Karteikarten
Ohne Titel
Karten in diesem Stapel (110)
- 1argumentA group of statements in which some of them (the premises) are intended to support another of them (the conclusion).
- 2conclusionIn an argument, the statement that the premises are intended to support.
- 3critical thinkingThe systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards.
- 4explanationA statement or statements intended to tell why or how something is the case.
- 5indicator wordsWords that frequently accompany arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion is present.
- 6inferenceThe process of reasoning from a premise or premises to a conclusion based on those premises.
- 7logicThe study of good reasoning, or inference, and the rules that govern it.
- 8premiseIn an argument, a statement, or reason, given in support of the conclusion.
- 9statement(or claim) An assertion that something is or is not the case.
- 10appeal to common practiceThe fallacy of accepting or rejecting a claim based solely on what groups of people generally do or how they behave (when the action or behavior is irrelevant to the truth of the claim).
- 11appeal to popularity(or to the masses) The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.
- 12peer pressureGroup pressure to accept or reject a claim based solely on what one's peers think or do.
- 13philosophical skepticismThe view that we know much less than we think we do or nothing at all.
- 14social relativismthe view that truth is relative to societies
- 15stereotypingdrawing conclusions about people without any reasons
- 16subjective relativismThe idea that truth depends on what someone believes.
- 17subjectivist fallacyAccepting the notion of subjective relativism or using it to try to support a claim.
- 18worldviewA philosophy of life; a set of fundamental ideas that help us make sense of a wide range of important issues in life. A worldview defines for us what exists, what should be, and what we can know.
- 19affirming the consequentan invalid argument form: If p, then q./q./Therefore, p.
- 20antecedentThe first part of a conditional statement (If p, then q.); the component that begins with the word if.
- 21cogent argumentA strong inductive argument with all true premises
- 22conditional statementAn if-then statement; it consists of the antecedent (the part introduced by the word if) and the consequent (the part introduced by the word then).
- 23consequentThe part of a conditional statement (If p, then q.) introduced by the word then.
- 24deductive argumentAn argument intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
- 25denying the antecedentAn invalid argument form:If p, then q./Not p./Therefore, not q.
- 26dependent premiseA premise that depends on at least one other premise to provide joint support to a conclusion. If a dependent premise is removed, the support that its linked dependent premises supply to the conclusion is undermined or completely cancelled out.
- 27disjunctive syllogismA valid argument form: Either p or q./Not p./Therefore, q./In the syllogism's second premise, either disjunct can be denied.
- 28hypothetical syllogismA valid argument made up of three hypothetical, or conditional, statements: If p, then q./If q, then r./Therefore, if p, then r.
- 29independent premiseA premise that does not depend on other premises to provide support to a conclusion. If an independent premise is removed, the support that other premises supply to the conclusion is not affected.
- 30inductive argumentAn argument in which the premises are intended to provide probable, not conclusive, support for its conclusion.
- 31invalid argumentA deductive argument that fails to provide conclusive support for its conclusion.
- 32modus ponens(affirming the antecedent) A valid argument form: If p, then q./p./Therefore, q.
- 33modus tollenstollens (denying the consequent) A valid argument form: If p, then q./Not q./Therefore, not p.
- 34independent premiseA premise that does not depend on other premises to provide support to a conclusion. If an independent premise is removed, the support that other premises supply to the conclusion is not affected.
- 35sound argumentA deductively valid argument that has true premises.
- 36strong argumentAn inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable--but not conclusive--support for its conclusion.
- 37syllogismdeductive argument made up of three statements--two premises and a conclusion.
- 38truth preservingA characteristic of a valid deductive argument in which the logical structure guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
- 39valid argumentA deductive argument that succeeds in providing conclusive support for its conclusion.
- 40weak argumentAn inductive argument that fails to provide strong support for its conclusion.
- 41appeal to authorityThe fallacy of relying on the opinion of someone deemed to be an expert who in fact is not an expert.
- 42background informationThe large collection of very well supported beliefs that we all rely on to inform our actions and choices. It consists of basic facts about everyday things, beliefs based on very good evidence (including our own personal observations and excellent authority), and justified claims that we would regard as common sense or common knowledge.
- 43expertSomeone who is more knowledgeable in a particular subject area or field than most others are.
- 44gambler's fallacyThe error of thinking that previous events can affect the probabilities in the random event at hand.
- 45ad hominem(appeal to the person) The fallacy of rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself. q. Therefore, p.
- 46appeal to emotionThe fallacy of using emotions in place of relevant reasons as premises in an argument.
- 47appeal to ignoranceThe fallacy of arguing that a lack of evidence proves something. In one type of this fallacy, the problem arises by thinking that a claim must be true because it hasn't been shown to be false. In another type, the breakdown in logic comes when you argue that a claim must be false because it hasn't been proved to be true.
- 48appeal to the massesThe fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.
- 49appeal to traditionThe fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true just because it's part of a tradition.
- 50begging the questionThe fallacy of attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise. Also called arguing in a circle.
- 51burden of proofThe weight of evidence or argument required by one side in a debate or disagreement.
- 52compositionThe fallacy of arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The error is thinking that the characteristics of the parts are somehow transferred to the whole, something that is not always the case.
- 53divisionThe fallacy of arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. The error is thinking that characteristics of the whole must transfer to the parts, or that traits of the group must be the same as traits of individuals in the group.
- 54equivocationThe fallacy of using a word in two different senses in an argument.
- 55fallacyAn argument form that is both common and defective; a recurring mistake in reasoning.
- 56false dilemnaThe fallacy of asserting that there are only two alternatives to consider when there are actually more than two.
- 57faulty analogyA defective argument by analogy.
- 58genetic fallacyThe fallacy of arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin.
- 59hasty generalizationThe fallacy of drawing a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate sample size.
- 60red herringThe fallacy of deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument. The basic pattern is to put forth a claim then couple it with additional claims that may seem to support it but in fact are mere distractions.
- 61slippery slopeThe fallacy of arguing, without good reasons, that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to further, undesirable steps.
- 62straw manThe fallacy of distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone's position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.
- 63tu quoque(you're another) A type of ad hominem fallacy that argues that a claim must be true (or false) just because the claimant is hypocritical.
- 64compound statementA statement composed of at least two constituent, or simple, statements.
- 65conjunctOne of two simple statements joined by a connective to form a compound statement.
- 66conjunctionTwo simple statements joined by a connective to form a compound statement.
- 67disjunctA simple statement that is a component of a disjunction.
- 68disjunctionA compound statement of the form Either p or q. A disjunction is true even if only one disjunct is true, and false only if both disjuncts are false.
- 69propositional logicThe branch of deductive reasoning that deals with the logical relationships among statements.
- 70simple statementA statement that doesn't contain any other statements as constituents.
- 71symbolic logicModern deductive logic that uses symbolic language to do its work.
- 72truth tableA table that specifies the truth values for claim variables and combinations of claim variables in symbolized statements or arguments.
- 73categorical logicA form of logic whose focus is categorical statements, which make assertions about categories, or classes, of things.
- 74categorical statementA form of logic whose focus is categorical statements, which make assertions about categories, or classes, of things.
- 75copulaOne of four components of a standard-form categorical statement; a linking verb--either are or are not--that joins the subject term and the predicate term.
- 76predicate termThe second class, or group, named in a standard-form categorical statement.
- 77qualityA characteristic of a categorical statement, based on whether the statement affirms or denies that a class is entirely or partly included in another class. A categorical statement that affirms is said to be affirmative in quality; one that denies is said to be negative in quality.
- 78quantifierIn categorical statements, a word used to indicate the number of things with specified characteristics. The acceptable quantifiers are all, no, or some. The quantifiers all and no in front of a categorical statement tell us that it's universal--it applies to every member of a class. The quantifier some at the beginning of a categorical statement says that the statement is particular--it applies to some but not all members of a class.
- 79quantityIn categorical statements, the attribute of number, specified by the words all, no, or some.
- 80singular statementsIn categorical logic, statements that assert something about a single person or thing, including objects, places, and times.
- 81standard form categorical statementIn categorical logic, a categorical statement that takes one of these four forms: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.)
- 82subject termThe first class, or group, named in a standard-form categorical statement.
- 83venn diagramsDiagrams consisting of overlapping circles that graphically represent the relationships between subject and predicate terms in categorical statements.
- 84analogyA comparison of two or more things alike in specific respects.
- 85argument by analogy(analogical induction) An argument making use of analogy, reasoning that because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in some further respect.
- 86biased sampleA sample that does not properly represent the target group
- 87causal argumentAn inductive argument whose conclusion contains a causal claim.
- 88causal claimA statement about the cause of things.
- 89confidence levelIn statistical theory, the probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error.
- 90enmurative inductionAn inductive argument pattern in which we reason from premises about individual members of a group to conclusions about the group as a whole.
- 91inference to best explanationA form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs:
- 92margin of errorthe variation between the values derived from a sample and the true values of the whole target group
- 93post hoc ergo propter hoc(after that, therefore because of that). The fallacy of reasoning that just because B followed A, A must have caused B.
- 94random sampleA sample that is selected randomly from a target group in such a way as to ensure that the sample is representative. In a simple random selection, every member of the target group has an equal chance of being selected for the sample.
- 95relevant property(or property in question) In enumerative induction, a property, or characteristic, that is of interest in the target group.
- 96representative sampleIn enumerative induction, a sample that resembles the target group in all relevant ways.
- 97sample(or sample member) In enumerative induction, the observed members of the target group.
- 98sufficient conditionA condition for the occurrence of an event that guarantees that the event occurs.
- 99target group(or target population) In enumerative induction, the whole collection of individuals under study.
- 100ad hoc hypothesisA hypothesis, or theory, that cannot be verified independently of the phenomenon it's supposed to explain. Ad hoc hypotheses always make a theory less simple--and therefore less credible.
- 101conservatismA criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A conservative theory is one that fits with our established beliefs.
- 102criteria of adequacyThe standards used to judge the worth of explanatory theories. They include testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism.
- 103fruitfulnessA criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A fruitful theory is one that makes novel predictions.
- 104inference to best explanationA form of inductive reasoning in which we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs: Phenomenon Q. / E provides the best explanation for Q. / Therefore, it is probable that E is true.
- 105scopeA criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A theory with scope is one that explains or predicts phenomena other than that which it was introduced to explain.
- 106simplicityA criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A simple theory is one that makes minimal assumptions.
- 107testabilityA criterion of adequacy for judging the worth of theories. A testable theory is one in which there is some way to determine whether the theory is true or false--that is, it predicts something other than what it was introduced to explain.
- 108test formula (scientific)A four-step procedure for evaluating the worth of a theory: Step 1. State the Theory and check for consistency. / Step 2. Assess the Evidence for the theory. / Step 3. Scrutinize alternative theories. / Step 4. Test the theories with the criteria of adequacy.
- 109theoretical explanationA theory, or hypothesis, that tries to explain why something is the way it is, why something is the case, or why something happened.
- 110moral statementA statement asserting that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that something (such as a person or motive) is good or bad.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Ohne Titel, erstellt von Jason Richmond am 04/11/2014.
- Erstellt von
- Jason Richmond
- Aufrufe
- 3
- Bewertung