible thing when it happens to you. It causes death, pain, and fear. And I wouldn't want to wish these things on anyone

The distorting, weakening or over simplifying of someone's position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted. Politicians are known for this.

1. Obviously he thinks that gay sex is something special and should be protected so it's allowed to take place just about anywhere. Do you want gays having sex all over town in full view of your children? David does, and he's dead wrong.

are relevant to the conclusion but are still dubious in some way. Includes: Begging the Question; False Dilemma; Slippery Slope; Hasty Generalisation; Faulty Analogy; & Decision-Point Fallacy

Also known as arguing in a circle. The attempt to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise.

The Bible says that God exists.
The Bible is true because God wrote it.
Therefore, God exists

Asserting that there are only 2 alternatives to consider when there are actually more than 2.

Look, either you support the war or you are a traitor to your country. You don't support the war. So you're a traitor.

Arguing, without good reason, that taking a particular step will lead to a further, desirable step or steps

We absolutely must not lose the war in Vietnam. If South Vietnam falls to the communists, then Thailand will fall to them. If Thailand falls to them, then South Korea will fall to them. And before you know it, all of Southeast Asia will be under communist control.

The drawing of a conclusion about a target group based on inadequate sample size.

You should buy a Dell computer. They're great. I bought one last year, and it has given me nothing but flawless performance

An argument in which the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways

In the Vietnam War, the United States had not articulated a clear rationale for fighting there, and the United States lost. Likewise, in the present war the United States has not articulated a clear rationale for fighting. Therefore, the United States will lose this war too.

Arguing that, because a line of distinction cannot be drawn at any point in the process, there are no differences or gradations in that process
Assuming a cut-off point exists when it doesn't nor does it need to be
Major premise 1: (Middle term) (Major term)
Minor premise2: (Minor term) (Middle term)
Conclusion: Therefore (Minor term) (Major term)
1. All M are P.
2. All S are M.
Therefore 3. All S are P. IMPORTANT.
Draw 3 Intersecting circles.

-> The subject term here is cats, and the predicate term is carnivores. The statement says that the class of cats is included in the class of carnivores. We can express the form of the statement like this:
-> 1. All S are P. (All cats are carnivores.)
-> 2. No S are P. (No cats are carnivores.)
-> 3. Some S are P. (Some cats are carnivores.)
-> 4. Some S are not P. (Some cats are not carnivores.)
-> S stands for the subject term, P stands for the predicate term.
-> 4 parts to Categorical statements. Subject term, predicate term, quantifier and copula.
-> The Copula joins together the subject and predicate terms through a verb - "are" or "are not."
-> The quantifier "all" "none" or "some"
-> As we saw in Chapter 3, a syllogism is a deductive argument made up of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. A categorical syllogism is one consisting of three categorical statements (A, E, I, or 0) interlinked in a specific way.

(l) All M are P.
(2) All S are M.
(3) Therefore, all S are P.
Here, M stands for the middle term; P for the major term; and S for the minor term.
So a categorical syllogism, then, is one that has:
1. Three categorical statements-two premises and a conclusion.
2. Exactly three terms, with each term appearing twice in the argument.
3. One of the terms (the middle term) appearing in each premise but not the conclusion.
4. Another term (the major term) appearing as the predicate term in the conclusion and also in one of the premises (the major premise).
5. Another term (the minor term) appearing as the subject term in the conclusion and also in one of the premises (the minor premise).
Week7 Lecture 2



Centipede Effect
"Losing a skill as a result of talking about it too much."

Questions help us understand what about THIS. Must be a well formulated question.

Motivations: What motivates an argument can always be formulated as a question it's author is trying to answer.

We name this question as the implicit question. (Implied premises - it's okay to bring in something not stated). A well formulated question will open up space for many possible answers.

Rival Conclusions - How do we decide which rival conclusion is best? Make a judgement - Examine the support offered in favour of the conclusions.
-> The strength of the support depends on the context in which the support is offered.
-> When addressing opposing premises, want to give reasons for why this isn't the case.


Diagnostic arguments explain data.

Science and sleuthing are both diagnostic activities.
Data that we expect a conclusion to explain.
Symptoms are trace data, diagnosis is the conclusion. (There are rival conclusions in medical diagnoses).


Trace Data - the windows in the house are rattling.
Implicit question - why are the windows rattling?
Rival conclusions - Heavy winds, earthquake, angry child.
Rival conclusions explain the trace data.

How do we decide which conclusion?
-> We need more information (We need more NON-trace data).

NTD makes one or more rival conclusions seem stronger.
-> ie: NTD makes us find out the weather was calm. This rules out heavy wind.
-> The rivals don't explain NTD, but we use it in our argument because it makes "Heavy winds" seem far less likely.

Now we have found out:
NTD: Weather was calm
NTD: No reports of seismic activity

Angry child seems like the best explanation.

This was a case of SLEUTHING.

Explanation of data is often verification of an hypothesis.
-> The details of a theory (or hypothesis) are NTD. Meaning our conclusion doesn't explain the theory, our conclusions explain the data, and thereby verify the theory.
Alternative ways to represent an argument:
"This picture offers S1 and S2 as reasons to think C is true."
-> Motivation separates random statements
-> We name the question that links premises and conclusion together in the authors thinking the IMPLICIT QUESTION.
-> (Compare implied premises we've already talked about)
Implicit question in exam
-> Conclusions are answers to the implicit question.
-> A well-formulated implicit question will open up space to answers.
"To what extent should we allow students to use screen devices in the classroom?"
There are many answers which we call rival conclusions.
We lose possible options with a poor implicit question(?) - "should we use ie either yes or no."
Rival conclusions IN EXAM.
-> Rival conclusions compete to be the best explanation. (Hence inference to the best explanation)
-> How do we decide which among the rivals is best?
We examine the support offered in favour of each rival conclusion.
-> The strength of the support depends on the context in which the support is offered
-> Your task is to make judgements.
-> Diagnostic arguments (they explain data)
Their implicit questions request a diagnosis and take forms like:
What's going on here?
What happened there?
They are very short stories.
-> TRACE DATA. Science and sleuthing are both diagnostic activities.
In each, there are data that we expect a conclusion to explain.
Compare a medical diagnosis:
-> The diagnosis should explain all the symptoms. Symptoms are trace data; Diagnosis is the conclusion. (And notice how much rival conclusions play in medical diagnoses. Second opinions for example).
-> Non-trace data. Fever for a week, can hardly breath, coughing violently. These are trace datas we use to talk about the conclusion
-> NON TRACE Non-smoker, in good health etc. helps lung cancer move down the list.
-> When we bring in background information we help to revert rival conclusions and to reach the right conclusion.
-> Trace data = stuff we can see
-> Non trace = background.
-> Things we need to explain - traces
->Second opinions - someone giving a rival conclusion and saying its the best explanation
-> In science, explanation of data is often verification of an hypothesis.

-> EXAM Implicit questions, rival conclusions, traces, non traces, and we're explaining data with rival conclusions.
-> Target Group. The class of individuals which an inductive generalization is made.
-> Sample. The observed members of a target group.
-> Relevant Property. The property under study in a group.
-> Hasty Generalization. The drawing of a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate sample size.
-> Biased Sample. A sample that is not representative of its target group.
-> Simple random sampling. The selecting of a sample to ensure that each member of the target group has an equal chance of being chosen.
-> Margin of error: The variation between the values derived from a sample and the true values of the whole target group.
-> Confidence level: The probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error.

Analogical Argument Pattern
Thing A has properties P1, P2, P3 plus the property P4·
Thing B has properties P1, P2, and P3
Therefore, thing B probably has property P4'
Criteria for Judging Arguments by Analogy
1. The number of relevant similarities
2. The number of relevant dissimilarities
3. The number of instances compared
4. The diversity among cases

A causal argument is an inductive argument whose conclusion contains a causal claim. There are several inductive patterns of reasoning used to assess causal connections. These include the Method of Agreement, the Method of Difference and the Method of Concomitant
Variation. Errors in cause-and-effect reasoning are common. They include misidentifying relevant factors in a causal process, overlooking relevant factors, confusing cause with coincidence, confusing cause with temporal order, and mixing up cause and effect. Crucial to an understanding of cause-and-effect relationships are the notions of necessary and sufficient conditions. A necessary condition for the occurrence of an event is one without which the event cannot occur. A sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event is one that guarantees that the event occurs.
kuhn argued there are periods of "normal science" during which we investigate stuff, by solving problems posed by the dominant paradigm.
But then, after accumulation of too many "anomalies," we enter a period of revolution, where a new dominant paradigm emerges.
The paradigm guides research. IMPORTANT GO ABBACK
IT showss us porblems that remain to be solved. It solves roblems that previously puzzled us. And importantly, it eliminates previously unsolvable problems. (This last point is partly why Kuhn does not view science as a gradual accumulation of more and more knowledge.)
Within a paradigm, hypothesis vanished but new puzzles emerged which kuhn wants us to think about.
We DONT reject everyhting before us, there are certian things that remain and there are new things we bring with us and other things we dispense.
Thomas Kuhn
He chanes the discussion about what its like to make progress in the sciences, in particular. And his thesis is so pwerful, that others start to see the same patterns all over intellectual history.
Wehn you ask good questions, you often find otherwise overlooked insights.
(This is one of the most important lessons you can take from this class)
MUST ask the implicit questions.
This is why implicit questions are so important.
1. Identify the problem or pose a quuestion.
2. Devise a hypothesis to explain the event or phenomenon.
3. Derive a test implication or prediction.
4. Perform the test.
5. Accept or reject the hypothesis.
"As you can see, theory testing is part of the broader effort to assess the merits of one theory against a field of alternatives."
1. Testability
2. Fruitfulness
3. Scope
4. Simplicity
5. Conservatism
Normative ethics -
Duty ethics. "What makes an action right is teh motivation for that action, as opposed to the results of that action."
This is based in pure reason.
"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should becomme a universal law." SOMETHING IMPORTANT
Imagine a false promise:
I need $20 from justin.
It seem
Notice we didnt say anything about the outcome of the action in question. When we talk about Duty ethics, we're talking a ____________

Organ harvesting
It seems I can save alot of lives by harvesting the organs of a single person. The consequence would be, presumably, a greater amount of happniess in the world at the expense of one very unhappy person.
Can we really JUSTIFY the means??
They contain moral statements.
A moral statement: "Statement asserting that an action is_________
More statemeNTS: Tell you what you shoil
"The standard moral argument is a mixture of moral and nonmoral statements. At least one premise is a moral statement that asserts a general moral principle or moral standard. At least one premise makes a nonmoral claim. And the conclusion is a moral statement or j __________ (SOMETHING IMPORTANT HERE)

The Law
Whats morally right and whats legally right?
Outward form of legal reasoning is often deductive:
(1) If __________
Within this frameworkk, theres a lot of inductive reasoning.
How does a judge deide WHICH rule to apply?
How does a judge deal with conflict within a rule?
Which facts apply to this case?
Whose testimonay is most relaible?