Karteikarten
Philosophy
Karten in diesem Stapel (49)
- 1begging the questionwhen its premises presuppose, directly or indirectly, the truth of its conclusion
ex. we can be certain that (C) Lance never cheated to win a race in his entire career because (P) he never once circumvented rules designed to ensure fair play by al the competitors - 2false dichotomyarises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice between two alternatives and assumes that they are exhaustive or exclusive or both when in fact the are not.
ex. David: let me get this straight, Paul. you mean that you have been going out with your girlfriend for almost a year, and she never told you she has a three year old daughter from a previous marriage?
Paul: thats right. i only found out by accident last week.
David: well, whatever you do, Paul, don't marry her. she's a liar. - 3equivocationIt is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
ex. noisy children are a real headache
an asprin will make a headache go away
therefore, an aspirin will make noisy children go away - 4ad hominemdirected against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Ex. according to the supporters of capital punishment, the death penalty is an effective deterrent against murder. this is nonsense. these people are not interested in deterrence at all. the want vengeance pure and simple. they suffer from a kind of blood-lust; they are the people who flock to see dirty harry movies. they get turned on by the thought of shooting up the bad guys. - 5personal attackwhich an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself
- 6circumstantialSuggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased, or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid.
- 7Tu QuoqueClaiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument
ex. Wilma: you cheated on your income tax. don't you realize thats wrong?
Walter: hey, wait a mixture. you cheat on your income tax last year, have you forgotten about that? - 8straw manis committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: Person A has position X.
ex. what i object to most about those people who oppose capital punishment is that they believe that the lives of convicted murderers are more important that the lives of police officers and prison guards who protect us - 9appeal to anecdotal evidenceis an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical. Compare with hasty generalization.
- 10slippery slopein which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
ex.A will probably lead to B; B will probably lead to C; C will probably lead to D; D will probably lead to F; and F will probably lead to E - 11post hoc(Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.
ex. The stove in your apartment was working perfectly until you moved in but the next day the oven stopped working. it must be something you're doing that has caused the problem - 12confusing cause and effectTherefore A is the cause of B. This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.
ex. according to a recent Gallup poll, married couples with no children have approximately 20% more disposable income than married couples with children. this shows that it is affluence that causes declining birth rates - 13common causelogical fallacy where a spurious relationship is confused for causation. It asserts that X causes Y when, in reality, X and Y are both caused by Z. It is a variation on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and a member of the questionable cause group of fallacies.
ex. recent studies have shown that people who are commonly regarded as being successful have much larger vocabluaries than average. this is no accident. having an extensive vocabulary is an important factor in producing success - 14statementa sentence that is used to make a claim that is capable of being true or false
- 15logical strengthwhen its premises, if true, actually provide support for its conclusion
- 16normative principlesfunction as standards for assessments or guides for action, whereas descriptions merely attempt tot accurately represent something
- 17principle of charityto adopt the most charitable interpretation of their words among the possible interpretations suggested by the context
- 18ambigious sentenceis one that has 2 or more different but possibly quite presise meanings
- 19vague sentenceone that lacks precise meaning
- 20referential ambiguityarises when a word or phrase could, in the context of a particular sentence, refer to 2 or more properties or things
- 21necessary conditionx is a necessary condition for Y if, and only if, when X is false Y must also be false
- 22sufficent conditionX is a sufficent condition for Y if, and only if, when X is true, Y must also be true
- 23presuppositionsis not simply missing information; it is a statement that is logically required by the argument in order for one of its stated claims to be true
- 24simple argumentconsists of a single premise and a single conclusion
- 25fallacies approachin which we identify all the specific fallacies (mistakes) that an argument can make and then we can as whether a given argument commits any of these fallacies
- 26criterial approachin which we appeal to the criteria or standards that a good argument must satisfy and ask whether a given argument meets these criteria
- 27fallacyany error or weakness that detracts from the soundness of an argument yet somehow manages to disguise itself so as to give the argument the appearance of being better than it really is
- 28acceptabilitythe truth of a premise is not directly evident, it need not be dismissed as false and we need not reject it. it may satisfy a wider standard than truth
- 29adequacyis usually a matter of degree. in most cases a true, relevant premise can provide support that ranges from very little to a great deal
- 30empirical factfact that is observable in principle, it would be observed if we could get oursleves in the right place at the right time
- 31empirical statementa statement that asserts an empirical fact
- 32pragmatic theory of trutha statement or belief is true if, and only if, it leads to the successful solution to a real problem
- 33general emprical statementshave to be approached somewhat differently because they usually make a claim that goes beyond that available empircal evidence
- 34statistical empirical statementswhich make claims about some, or a certain proportion of a class of objects or events
- 35foundational principlesprinciples that lie at the basis of all knowledge claims, including empirical claims
- 36truth functional statementsdeductive argument includes at listen truth functional statement
- 37simple statementis one that does not contain any other statement as a part
ex. i lost the keys
ex. shirley loves him - 38complex statementthat contains another statement as a component part
ex. either i lost the keys or the have been stolen
ex. tom believes that shirley loves him - 39negationthe statement P is false is a negation.
ex. it is false that falcons mate while flying - 40conjunctionstatement p AND q is a conjunction.
ex. ted and alice have been marries for six years, and they have no children
-this statement is true only if both component statements are true. if either conjunct is false, then the conjunction as a whole is false - 41disjunctionp OR q is a disjunction.
ex. either mac did it or bud did it.
-if both disjuncts are false, then the disjunction as a whole is false. if mac did it then the statement is true. if bud did it then the statement is true. if they both did it its true. if neither of them did it however, the statement is false - 42implicationif p THEN q
if mac studies hard he will get an A. - 43affirming the antecedentif a then b
a
therefore, b - 44denying the consequentif a then b
not a
therefore not b - 45chain argumentif a then b
if b then c
therefore if a then c - 46disjunctive syllogismeither a or b
not a
therefore b - 47denying the antecedentif a then b
not a
therefore not b
ex. if the police knew that jones had a motive for the crime, then he would be a suspect. but the police do not know that jones had a motive. therefore he is not a suspect - 48affirming the consequentif a then b
b
therefore a
ex.'[if the police knew that jones had a motive for crime, then he would be a suspect. and he is a suspect. therefore the police must know he has a motive for the crime - 49—
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Final Exams Karteikarten am Philosophy , erstellt von Rebecca Bishop am 12/12/2016.
- Erstellt von
- Rebecca Bishop
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung