For Educational Use Only. Not for Commercial Use.
Fallacies
Argument from Outrage
Persuading by provoking anger, usually with inflammatory words followed by a “conclusion” of some sort.
Scapegoating
Placing blame on an individual or group who are not responsible.
Scare Tactics
Scaring someone by describing a frightening situation without offering proof.
Argument by Force
Threatening someone, telling them what will happen if they do not comply.
Argument by Pity
Supporting a claim by arousing pity rather than offering legitimate arguments.
Apple Polishing
Flattery is disguised as a reason for accepting a claim.
Guilt Trip
Making someone feel guilty for not accepting an argument.
Wishful Thinking
Accepting a claim because you want it to be true or rejecting it because you don’t want it to be true.
Peer Pressure Argument
The threat of rejection by your peers, friends, or relatives if you do not accept an argument.
Group Think Fallacy
Allowing faith in the groups decisions to replace your own reasons.
Nationalism
An emotional attachment to one’s own country which leads them to their country is the best.
Rationalizing
Using a false pretext in order to satisfy your own desires or interests.
Argument from popularity
Acceptance or urging to accept a claim simply because all or most people believe it.
Argument from common Practice
The attempt to justify actions based on the idea that “everyone does it.”
Argument from tradition
Saying a claim is true based on the idea that the action has been accepted and/or practiced for a long period of time.
Subjectivism
Opinion – The assumption that what is true for one person is not necessarily true for another.
Relativist fallacy
The view where two different cultures can be correct in their differing opinions on the same factual matter.
Two Wrongs make a Right
Reasoning that if it’s acceptable for A to do X to B because B is doing X to A.
Red Herring/Smoke Screen
An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.
Ad hominem
Rebutting a source’s claim based on a characteristics of the source rather than to the argument or claim or position.
Personal Attack Ad Hominem
Not accepting a person’s argument because there is something about the person you don’t like or disprove of.
Inconsistency Ad Hominem
The belif that if an individual has changed their mind, they can not be trusted.
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
The attempt to discredit a claim by referring to a speaker’s circumstances.
Poisoning the Well
Attempt to discredit another’s clam in advance by giving unfavorable information about a person.
Genetic Fallacy
Rejecting a claim on the basis of its origin or history (usually about a group)
Positive Ad Hominem
Building up the speaker prior to the speaker’s appearance.
Strawman /Strawperson
Fallacious reasoning where the actual position of the opponent is ignored and the position is distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented.
False Dilemma
The reasoning that there must be an either or decision when in fact both options my be possible simultaneously.
Perfectionist Fallacy
Rejection in whole of an idea because it does not accomplish its goal to perfection.
Line-drawing Fallacy
Insisting that a precise point must be determined when no point is necessary.
Slippery Slope
Fallacious reasoning- belief that some event must inevitably flow into another event in which no argument is given for the inevitability.
Misplaced Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is falsely placed on the wrong side. Can be when a lack of evidence is taken as proof for the claim.
Appeal to Ignorance
The view that an absence of evidence against a claim counts as evidence for that same claim.
Begging the Question
The conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
5. Tell Me About the Turing Test.
Alan Turing, the Twentieth Century British mathematician and Philosopher, designed the early computer that broke the Nazi code, saving D-Day, for example.
He designed a test to determine whether one was communicating with a computer or a human. This test delights us still today and is the basis of much of has become of contemporary Metaphysics, "How do we know the Self?"
He had based his computing system on logic, and since humans are, by default, based on logic, they should be similar. But computers are not wired for emotion. Can they mimic?
His test was whether or not the person on one side of the communication was fooled that the "person" on the other side was, in fact, not a human at all, but a computer, a software computing system based on the one's and zero's of the German Rationalist, Leibnitz.
In addition to the binary number system, back in the 1600's, Leibnitz had also developed calculus. Where would we be without that? He was, in addition the founder of symbolic logic, which, as I said, Turing used to design the underlying principles of the early computer.
The thought experiment that Turing laid out involved a wall with desks and chairs in front of a little slot, like a letter slot, through which notes could be passed back and forth. Or, in the technology of the day, a teletype machine could be used. How would we know if the responses from the other side came from a human or from a machine?
Since the popularity of electronic mail, we are all able to imagine this experiment. "Was the email generated by a "spam" computer?" is a different question than, "Was the email written by a spammer?" In other words, were the words chosen by a human, or by software, or by software designed by a human?
We are all familiar now with the electronic voice, generated by computer program, that directs us through a telephonic menu. We recognize the voice as the recorded voice of a human or a computer-generated voice, but know that whatever it is, it is not a full human. Instead, these are bits tied together to fulfill a function.
Humans are more than functionaries. Yet, we all have known someone that acted so mechanically or had such a monotone of emotion, that we doubted if that person was fully human. They seem to have failed the Turing test!
We delight in playing with computer games that appear to synthesize humanness. Yet, humanity is more than a puzzle to be assembled from parts. Unlike geometry, the property of being human is more than the sum of the parts. Yet, how do we know?
Is "artificial intelligence" sufficient to design a pretend human? Where are the emotions? Even the taped voices on the telephone menus now often have a sing-song melody to imitate true emotion. But what about those people who do not "express" emotion? How can pretend emotion from a computer-generated synthesizer be confused with a non-emotional human? Finally, can computers someday be programmed to have emotion?
I would contend that it is more than reason and emotion that compose the human interiority; intentionality is also a basic element. One thing that defines any human tool or creation is its lack of will. It is used, rather than being a user. While a robot can be programmed to use a wrench, it cannot be programmed to intend to do anything: it can only follow instructions.
As long as artificial intelligence is limited by its being a tool rather than an existential interiority, capable of feeling unfulfilled or meaninglessness, then it is not fully human. Without doubt and longing, how can the computer be human? Can a computer be kind? Can a computer be a friend? Yet, some humans are neither.
On the other hand, we can project so many feelings upon an inanimate object that we "believe" a toy is a person. Stuffed animals "offer" undying affection. In regard to the animate world, many people think of their pets as their best friends. Surely, there is a special kind of animal responsiveness that leads to an attribution of "intelligence." Many gardeners talk to their plants and claim it makes a difference in growth: "sweet talk" works, but angry words inhibit growth. Some mechanics say that "sweet talk" to a car makes it run better.
We love to project human potential onto that which inanimate, neither plant nor animal. Like the ancient Greek story of the sculptor whose statue came to life, we like to think our human creations can become "real."
The study of artificial intelligence entertains us, but re-creating humanity eludes us. By definition, humans are not artifical creations.
The Turing test motivates Cognitive Science and delights us all.
He designed a test to determine whether one was communicating with a computer or a human. This test delights us still today and is the basis of much of has become of contemporary Metaphysics, "How do we know the Self?"
He had based his computing system on logic, and since humans are, by default, based on logic, they should be similar. But computers are not wired for emotion. Can they mimic?
His test was whether or not the person on one side of the communication was fooled that the "person" on the other side was, in fact, not a human at all, but a computer, a software computing system based on the one's and zero's of the German Rationalist, Leibnitz.
In addition to the binary number system, back in the 1600's, Leibnitz had also developed calculus. Where would we be without that? He was, in addition the founder of symbolic logic, which, as I said, Turing used to design the underlying principles of the early computer.
The thought experiment that Turing laid out involved a wall with desks and chairs in front of a little slot, like a letter slot, through which notes could be passed back and forth. Or, in the technology of the day, a teletype machine could be used. How would we know if the responses from the other side came from a human or from a machine?
Since the popularity of electronic mail, we are all able to imagine this experiment. "Was the email generated by a "spam" computer?" is a different question than, "Was the email written by a spammer?" In other words, were the words chosen by a human, or by software, or by software designed by a human?
We are all familiar now with the electronic voice, generated by computer program, that directs us through a telephonic menu. We recognize the voice as the recorded voice of a human or a computer-generated voice, but know that whatever it is, it is not a full human. Instead, these are bits tied together to fulfill a function.
Humans are more than functionaries. Yet, we all have known someone that acted so mechanically or had such a monotone of emotion, that we doubted if that person was fully human. They seem to have failed the Turing test!
We delight in playing with computer games that appear to synthesize humanness. Yet, humanity is more than a puzzle to be assembled from parts. Unlike geometry, the property of being human is more than the sum of the parts. Yet, how do we know?
Is "artificial intelligence" sufficient to design a pretend human? Where are the emotions? Even the taped voices on the telephone menus now often have a sing-song melody to imitate true emotion. But what about those people who do not "express" emotion? How can pretend emotion from a computer-generated synthesizer be confused with a non-emotional human? Finally, can computers someday be programmed to have emotion?
I would contend that it is more than reason and emotion that compose the human interiority; intentionality is also a basic element. One thing that defines any human tool or creation is its lack of will. It is used, rather than being a user. While a robot can be programmed to use a wrench, it cannot be programmed to intend to do anything: it can only follow instructions.
As long as artificial intelligence is limited by its being a tool rather than an existential interiority, capable of feeling unfulfilled or meaninglessness, then it is not fully human. Without doubt and longing, how can the computer be human? Can a computer be kind? Can a computer be a friend? Yet, some humans are neither.
On the other hand, we can project so many feelings upon an inanimate object that we "believe" a toy is a person. Stuffed animals "offer" undying affection. In regard to the animate world, many people think of their pets as their best friends. Surely, there is a special kind of animal responsiveness that leads to an attribution of "intelligence." Many gardeners talk to their plants and claim it makes a difference in growth: "sweet talk" works, but angry words inhibit growth. Some mechanics say that "sweet talk" to a car makes it run better.
We love to project human potential onto that which inanimate, neither plant nor animal. Like the ancient Greek story of the sculptor whose statue came to life, we like to think our human creations can become "real."
The study of artificial intelligence entertains us, but re-creating humanity eludes us. By definition, humans are not artifical creations.
The Turing test motivates Cognitive Science and delights us all.
4. What Are Theories of Ethics ?
Short Summaries of Theories of Ethics
I. Why Do We Not Create Moral Theories from Scratch?
We use ethical systems derived from the thoughts of major philosophers and refined over time by the discussions of reflective, rational minds in order to measure the morality of a action. We use these standards singularly, as given, or at times, in combination with another one or more systems, or also in amalgamation of features.
Using the predigested ideas of others allows us to focus on the events and actors at hand in our applied moral reasoning, leaving us without the burden of articulating our own individual statement of the deciding factor between right and wrong. While we might all agree there are universal standards for judgment of human volition and motion, yet most of us would also agree that articulating those standards is difficult. Therefore, we stand on ethical foundations supplied by the moral theories of Western philosophy. Other continents and hemispheres have produced great thinkers and important systems, which can be incorporated into this study, also.
II. What Ethical Theories or Systems Does Applied Ethics Use?
Ethical theories most used within the study of Applied Ethics are (1) Utilitarianism, looking to consequences of actions to determine the maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people; (2) Duty Ethics, looking to the intentions before the actions; (3) Virtue Ethics, looking at the habits of character and moderation to determine excellence and morality; (4) Natural Law or Legal Rights, looking to rights from legal or political statements or from rational examination and understanding of what those rights are, whether God-given or not, which flow to all humans by reason of being born human; and (5) Caring Ethics, judging action by the level of caring for the web of relationships, nurturing human flourishing within a personal, social context, or the empathetic involvement in the lives of others that envisions the best possible future.
III. What is Utilitarianism?
Operationally, Utilitarianism is the most empirically based. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, from the 19th Century in England, sought an ethical standard that would recognize human pleasure as the good, making its measurement and expansion paramount. Although pleasure would seem to be a subjective standard, Utilitarians judge consequences solely by objective, reasonable standards. Utilitarians do not consider the opinions of those who like pain, for example, to be rational.
In seeking to liberate the wishes of society as a whole from subjugation to the will of the ruling elite, Utilitarian philosophers defined the good as that which creates the maximum pleasure, that is, the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Thus, the pleasure of the wealthy few does not defeat the wants of the weary many; nor is the delight of the powerful a legitimate cause to inflict the meek multitudes with misery.
IV. What is Duty Ethics?
Both Duty and Virtue Ethics look to the quality of actions and the inherent dignity of all people. Duty Ethics is based on rules. Immanuel Kant, from 18th Century Germany, described Duty Ethics as the universal command to treat each person as a moral agent and as an end, not as a means or an instrument to the pleasure of another. The intentions of the actor are the determining feature of whether an action is considered moral by Duty Ethics.
Kant called the universal command a Categorical Imperative, as the unbending rule of morality, applicable in all times and places and situations. Treating others not as a means but as an end is one way of stating the rule. Also, reciprocity requires that limitations for others be equally applied to oneself.
V. What is Virtue Ethics?
Virtue Ethics is derived from the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, and seeks to educate character to assume the habit of a moral disposition and character. Moderation is the road to virtue.
Plato and Aristotle advocated living according to a human model of the virtues, the qualities of excellence. “What would the heroic do?”might have been the question of Homer from the earlier days of Greece, but these two philosophers of Athens sought a moral compass. Thus, the questions become, “What would honesty require?”for example. Plato and Aristotle looked for virtues such as truth, beauty, will power, and justice or proportionality, as well as benevolence, civility, dependability, generosity, loyalty, moderation, patience, and prudence.
Virtue Ethics generally judges character rather than specific actions. Character can be trained or educated. At its best, good character includes as many of the qualities of excellence and becomes a habit.
VI. What is the Relation between Reason and Natural Law?
Natural Law flows from the order of the universe directly into the reason of humans. The ordered universe is subject to the patterns of Nature, just as reason is subject to the limits of logic. As the unseen judge of the unseen realm of ideas, reason is the best way to understand the Law of Nature, to determine justice, and to develop character.
Ancient ideas about the rule of reason still animate discussion of Natural Law. However, Empiricists and others do not ascribe to claims for a superior role for reason.
VII. What is the Source of Human Rights?
Many followers of Natural Law feel it was installed in the heavens by God at the time of creation and in the mind of a human at the moment of birth. Just as the scientific laws of the natural world, such as gravity, cannot be restrained or overruled by humans, so, too, the rules of logic cannot be dissolved or diluted, and, equally true, the natural rights of humans endowed by the creator cannot be amended or changed by the actions of humans or their governments. These rights existed since the beginning of time and still reside with every human for no more cause than being born human.
Later thinkers were less concerned with the source of these rights and more interested in identifying them. Such documents as the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are seen as expressions of these rights. The final version of human rights exists in ultimate, unfettered reason, and can only be known in increasing levels of understanding by human minds that lack perfection. A more recent effort to catalogue human rights exists in the U.N. Charter of Human Rights.
VIII. What Are Human Rights?
Discussions of rights are the most likely to incorporate recent court cases and legal reasoning. From the time of the writings of John Locke through the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights four hundred years later, our understanding of the extent of rights has grown. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 1776 Declaration of Independence may sound vague, but a paid two-week vacation every year for every employee working at least 35 hours per week for 50 weeks might be a specific, modern day example of a general, human right of a “periodic holidays with pay”contained in the 1948 U.N. Declaration.
Natural Rights theorists maintain that financial costs alone are not sufficient to restrict our rights. Further, court cases might summarize the opinions of the legal community for the time in question but can also be the result of political compromise, not eternal standards. Therefore, court decisions alone do not end debate, but can summarize arguments, and in some instances are sufficient statements of the wisdom of the day.
IX. What Are the Ethics of Care?
Finally, the Ethics of Care uses empathy, emotion, and sentiment as a guide to choosing courses of action. Among those philosophers advocating "sympathy" as a moral compass are David Hume, the skeptic, Scottish philosopher of 18th Century, and his contemporary, Adam Smith, the economist. In the 20th Century, advocates of "empathy" include feminists Carol Gilligan, Nell Nodding, and Annette Baier, as well as German, Catholic martyr and phenomenologist Saint Edith Stein.
Further, since caring is viewed as a virtue, many people see Caring Ethics as a specific form of the ancient Virtue Ethics, even though the Greeks used reason alone, and rarely incorporated emotion or empathy into moral decision-making. The ironies are (1) that “are”was not identified as a virtue until the twentieth-century Feminists discovered it; and (2) the Virtue theorists from ancient days through the medieval era up until quite recently often agreed with Aristotle that women were incomplete men or lacking in reasoning capacity.
Feminist Ethics, more recently called Caring Ethics, seeks a unique solution to each problem, growing from context and human relatedness to an understanding of the proper objects of care and how to create a web of relationships that best cherishes the individual members of that web while giving each the greatest freedom to empower human growth to achieve self‑ctualization. The most subjective of the standards, Feminist or Caring Ethics seeks to increase the reflective care contained within human relationships.
The Ethics of Care require not mere passive avoidance of impeding the moral freedom of others, or limiting our freedom for the sake of the freedom of others. Unlike Human Rights Theory and others, Care requires direct action, in particular affirmative participation in the practice of caring. Empathy and envisioning a higher individual capacity for achievement and self-actualization are tools of the Ethics of Care.
With the tools of empathy and hope, the Ethics of Care requires the discernment of specific, contextual decisions of the extent, nature, and proper objects of care. Some people are more the proper recipients of our care than others, with different expectations and expressions of care for each person in each circumstance.
X. What Is the Benefit of Using these Ethical Systems?
Finally, we see that articulating a consistent standard for moral decision-making a difficult enterprise. Understanding and using the concepts of these few basic systems allow us to use a yardstick our contemporaries can also use and comprehend.
I. Why Do We Not Create Moral Theories from Scratch?
We use ethical systems derived from the thoughts of major philosophers and refined over time by the discussions of reflective, rational minds in order to measure the morality of a action. We use these standards singularly, as given, or at times, in combination with another one or more systems, or also in amalgamation of features.
Using the predigested ideas of others allows us to focus on the events and actors at hand in our applied moral reasoning, leaving us without the burden of articulating our own individual statement of the deciding factor between right and wrong. While we might all agree there are universal standards for judgment of human volition and motion, yet most of us would also agree that articulating those standards is difficult. Therefore, we stand on ethical foundations supplied by the moral theories of Western philosophy. Other continents and hemispheres have produced great thinkers and important systems, which can be incorporated into this study, also.
II. What Ethical Theories or Systems Does Applied Ethics Use?
Ethical theories most used within the study of Applied Ethics are (1) Utilitarianism, looking to consequences of actions to determine the maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people; (2) Duty Ethics, looking to the intentions before the actions; (3) Virtue Ethics, looking at the habits of character and moderation to determine excellence and morality; (4) Natural Law or Legal Rights, looking to rights from legal or political statements or from rational examination and understanding of what those rights are, whether God-given or not, which flow to all humans by reason of being born human; and (5) Caring Ethics, judging action by the level of caring for the web of relationships, nurturing human flourishing within a personal, social context, or the empathetic involvement in the lives of others that envisions the best possible future.
III. What is Utilitarianism?
Operationally, Utilitarianism is the most empirically based. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, from the 19th Century in England, sought an ethical standard that would recognize human pleasure as the good, making its measurement and expansion paramount. Although pleasure would seem to be a subjective standard, Utilitarians judge consequences solely by objective, reasonable standards. Utilitarians do not consider the opinions of those who like pain, for example, to be rational.
In seeking to liberate the wishes of society as a whole from subjugation to the will of the ruling elite, Utilitarian philosophers defined the good as that which creates the maximum pleasure, that is, the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Thus, the pleasure of the wealthy few does not defeat the wants of the weary many; nor is the delight of the powerful a legitimate cause to inflict the meek multitudes with misery.
IV. What is Duty Ethics?
Both Duty and Virtue Ethics look to the quality of actions and the inherent dignity of all people. Duty Ethics is based on rules. Immanuel Kant, from 18th Century Germany, described Duty Ethics as the universal command to treat each person as a moral agent and as an end, not as a means or an instrument to the pleasure of another. The intentions of the actor are the determining feature of whether an action is considered moral by Duty Ethics.
Kant called the universal command a Categorical Imperative, as the unbending rule of morality, applicable in all times and places and situations. Treating others not as a means but as an end is one way of stating the rule. Also, reciprocity requires that limitations for others be equally applied to oneself.
V. What is Virtue Ethics?
Virtue Ethics is derived from the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, and seeks to educate character to assume the habit of a moral disposition and character. Moderation is the road to virtue.
Plato and Aristotle advocated living according to a human model of the virtues, the qualities of excellence. “What would the heroic do?”might have been the question of Homer from the earlier days of Greece, but these two philosophers of Athens sought a moral compass. Thus, the questions become, “What would honesty require?”for example. Plato and Aristotle looked for virtues such as truth, beauty, will power, and justice or proportionality, as well as benevolence, civility, dependability, generosity, loyalty, moderation, patience, and prudence.
Virtue Ethics generally judges character rather than specific actions. Character can be trained or educated. At its best, good character includes as many of the qualities of excellence and becomes a habit.
VI. What is the Relation between Reason and Natural Law?
Natural Law flows from the order of the universe directly into the reason of humans. The ordered universe is subject to the patterns of Nature, just as reason is subject to the limits of logic. As the unseen judge of the unseen realm of ideas, reason is the best way to understand the Law of Nature, to determine justice, and to develop character.
Ancient ideas about the rule of reason still animate discussion of Natural Law. However, Empiricists and others do not ascribe to claims for a superior role for reason.
VII. What is the Source of Human Rights?
Many followers of Natural Law feel it was installed in the heavens by God at the time of creation and in the mind of a human at the moment of birth. Just as the scientific laws of the natural world, such as gravity, cannot be restrained or overruled by humans, so, too, the rules of logic cannot be dissolved or diluted, and, equally true, the natural rights of humans endowed by the creator cannot be amended or changed by the actions of humans or their governments. These rights existed since the beginning of time and still reside with every human for no more cause than being born human.
Later thinkers were less concerned with the source of these rights and more interested in identifying them. Such documents as the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are seen as expressions of these rights. The final version of human rights exists in ultimate, unfettered reason, and can only be known in increasing levels of understanding by human minds that lack perfection. A more recent effort to catalogue human rights exists in the U.N. Charter of Human Rights.
VIII. What Are Human Rights?
Discussions of rights are the most likely to incorporate recent court cases and legal reasoning. From the time of the writings of John Locke through the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights four hundred years later, our understanding of the extent of rights has grown. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 1776 Declaration of Independence may sound vague, but a paid two-week vacation every year for every employee working at least 35 hours per week for 50 weeks might be a specific, modern day example of a general, human right of a “periodic holidays with pay”contained in the 1948 U.N. Declaration.
Natural Rights theorists maintain that financial costs alone are not sufficient to restrict our rights. Further, court cases might summarize the opinions of the legal community for the time in question but can also be the result of political compromise, not eternal standards. Therefore, court decisions alone do not end debate, but can summarize arguments, and in some instances are sufficient statements of the wisdom of the day.
IX. What Are the Ethics of Care?
Finally, the Ethics of Care uses empathy, emotion, and sentiment as a guide to choosing courses of action. Among those philosophers advocating "sympathy" as a moral compass are David Hume, the skeptic, Scottish philosopher of 18th Century, and his contemporary, Adam Smith, the economist. In the 20th Century, advocates of "empathy" include feminists Carol Gilligan, Nell Nodding, and Annette Baier, as well as German, Catholic martyr and phenomenologist Saint Edith Stein.
Further, since caring is viewed as a virtue, many people see Caring Ethics as a specific form of the ancient Virtue Ethics, even though the Greeks used reason alone, and rarely incorporated emotion or empathy into moral decision-making. The ironies are (1) that “are”was not identified as a virtue until the twentieth-century Feminists discovered it; and (2) the Virtue theorists from ancient days through the medieval era up until quite recently often agreed with Aristotle that women were incomplete men or lacking in reasoning capacity.
Feminist Ethics, more recently called Caring Ethics, seeks a unique solution to each problem, growing from context and human relatedness to an understanding of the proper objects of care and how to create a web of relationships that best cherishes the individual members of that web while giving each the greatest freedom to empower human growth to achieve self‑ctualization. The most subjective of the standards, Feminist or Caring Ethics seeks to increase the reflective care contained within human relationships.
The Ethics of Care require not mere passive avoidance of impeding the moral freedom of others, or limiting our freedom for the sake of the freedom of others. Unlike Human Rights Theory and others, Care requires direct action, in particular affirmative participation in the practice of caring. Empathy and envisioning a higher individual capacity for achievement and self-actualization are tools of the Ethics of Care.
With the tools of empathy and hope, the Ethics of Care requires the discernment of specific, contextual decisions of the extent, nature, and proper objects of care. Some people are more the proper recipients of our care than others, with different expectations and expressions of care for each person in each circumstance.
X. What Is the Benefit of Using these Ethical Systems?
Finally, we see that articulating a consistent standard for moral decision-making a difficult enterprise. Understanding and using the concepts of these few basic systems allow us to use a yardstick our contemporaries can also use and comprehend.
Friday, September 17, 2010
3. Tell Me About Modern, Post-Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy
I referred you here from
101phil http://101phil.blogspot.com/2010/09/14.html
Time, Zero, and Empathy
where examples, with a lengthly Editor's Note in fine print,
follow Time.
The Europeans and the English-speakers are in a great rift.
The French consider the prolific Existentialist Sartre the greatest Philosopher of the Twentieth Century, while the British regard Bertrand Russell, winner of the Noble prize for Literature in 1950, as the greatest.
In short: Philosophy Today: One of the most popular is Phenomology, one of the Post-Modern Philosophies of Twentieth Century Eurporean Philosophy. Existentialism assumes existence and asks what we are going to do with it; next, Phenomenology looks at the essence of existence; then, Structualism looks at the shape of existence; finally, Post-Structualism says all is fragments; and altogether, these form Post-Modernism, which is still with us today.
The British and the Americans get a little sea-sick with it all, and prefer Analytic Philosophy, sort of a cross between Scepticism and Logic, with a little Linguistics. The truly disallusioned have moved onto Computer Science.
More recently, Cognitive Science trys to look at where the brain meets the thought. Is thinking nothing more than computation, they ask. How do we know the difference between a computer and a person? Turing proposed a test which is still used. You can read more about this at Question 5, "Tell Me About the Turing Test."
Turing designed an early computer that cracked the Nazi code, then was sentenced to prison by the ungrateful British government for being gay. He died soon after from suicide.
As the lives of Socrates and Spinoza and St. Edith Stein and Turing describe, Philosophy can be a dangerous business.
101phil http://101phil.blogspot.com/2010/09/14.html
Time, Zero, and Empathy
where examples, with a lengthly Editor's Note in fine print,
follow Time.
The Europeans and the English-speakers are in a great rift.
The French consider the prolific Existentialist Sartre the greatest Philosopher of the Twentieth Century, while the British regard Bertrand Russell, winner of the Noble prize for Literature in 1950, as the greatest.
In short: Philosophy Today: One of the most popular is Phenomology, one of the Post-Modern Philosophies of Twentieth Century Eurporean Philosophy. Existentialism assumes existence and asks what we are going to do with it; next, Phenomenology looks at the essence of existence; then, Structualism looks at the shape of existence; finally, Post-Structualism says all is fragments; and altogether, these form Post-Modernism, which is still with us today.
The British and the Americans get a little sea-sick with it all, and prefer Analytic Philosophy, sort of a cross between Scepticism and Logic, with a little Linguistics. The truly disallusioned have moved onto Computer Science.
More recently, Cognitive Science trys to look at where the brain meets the thought. Is thinking nothing more than computation, they ask. How do we know the difference between a computer and a person? Turing proposed a test which is still used. You can read more about this at Question 5, "Tell Me About the Turing Test."
Turing designed an early computer that cracked the Nazi code, then was sentenced to prison by the ungrateful British government for being gay. He died soon after from suicide.
As the lives of Socrates and Spinoza and St. Edith Stein and Turing describe, Philosophy can be a dangerous business.
Monday, September 13, 2010
2. Give Me that Second Half One More Time - Critical Thinking Outline
For Educational Use Only. Not for Commecial Use.
Good Argument
A good argument justifies acceptance of the conclusion.
Valid/Sound Argument (Deductive)
A valid argument has this defining characteristic: It is necessary, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion be true.
Strong Arguments (Inductive)
A strong argument has the distinguishing characteristic: It is unlikely, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion is false.
Categorical Logic
The relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes (“categories”)
Terms
The S and P are terms.
Subject (“The Only”)
The noun or pronoun phrase that refers to the first class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Predicate (“Only”)
The noun or noun phrase that refers to the second class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Square of Opposition
Standard-form Categorical Claims
All distributed terms are in bold:
A: All S are P
E: No S are P
I: Some S are P
O: Some S are not P
Conversion:
E: No P are S
I: Some P are S
Obversion:
A: No S are ~P
E: All S are ~P
I: Some S are not ~P
O: Some S are ~P
Contrapositive:
A: All ~P are ~S
O: Some ~P are not ~S
Syllogisms:
Rules of Validity Testing
1. The number of negative claims in the premises must be the same as the number of negative claims in the conclusion.
2. At least one premise must distribute the middle term.
3. Any term that is distributed in the conclusion of the syllogism must be distributed in its premises.
Major Term
Occurs as a predicate of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Minor Term
Occurs as a subject of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Middle Term
Occurs in both the premises but not in the conclusion.
==============
Truth Tables
Antecedent (Is Nessasary)
The P in the Truth Table
Consequent (Is Sufficent)
The Q in the truth table.
=================
Rule 1: Modus ponens
Also known as affirming the antecedent
P → Q (P v R) → Q
P . P v R .
Q Q
Rule 2: Modus tollens
Also known as denying the consequent
P → Q
~Q .
~P
Rule 3: Chain argument
P → Q
Q → R.
P → R
Rule 4: Disjunctive argument
P v Q P v Q
~P . ~Q .
Q P
Rule 6: Conjunction
P
Q .
P & Q
Rule 10: Double negation
P ↔ ~~ P P → ~~(Q v R)
Rule 13: Contraposition
(P → Q) ↔ (~Q → ~P)
Rule 16:Association
[P & (Q & R)] ↔ [(P & Q) & R] [P v (Q v R)] ↔ [(P v Q) v R]
Rule 18: Tautology
(P v P) ↔ P (P & P) ↔ P
Sample
An item or items we believe something about. (How many of the set is being viewed.)
Target/Class
An item or group of items to which we wish to extend our belief. (The whole number of the set.)
Feature/Property in Question
The feature we know about in the sample and we extend to the target object.
National Sample
1500
State Sample
500
Analogical Argument
Comes to a conclusion by comparing one thing to another. (Have one thing or event for a target)
Terms
The items being compared.
Feature in Question / Property in Question
What feature every member of a set possessives.
Target Class
The whole group of members for a specific set.
Inductive Generalization
Generalizations have their samples drawn from the target class.
Representative
The measure of how accurately the members represent the whole target.
Biased Sample
A sample that is significantly different from the target in one or more aspects. (the more alike the target and sample are, the stronger the argument is.) (The larger the sample the better – the stronger the argument)
Random Selection
Gives every member of the target class an equal chance of becoming a member of the sample or lottery. (More representative of the target.)
Error Margin
A range of percentage points within which an answer is claimed to fall.
↑ Sample = ↓ Error Margin = ↑ Confidence Level.
Confidence Level
A measure of the argument’s strength; the higher the confidence level, the more likely the argument’s conclusion is to be true.
Hasty Conclusion/Generalization
A fallacy of inductive arguments that occurs when conclusions are drawn from a sample that is too small. (Jumping to a conclusion based on information from a sample that is too small.)
Anecdotal Evidence
Always consists in taking a story about one case (or more than one) and drawing an unwarranted conclusion (usually from a personal story). [Too small of a sample]
Weak Analogy
The two or more objects, events, or other phenomena being compared in a story or dialog, which have little or nothing in common – [See - A hasty comparison.]
Slanted Question
A question which contains bias.
Larger Number Rule/ Law of Large Numbers
The larger the number of chance repetitious events, the closer the events will approach a predictable ratio.
Gambler’s Fallacy
The belief that recent past events in a series can influence the outcome of the next event in the series. This reasoning is fallacious when the events have a predictable ratio of results, as is the case in flipping a coin, where the predictable ratio of heads to tails is 50-50.
(Assumption that the previous random events will effect future random events and the odds of these events.)
Causal Reasoning
One event necessarily leads to another event.
Non-Sequitur
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; an inference that does not follow from the premises.
Post Hoc Fallacy
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Reasoning that X caused Y simply because Y occurred after X.
(Just because one thing happened before the other does not mean that the first caused the second.)
Causal Claim / Cause-and-effect Claim
A statement that says or implies that the presence or absence of one thing caused or causes another.
Relevant Difference
A relevant difference is one that is not unreasonable to suppose caused the feature in question.
(An effect present is not present in another similar situation. The attempt is to find the difference between the situations where the effect was seen and where it was not.)
Common Thread
In common thread reasoning, multiple occurrences of a feature are said to be united by a single relevant common thread.
(The same effect is common in multiple situations and the cause links them.)
Experimental Group
The members of a group who are exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are all exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Control Group
The members of a group who are not exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are treated exactly as the members of the experimental group are except that thy are not exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Hypothesis
Supposition offered as a starting point for further investigation.
Statistically Significant
To say that some finding is statistically significant at a given confidence level – say, .05 – is essentially to say that the finding could have arisen by chance in only about five cases out of one hundred.
(The idea that it would be unreasonable to attribute this difference in frequency to chance.)
Controlled Cause-to-Effect
An experiment designed to test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect. A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group. If the effect is then found to occur with significantly more frequency in the experimental group, the suspected causal agent is considered a causal factor for the effect.
(A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group.)
Non-Experimental Cause-to-Effect
To test whether something is a causal facto for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. Instead a study is conducted on a group of individuals in which exposure has resulted from their own actions or circumstances.)
Non-Experimental Effect-to-Cause
To test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. The members of the experimental group display the effect as compared with the control group. Showing that the suspected causal agent is a causal factor in the population involved.)
Circularity
The property of a “causal” claim where the “cause” merely restates the effect. (The “cause” restarts the effect.)
Non-testability
The inability to test if something is true or false (“There are aliens in the universe.” For now, this is non-testable.)
Excessive Vagueness
A statement that is too vague to pinpoint a meaning and thus is non-testable.
Unnecessary Assumptions
The denial of apparent truth in order to accept an unreliable alternative.
Conflict-with well established Theory
A claim that conflicts with well-established theory. This claim does not support the burden of proof placed on it. There is good reason to reject this claim without powerful evidence of its truth (High Burdon of Proof).
Inductive Generalization
A claim who attempts to have a statement true about every member of a set.
Conclusion Indicators
Therefore
It follows that…
We may conclude that…
This serves to show that…
Thus
Hence
Accordingly
Consequently
So
Premise Indicators
Since
For
Because
In view of…
This is implied by…
Given
Good Argument
A good argument justifies acceptance of the conclusion.
Valid/Sound Argument (Deductive)
A valid argument has this defining characteristic: It is necessary, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion be true.
Strong Arguments (Inductive)
A strong argument has the distinguishing characteristic: It is unlikely, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion is false.
Categorical Logic
The relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes (“categories”)
Terms
The S and P are terms.
Subject (“The Only”)
The noun or pronoun phrase that refers to the first class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Predicate (“Only”)
The noun or noun phrase that refers to the second class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Square of Opposition
Standard-form Categorical Claims
All distributed terms are in bold:
A: All S are P
E: No S are P
I: Some S are P
O: Some S are not P
Conversion:
E: No P are S
I: Some P are S
Obversion:
A: No S are ~P
E: All S are ~P
I: Some S are not ~P
O: Some S are ~P
Contrapositive:
A: All ~P are ~S
O: Some ~P are not ~S
Syllogisms:
Rules of Validity Testing
1. The number of negative claims in the premises must be the same as the number of negative claims in the conclusion.
2. At least one premise must distribute the middle term.
3. Any term that is distributed in the conclusion of the syllogism must be distributed in its premises.
Major Term
Occurs as a predicate of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Minor Term
Occurs as a subject of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Middle Term
Occurs in both the premises but not in the conclusion.
==============
Truth Tables
Antecedent (Is Nessasary)
The P in the Truth Table
Consequent (Is Sufficent)
The Q in the truth table.
=================
Rule 1: Modus ponens
Also known as affirming the antecedent
P → Q (P v R) → Q
P . P v R .
Q Q
Rule 2: Modus tollens
Also known as denying the consequent
P → Q
~Q .
~P
Rule 3: Chain argument
P → Q
Q → R.
P → R
Rule 4: Disjunctive argument
P v Q P v Q
~P . ~Q .
Q P
Rule 6: Conjunction
P
Q .
P & Q
Rule 10: Double negation
P ↔ ~~ P P → ~~(Q v R)
Rule 13: Contraposition
(P → Q) ↔ (~Q → ~P)
Rule 16:Association
[P & (Q & R)] ↔ [(P & Q) & R] [P v (Q v R)] ↔ [(P v Q) v R]
Rule 18: Tautology
(P v P) ↔ P (P & P) ↔ P
Sample
An item or items we believe something about. (How many of the set is being viewed.)
Target/Class
An item or group of items to which we wish to extend our belief. (The whole number of the set.)
Feature/Property in Question
The feature we know about in the sample and we extend to the target object.
National Sample
1500
State Sample
500
Analogical Argument
Comes to a conclusion by comparing one thing to another. (Have one thing or event for a target)
Terms
The items being compared.
Feature in Question / Property in Question
What feature every member of a set possessives.
Target Class
The whole group of members for a specific set.
Inductive Generalization
Generalizations have their samples drawn from the target class.
Representative
The measure of how accurately the members represent the whole target.
Biased Sample
A sample that is significantly different from the target in one or more aspects. (the more alike the target and sample are, the stronger the argument is.) (The larger the sample the better – the stronger the argument)
Random Selection
Gives every member of the target class an equal chance of becoming a member of the sample or lottery. (More representative of the target.)
Error Margin
A range of percentage points within which an answer is claimed to fall.
↑ Sample = ↓ Error Margin = ↑ Confidence Level.
Confidence Level
A measure of the argument’s strength; the higher the confidence level, the more likely the argument’s conclusion is to be true.
Hasty Conclusion/Generalization
A fallacy of inductive arguments that occurs when conclusions are drawn from a sample that is too small. (Jumping to a conclusion based on information from a sample that is too small.)
Anecdotal Evidence
Always consists in taking a story about one case (or more than one) and drawing an unwarranted conclusion (usually from a personal story). [Too small of a sample]
Weak Analogy
The two or more objects, events, or other phenomena being compared in a story or dialog, which have little or nothing in common – [See - A hasty comparison.]
Slanted Question
A question which contains bias.
Larger Number Rule/ Law of Large Numbers
The larger the number of chance repetitious events, the closer the events will approach a predictable ratio.
Gambler’s Fallacy
The belief that recent past events in a series can influence the outcome of the next event in the series. This reasoning is fallacious when the events have a predictable ratio of results, as is the case in flipping a coin, where the predictable ratio of heads to tails is 50-50.
(Assumption that the previous random events will effect future random events and the odds of these events.)
Causal Reasoning
One event necessarily leads to another event.
Non-Sequitur
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; an inference that does not follow from the premises.
Post Hoc Fallacy
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Reasoning that X caused Y simply because Y occurred after X.
(Just because one thing happened before the other does not mean that the first caused the second.)
Causal Claim / Cause-and-effect Claim
A statement that says or implies that the presence or absence of one thing caused or causes another.
Relevant Difference
A relevant difference is one that is not unreasonable to suppose caused the feature in question.
(An effect present is not present in another similar situation. The attempt is to find the difference between the situations where the effect was seen and where it was not.)
Common Thread
In common thread reasoning, multiple occurrences of a feature are said to be united by a single relevant common thread.
(The same effect is common in multiple situations and the cause links them.)
Experimental Group
The members of a group who are exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are all exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Control Group
The members of a group who are not exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are treated exactly as the members of the experimental group are except that thy are not exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Hypothesis
Supposition offered as a starting point for further investigation.
Statistically Significant
To say that some finding is statistically significant at a given confidence level – say, .05 – is essentially to say that the finding could have arisen by chance in only about five cases out of one hundred.
(The idea that it would be unreasonable to attribute this difference in frequency to chance.)
Controlled Cause-to-Effect
An experiment designed to test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect. A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group. If the effect is then found to occur with significantly more frequency in the experimental group, the suspected causal agent is considered a causal factor for the effect.
(A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group.)
Non-Experimental Cause-to-Effect
To test whether something is a causal facto for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. Instead a study is conducted on a group of individuals in which exposure has resulted from their own actions or circumstances.)
Non-Experimental Effect-to-Cause
To test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. The members of the experimental group display the effect as compared with the control group. Showing that the suspected causal agent is a causal factor in the population involved.)
Circularity
The property of a “causal” claim where the “cause” merely restates the effect. (The “cause” restarts the effect.)
Non-testability
The inability to test if something is true or false (“There are aliens in the universe.” For now, this is non-testable.)
Excessive Vagueness
A statement that is too vague to pinpoint a meaning and thus is non-testable.
Unnecessary Assumptions
The denial of apparent truth in order to accept an unreliable alternative.
Conflict-with well established Theory
A claim that conflicts with well-established theory. This claim does not support the burden of proof placed on it. There is good reason to reject this claim without powerful evidence of its truth (High Burdon of Proof).
Inductive Generalization
A claim who attempts to have a statement true about every member of a set.
Conclusion Indicators
Therefore
It follows that…
We may conclude that…
This serves to show that…
Thus
Hence
Accordingly
Consequently
So
Premise Indicators
Since
For
Because
In view of…
This is implied by…
Given
Outline to Critical Thinking
For Educational Use Only. Not for Commercial Use.
A List:
Critical Thinking
The analysis and evaluation of claims and judgments in order to determine if to accept, reject, or postpone judgment.
Argument
A set of claims intended to support or prove a conclusion. More specifically: a set of claims, one of which is the argument's conclusion, and the remainder of which are premises meant to show that conclusion's truth.
Claim
A sentence that is either true or false, even if its truth is not known at present, and even if there is no way of deciding on its truth.
Conclusion
A claim in an argument, which the rest of the argument is intended to support.
Fact
A true claim.
Factual matter
Not the same thing as a fact; rather, a matter (1) whose truth can be settled by, an agreed-on method for collecting evidence, and (2) the truth about which (whether it is now available or not) is a fact.
Issue
A claim whose truth is up for evaluation - Usually stated with the word "whether," an issue has at least two sides. This can mean that two or more people are engaged in a disagreement about the issue; but an issue can also arise for a single person who considers both sides of it.
Matter of fact
Factual Matter.
Matter of pure opinion
A matter that is not factual, that is, a matter for which there is either No true answer, or no recognized way of determining that true answer, even theoretically. When two people disagree on a matter of pure opinion, neither one is wrong.
Objective claim
A claim about a matter of fact. An objective claim will be either true or false, and what makes it true or false is the state of the world, independent of people's fantasies or desires.
Opinion
Something that someone believes. It may be true or false, or a matter of pure opinion. Just because something is someone's opinion does not make it a matter of pure opinion.
Premise
A claim in an argument, intended to support the conclusion.
Reasons
Not just what someone says while upholding an opinion; nor the causes that brought someone to hold it (e.g., "I was brought up to believe ..."). The reasons for an opinion are grounds that other people ought to find good reasons for holding the same opinion. In an argument, such reasons are called premises.
Subjective claim
A claim about a matter of pure opinion. The subjective claim gets its name from being really about the subject (i.e., the person) who asserts it. Thus Sabina's claim, "Leeks are disgusting," is in actuality not about leeks at all but about her feelings toward them.
Ambiguity
The openness of a word or claim to more than one interpretation; the quality of possessing more than one meaning. Ambiguity is usually either semantical or syntactical.
Argumentative essay
A work of nonfiction prose that aims at stating and defending a position on some issue.
Definition by analysis
A definition that breaks a term down into its essential elements.
Definition by example
A definition that provides a representative example of a term.
Definition by synonym
A definition that explains a term by means of a word or phrase that has the same meaning.
Emotive Force
"Connotation"; the overtones of feeling that a word arouses, as separate from its literal meaning (extension or intension).
Explanatory Definition
A definition intended to elucidate some feature of a complex concept.
Extension
The set of all things to which a word or phrase refers; also known as "denotation." The extension of "U.S. automobile producer" is "Chrysler, Ford, General Motors."
Fallacy of Composition
The mistaken assumption that what holds true of the members of a group, taken separately, will hold of the group of them taken together.
Fallacy of Division
The mistaken assumption that what holds true of a group, considered as a whole, will hold of its members taken separately.
Grouping Ambiguity
A type of semantical ambiguity that consists of referring to a group of individuals without clarifying whether one means the group as a whole or the individuals in it taken separately.
Intension
The set of qualities of a thing that make a given word or phrase refer to it; also known as "sense" (and not to be confused with intention, what someone means to say or do). The intension of "U.S. automobile producer" is "a company engaged in manufacturing automobiles, with its corporate headquarters in the United States."
Mean
A type of average arrived at by adding up a group of numbers and dividing by the number of them; also known as "arithmetic mean." The mean of 3, 5, 7, and 9 is 6.
Median
A type of average arrived at by finding the midpoint in a set of numerical values. If A is 6' tall, B is 5'10", and C is 5'3", the median height is 5'10".
Mode
A type of average arrived at by finding the most frequently occurring value or number in a group. If 3 people in a class receive an A, 15 receive a B, and 9 receive a C, the mode is B.
Persuasive Definition
A definition intended to influence its audience's sentiments on a subject.
Precising Definition
A definition intended to make a vague concept more exact.
Semantical Ambiguity
A type of ambiguity caused by the multiple meanings of words.
Stipulative Definition
A definition intended to assign a meaning to a (new or existing) word by fiat.
Syntactical Ambiguity
A type of ambiguity caused by the grammatical structure of a sentence; most often caused by pronouns with unclear referents and by qualifying phrases.
Vague Comparison
A type of vagueness produced by a comparative claim whose basis for comparison is unclear, or which in some other way omits essential information.
Vagueness
The failure of a word or claim to possess any precise meaning.
Background Information
The broad and vague collection of our general and specific beliefs about the world, typically arrived at through years of education and experience, and typically without our ability to say where it came from.
Bias
An inappropriate personal motive that casts doubts on one's own observations, the firsthand observations reported by someone else, or the claims of an expert.
Credible source
A person who makes a claim that we thereby have good reason to accept. Most often, the cause of credibility is knowledge.
Expert
A person with knowledge beyond that of educated laypersons on some specialized subject. Experts make especially credible sources for information, as long as (1) the area of their expertise is relevant to the issue at hand, (2) their claims do not conflict with those of other experts, and (3) we have no reason to suspect their bias. One becomes qualified as an expert by means of education (not necessarily obtained in a school), experience, accomplishments, reputation, and position.
Initial plausibility
The agreement of a new informative claim with things we already have good reason to believe. A claim's initial plausibility depends more specifically on its agreement with our own observations and our store of background information.
Observation
The immediate perception of a thing or event. Other things being equal, observation produces the most solid grounds for accepting a claim, and the most solid grounds for rejecting one that denies one's own observation. But many circumstances can render even observation unreliable.
Non-argumentative Persuasion
Not using a premise and conclusion to win an opinion.
Slanters
A rhetorical/linguistic device used to affect opinions attitudes without an argument. The use of words to evoke favorable/unfavorable images.
Euphemism
An agreeable or inoffensive expression that is substituted for an expression that may offend the hearer or suggest something unpleasant. Putting a statement in a positive slant.
Dysphemism
A word or phrase used to produce a negative effect on a reader’s or listener’s attitude about something or to tone down the positive associations the thing may have. Putting a statement in a negative slant.
Persuasive comparisons, definitions, and explanations
All three are used in the attempt to win someone to your position. None of these have to posses a valid argument.
Stereotypes
Applying an untrue claim to a group of people.
Innuendo
Giving meaning to unspoken words or applying a second meaning to spoken words.
Loaded question
The question itself implies the answer.
Weaseler
An expression used to protect a claim from criticism by weakening the claim.
Downplayer
A comment which acts by making the speaker’s comments less important. (Can be an Air Quoted words or horse laugh)
Proof surrogate
A comment which suggests there is evidence for a claim without saying what the evidence is.
Hyperbole
Extreme overstatement.
Argument from Outrage
Persuading by provoking anger, usually with inflammatory words followed by a “conclusion” of some sort.
Scapegoating
Placing blame on an individual or group who are not responsible.
Scare Tactics
Scaring someone by describing a frightening situation without offering proof.
Argument by Force
Threatening someone, telling them what will happen if they do not comply.
Argument by Pity
Supporting a claim by arousing pity rather than offering legitimate arguments.
Apple Polishing
Flattery is disguised as a reason for accepting a claim.
Guilt Trip
Making someone feel guilty for not accepting an argument.
Wishful Thinking
Accepting a claim because you want it to be true or rejecting it because you don’t want it to be true.
Peer Pressure Argument
The threat of rejection by your peers, friends, or relatives if you do not accept an argument.
Group Think Fallacy
Allowing faith in the groups decisions to replace your own reasons.
Nationalism
An emotional attachment to one’s own country which leads them to their country is the best.
Rationalizing
Using a false pretext in order to satisfy your own desires or interests.
Argument from popularity
Acceptance or urging to accept a claim simply because all or most people believe it.
Argument from common Practice
The attempt to justify actions based on the idea that “everyone does it.”
Argument from tradition
Saying a claim is true based on the idea that the action has been accepted and/or practiced for a long period of time.
Subjectivism
Opinion – The assumption that what is true for one person is not necessarily true for another.
Relativist fallacy
The view where two different cultures can be correct in their differing opinions on the same factual matter.
Two Wrongs make a Right
Reasoning that if it’s acceptable for A to do X to B because B is doing X to A.
Red Herring/Smoke Screen
An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.
Ad hominem
Rebutting a source’s claim based on a characteristics of the source rather than to the argument or claim or position.
Personal Attack Ad Hominem
Not accepting a person’s argument because there is something about the person you don’t like or disprove of.
Inconsistency Ad Hominem
The belif that if an individual has changed their mind, they can not be trusted.
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
The attempt to discredit a claim by referring to a speaker’s circumstances.
Poisoning the Well
Attempt to discredit another’s clam in advance by giving unfavorable information about a person.
Genetic Fallacy
Rejecting a claim on the basis of its origin or history (usually about a group)
Positive Ad Hominem
Building up the speaker prior to the speaker’s appearance.
Strawman /Strawperson
Fallacious reasoning where the actual position of the opponent is ignored and the position is distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented.
False Dilemma
The reasoning that there must be an either or decision when in fact both options my be possible simultaneously.
Perfectionist Fallacy
Rejection in whole of an idea because it does not accomplish its goal to perfection.
Line-drawing Fallacy
Insisting that a precise point must be determined when no point is necessary.
Slippery Slope
Fallacious reasoning- belief that some event must inevitably flow into another event in which no argument is given for the inevitability.
Misplaced Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is falsely placed on the wrong side. Can be when a lack of evidence is taken as proof for the claim.
Appeal to Ignorance
The view that an absence of evidence against a claim counts as evidence for that same claim.
Begging the Question
The conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises.
Good Argument
A good argument justifies acceptance of the conclusion.
Valid/Sound Argument (Deductive)
A valid argument has this defining characteristic: It is necessary, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion be true.
Strong Arguments (Inductive)
A strong argument has the distinguishing characteristic: It is unlikely, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion is false.
Categorical Logic
The relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes (“categories”)
Terms
The S and P are terms.
Subject (“The Only”)
The noun or pronoun phrase that refers to the first class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Predicate (“Only”)
The noun or noun phrase that refers to the second class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Square of Opposition
Standard-form Categorical Claim
All distributed terms are underlined: A: All S are P
E: No S are P
I: Some S are P
O: Some S are not P
Conversion:
E: No P are S
I: Some P are S
Obversion:
A: No S are ~P
E: All S are ~P
I: Some S are not ~P
O: Some S are ~P
Contrapositon
A: All ~P are ~S
O: Some ~P are not ~S
Rules of Validity Testing
1.The number of negative claims in the premises must be the same as the number of negative claims in the conclusion.
2.At least one premise must distribute the middle term.
3.Any term that is distributed in the conclusion of the syllogism must be distributed in its premises.
Major Term
Occurs as a predicate of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Minor Term
Occurs as a subject of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Middle Term
Occurs in both the premises but not in the conclusion.
Truth Tables
Antecedent (Is Nessasary)
The P in the Truth Table
Consequent (Is Sufficent)
The Q in the truth table.
Rule 1: Modus ponens
Also known as affirming the antecedent
P → Q (P v R) → Q
P . P v R .
Q Q
Rule 2: Modus tollens
Also known as denying the consequent
P → Q
~Q .
~P
Rule 3: Chain argument
P → Q
Q → R.
P → R
Rule 4: Disjunctive argument
P v Q P v Q
~P . ~Q .
Q P
Rule 6: Conjunction
P
Q .
P & Q
Rule 10: Double negation
P ↔ ~~ P P → ~~(Q v R)
Rule 13: Contraposition
(P → Q) ↔ (~Q → ~P)
Rule 16:Association
[P & (Q & R)] ↔ [(P & Q) & R] [P v (Q v R)] ↔ [(P v Q) v R]
Rule 18: Tautology
(P v P) ↔ P (P & P) ↔ P
Sample
An item or items we believe something about. (How many of the set is being viewed.)
Target/Class
An item or group of items to which we wish to extend our belief. (The whole number of the set.)
Feature/Property in Question
The feature we know about in the sample and we extend to the target object.
National Sample
1500
State Sample
500
Analogical Argument
Comes to a conclusion by comparing one thing to another. (Have one thing or event for a target)
Terms
The items being compared.
Feature in Question / Property in Question
What feature every member of a set possessives.
Target Class
The whole group of members for a specific set.
Inductive Generalization
Generalizations have their samples drawn from the target class.
Representative
The measure of how accurately the members represent the whole target.
Biased Sample
A sample that is significantly different from the target in one or more aspects. (the more alike the target and sample are, the stronger the argument is.) (The larger the sample the better – the stronger the argument)
Random Selection
Gives every member of the target class an equal chance of becoming a member of the sample or lottery. (More representative of the target.)
Error Margin
A range of percentage points within which an answer is claimed to fall.
↑ Sample = ↓ Error Margin = ↑ Confidence Level.
Confidence Level
A measure of the argument’s strength; the higher the confidence level, the more likely the argument’s conclusion is to be true.
Hasty Conclusion/Generalization
A fallacy of inductive arguments that occurs when conclusions are drawn from a sample that is too small. (Jumping to a conclusion based on information from a sample that is too small.)
Anecdotal Evidence
Always consists in taking a story about one case (or more than one) and drawing an unwarranted conclusion (usually from a personal story). [Too small of a sample]
Weak Analogy
The two or more objects, events, or other phenomena being compared in a story or dialog, which have little or nothing in common – [See - A hasty comparison.]
Slanted Question
A question which contains bias.
Larger Number Rule/ Law of Large Numbers
The larger the number of chance repetitious events, the closer the events will approach a predictable ratio.
Gambler’s Fallacy
The belief that recent past events in a series can influence the outcome of the next event in the series. This reasoning is fallacious when the events have a predictable ratio of results, as is the case in flipping a coin, where the predictable ratio of heads to tails is 50-50.
(Assumption that the previous random events will effect future random events and the odds of these events.)
Causal Reasoning
One event necessarily leads to another event.
Non-Sequitur
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; an inference that does not follow from the premises.
Post Hoc Fallacy
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Reasoning that X caused Y simply because Y occurred after X.
(Just because one thing happened before the other does not mean that the first caused the second.)
Causal Claim / Cause-and-effect Claim
A statement that says or implies that the presence or absence of one thing caused or causes another.
Relevant Difference
A relevant difference is one that is not unreasonable to suppose caused the feature in question.
(An effect present is not present in another similar situation. The attempt is to find the difference between the situations where the effect was seen and where it was not.)
Common Thread
In common thread reasoning, multiple occurrences of a feature are said to be united by a single relevant common thread.
(The same effect is common in multiple situations and the cause links them.)
Experimental Group
The members of a group who are exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are all exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Control Group
The members of a group who are not exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are treated exactly as the members of the experimental group are except that thy are not exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Hypothesis
Supposition offered as a starting point for further investigation.
Statistically Significant
To say that some finding is statistically significant at a given confidence level – say, .05 – is essentially to say that the finding could have arisen by chance in only about five cases out of one hundred.
(The idea that it would be unreasonable to attribute this difference in frequency to chance.)
Controlled Cause-to-Effect
An experiment designed to test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect. A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group. If the effect is then found to occur with significantly more frequency in the experimental group, the suspected causal agent is considered a causal factor for the effect.
(A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group.)
Non-Experimental Cause-to-Effect
To test whether something is a causal facto for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. Instead a study is conducted on a group of individuals in which exposure has resulted from their own actions or circumstances.)
Non-Experimental Effect-to-Cause
To test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. The members of the experimental group display the effect as compared with the control group. Showing that the suspected causal agent is a causal factor in the population involved.)
Circularity
The property of a “causal” claim where the “cause” merely restates the effect. (The “cause” restarts the effect.)
Non-testability
The inability to test if something is true or false (“There are aliens in the universe.” For now, this is non-testable.)
Excessive Vagueness
A statement that is too vague to pinpoint a meaning and thus is non-testable.
Unnecessary Assumptions
The denial of apparent truth in order to accept an unreliable alternative.
Conflict-with well established Theory
A claim that conflicts with well-established theory. This claim does not support the burden of proof placed on it. There is good reason to reject this claim without powerful evidence of its truth (High Burdon of Proof).
Inductive Generalization
A claim who attempts to have a statement true about every member of a set.
Conclusion Indicators
Therefore
It follows that…
We may conclude that…
This serves to show that…
Thus
Hence
Accordingly
Consequently
So
Premise Indicators
Since
For
Because
In view of…
This is implied by…
Given
A List:
Critical Thinking
The analysis and evaluation of claims and judgments in order to determine if to accept, reject, or postpone judgment.
Argument
A set of claims intended to support or prove a conclusion. More specifically: a set of claims, one of which is the argument's conclusion, and the remainder of which are premises meant to show that conclusion's truth.
Claim
A sentence that is either true or false, even if its truth is not known at present, and even if there is no way of deciding on its truth.
Conclusion
A claim in an argument, which the rest of the argument is intended to support.
Fact
A true claim.
Factual matter
Not the same thing as a fact; rather, a matter (1) whose truth can be settled by, an agreed-on method for collecting evidence, and (2) the truth about which (whether it is now available or not) is a fact.
Issue
A claim whose truth is up for evaluation - Usually stated with the word "whether," an issue has at least two sides. This can mean that two or more people are engaged in a disagreement about the issue; but an issue can also arise for a single person who considers both sides of it.
Matter of fact
Factual Matter.
Matter of pure opinion
A matter that is not factual, that is, a matter for which there is either No true answer, or no recognized way of determining that true answer, even theoretically. When two people disagree on a matter of pure opinion, neither one is wrong.
Objective claim
A claim about a matter of fact. An objective claim will be either true or false, and what makes it true or false is the state of the world, independent of people's fantasies or desires.
Opinion
Something that someone believes. It may be true or false, or a matter of pure opinion. Just because something is someone's opinion does not make it a matter of pure opinion.
Premise
A claim in an argument, intended to support the conclusion.
Reasons
Not just what someone says while upholding an opinion; nor the causes that brought someone to hold it (e.g., "I was brought up to believe ..."). The reasons for an opinion are grounds that other people ought to find good reasons for holding the same opinion. In an argument, such reasons are called premises.
Subjective claim
A claim about a matter of pure opinion. The subjective claim gets its name from being really about the subject (i.e., the person) who asserts it. Thus Sabina's claim, "Leeks are disgusting," is in actuality not about leeks at all but about her feelings toward them.
Ambiguity
The openness of a word or claim to more than one interpretation; the quality of possessing more than one meaning. Ambiguity is usually either semantical or syntactical.
Argumentative essay
A work of nonfiction prose that aims at stating and defending a position on some issue.
Definition by analysis
A definition that breaks a term down into its essential elements.
Definition by example
A definition that provides a representative example of a term.
Definition by synonym
A definition that explains a term by means of a word or phrase that has the same meaning.
Emotive Force
"Connotation"; the overtones of feeling that a word arouses, as separate from its literal meaning (extension or intension).
Explanatory Definition
A definition intended to elucidate some feature of a complex concept.
Extension
The set of all things to which a word or phrase refers; also known as "denotation." The extension of "U.S. automobile producer" is "Chrysler, Ford, General Motors."
Fallacy of Composition
The mistaken assumption that what holds true of the members of a group, taken separately, will hold of the group of them taken together.
Fallacy of Division
The mistaken assumption that what holds true of a group, considered as a whole, will hold of its members taken separately.
Grouping Ambiguity
A type of semantical ambiguity that consists of referring to a group of individuals without clarifying whether one means the group as a whole or the individuals in it taken separately.
Intension
The set of qualities of a thing that make a given word or phrase refer to it; also known as "sense" (and not to be confused with intention, what someone means to say or do). The intension of "U.S. automobile producer" is "a company engaged in manufacturing automobiles, with its corporate headquarters in the United States."
Mean
A type of average arrived at by adding up a group of numbers and dividing by the number of them; also known as "arithmetic mean." The mean of 3, 5, 7, and 9 is 6.
Median
A type of average arrived at by finding the midpoint in a set of numerical values. If A is 6' tall, B is 5'10", and C is 5'3", the median height is 5'10".
Mode
A type of average arrived at by finding the most frequently occurring value or number in a group. If 3 people in a class receive an A, 15 receive a B, and 9 receive a C, the mode is B.
Persuasive Definition
A definition intended to influence its audience's sentiments on a subject.
Precising Definition
A definition intended to make a vague concept more exact.
Semantical Ambiguity
A type of ambiguity caused by the multiple meanings of words.
Stipulative Definition
A definition intended to assign a meaning to a (new or existing) word by fiat.
Syntactical Ambiguity
A type of ambiguity caused by the grammatical structure of a sentence; most often caused by pronouns with unclear referents and by qualifying phrases.
Vague Comparison
A type of vagueness produced by a comparative claim whose basis for comparison is unclear, or which in some other way omits essential information.
Vagueness
The failure of a word or claim to possess any precise meaning.
Background Information
The broad and vague collection of our general and specific beliefs about the world, typically arrived at through years of education and experience, and typically without our ability to say where it came from.
Bias
An inappropriate personal motive that casts doubts on one's own observations, the firsthand observations reported by someone else, or the claims of an expert.
Credible source
A person who makes a claim that we thereby have good reason to accept. Most often, the cause of credibility is knowledge.
Expert
A person with knowledge beyond that of educated laypersons on some specialized subject. Experts make especially credible sources for information, as long as (1) the area of their expertise is relevant to the issue at hand, (2) their claims do not conflict with those of other experts, and (3) we have no reason to suspect their bias. One becomes qualified as an expert by means of education (not necessarily obtained in a school), experience, accomplishments, reputation, and position.
Initial plausibility
The agreement of a new informative claim with things we already have good reason to believe. A claim's initial plausibility depends more specifically on its agreement with our own observations and our store of background information.
Observation
The immediate perception of a thing or event. Other things being equal, observation produces the most solid grounds for accepting a claim, and the most solid grounds for rejecting one that denies one's own observation. But many circumstances can render even observation unreliable.
Non-argumentative Persuasion
Not using a premise and conclusion to win an opinion.
Slanters
A rhetorical/linguistic device used to affect opinions attitudes without an argument. The use of words to evoke favorable/unfavorable images.
Euphemism
An agreeable or inoffensive expression that is substituted for an expression that may offend the hearer or suggest something unpleasant. Putting a statement in a positive slant.
Dysphemism
A word or phrase used to produce a negative effect on a reader’s or listener’s attitude about something or to tone down the positive associations the thing may have. Putting a statement in a negative slant.
Persuasive comparisons, definitions, and explanations
All three are used in the attempt to win someone to your position. None of these have to posses a valid argument.
Stereotypes
Applying an untrue claim to a group of people.
Innuendo
Giving meaning to unspoken words or applying a second meaning to spoken words.
Loaded question
The question itself implies the answer.
Weaseler
An expression used to protect a claim from criticism by weakening the claim.
Downplayer
A comment which acts by making the speaker’s comments less important. (Can be an Air Quoted words or horse laugh)
Proof surrogate
A comment which suggests there is evidence for a claim without saying what the evidence is.
Hyperbole
Extreme overstatement.
Argument from Outrage
Persuading by provoking anger, usually with inflammatory words followed by a “conclusion” of some sort.
Scapegoating
Placing blame on an individual or group who are not responsible.
Scare Tactics
Scaring someone by describing a frightening situation without offering proof.
Argument by Force
Threatening someone, telling them what will happen if they do not comply.
Argument by Pity
Supporting a claim by arousing pity rather than offering legitimate arguments.
Apple Polishing
Flattery is disguised as a reason for accepting a claim.
Guilt Trip
Making someone feel guilty for not accepting an argument.
Wishful Thinking
Accepting a claim because you want it to be true or rejecting it because you don’t want it to be true.
Peer Pressure Argument
The threat of rejection by your peers, friends, or relatives if you do not accept an argument.
Group Think Fallacy
Allowing faith in the groups decisions to replace your own reasons.
Nationalism
An emotional attachment to one’s own country which leads them to their country is the best.
Rationalizing
Using a false pretext in order to satisfy your own desires or interests.
Argument from popularity
Acceptance or urging to accept a claim simply because all or most people believe it.
Argument from common Practice
The attempt to justify actions based on the idea that “everyone does it.”
Argument from tradition
Saying a claim is true based on the idea that the action has been accepted and/or practiced for a long period of time.
Subjectivism
Opinion – The assumption that what is true for one person is not necessarily true for another.
Relativist fallacy
The view where two different cultures can be correct in their differing opinions on the same factual matter.
Two Wrongs make a Right
Reasoning that if it’s acceptable for A to do X to B because B is doing X to A.
Red Herring/Smoke Screen
An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.
Ad hominem
Rebutting a source’s claim based on a characteristics of the source rather than to the argument or claim or position.
Personal Attack Ad Hominem
Not accepting a person’s argument because there is something about the person you don’t like or disprove of.
Inconsistency Ad Hominem
The belif that if an individual has changed their mind, they can not be trusted.
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
The attempt to discredit a claim by referring to a speaker’s circumstances.
Poisoning the Well
Attempt to discredit another’s clam in advance by giving unfavorable information about a person.
Genetic Fallacy
Rejecting a claim on the basis of its origin or history (usually about a group)
Positive Ad Hominem
Building up the speaker prior to the speaker’s appearance.
Strawman /Strawperson
Fallacious reasoning where the actual position of the opponent is ignored and the position is distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented.
False Dilemma
The reasoning that there must be an either or decision when in fact both options my be possible simultaneously.
Perfectionist Fallacy
Rejection in whole of an idea because it does not accomplish its goal to perfection.
Line-drawing Fallacy
Insisting that a precise point must be determined when no point is necessary.
Slippery Slope
Fallacious reasoning- belief that some event must inevitably flow into another event in which no argument is given for the inevitability.
Misplaced Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is falsely placed on the wrong side. Can be when a lack of evidence is taken as proof for the claim.
Appeal to Ignorance
The view that an absence of evidence against a claim counts as evidence for that same claim.
Begging the Question
The conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises.
Good Argument
A good argument justifies acceptance of the conclusion.
Valid/Sound Argument (Deductive)
A valid argument has this defining characteristic: It is necessary, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion be true.
Strong Arguments (Inductive)
A strong argument has the distinguishing characteristic: It is unlikely, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion is false.
Categorical Logic
The relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes (“categories”)
Terms
The S and P are terms.
Subject (“The Only”)
The noun or pronoun phrase that refers to the first class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Predicate (“Only”)
The noun or noun phrase that refers to the second class mentioned in a standard-form categorical claim.
Square of Opposition
Standard-form Categorical Claim
All distributed terms are underlined: A: All S are P
E: No S are P
I: Some S are P
O: Some S are not P
Conversion:
E: No P are S
I: Some P are S
Obversion:
A: No S are ~P
E: All S are ~P
I: Some S are not ~P
O: Some S are ~P
Contrapositon
A: All ~P are ~S
O: Some ~P are not ~S
Rules of Validity Testing
1.The number of negative claims in the premises must be the same as the number of negative claims in the conclusion.
2.At least one premise must distribute the middle term.
3.Any term that is distributed in the conclusion of the syllogism must be distributed in its premises.
Major Term
Occurs as a predicate of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Minor Term
Occurs as a subject of the syllogism’s conclusion.
Middle Term
Occurs in both the premises but not in the conclusion.
Truth Tables
Antecedent (Is Nessasary)
The P in the Truth Table
Consequent (Is Sufficent)
The Q in the truth table.
Rule 1: Modus ponens
Also known as affirming the antecedent
P → Q (P v R) → Q
P . P v R .
Q Q
Rule 2: Modus tollens
Also known as denying the consequent
P → Q
~Q .
~P
Rule 3: Chain argument
P → Q
Q → R.
P → R
Rule 4: Disjunctive argument
P v Q P v Q
~P . ~Q .
Q P
Rule 6: Conjunction
P
Q .
P & Q
Rule 10: Double negation
P ↔ ~~ P P → ~~(Q v R)
Rule 13: Contraposition
(P → Q) ↔ (~Q → ~P)
Rule 16:Association
[P & (Q & R)] ↔ [(P & Q) & R] [P v (Q v R)] ↔ [(P v Q) v R]
Rule 18: Tautology
(P v P) ↔ P (P & P) ↔ P
Sample
An item or items we believe something about. (How many of the set is being viewed.)
Target/Class
An item or group of items to which we wish to extend our belief. (The whole number of the set.)
Feature/Property in Question
The feature we know about in the sample and we extend to the target object.
National Sample
1500
State Sample
500
Analogical Argument
Comes to a conclusion by comparing one thing to another. (Have one thing or event for a target)
Terms
The items being compared.
Feature in Question / Property in Question
What feature every member of a set possessives.
Target Class
The whole group of members for a specific set.
Inductive Generalization
Generalizations have their samples drawn from the target class.
Representative
The measure of how accurately the members represent the whole target.
Biased Sample
A sample that is significantly different from the target in one or more aspects. (the more alike the target and sample are, the stronger the argument is.) (The larger the sample the better – the stronger the argument)
Random Selection
Gives every member of the target class an equal chance of becoming a member of the sample or lottery. (More representative of the target.)
Error Margin
A range of percentage points within which an answer is claimed to fall.
↑ Sample = ↓ Error Margin = ↑ Confidence Level.
Confidence Level
A measure of the argument’s strength; the higher the confidence level, the more likely the argument’s conclusion is to be true.
Hasty Conclusion/Generalization
A fallacy of inductive arguments that occurs when conclusions are drawn from a sample that is too small. (Jumping to a conclusion based on information from a sample that is too small.)
Anecdotal Evidence
Always consists in taking a story about one case (or more than one) and drawing an unwarranted conclusion (usually from a personal story). [Too small of a sample]
Weak Analogy
The two or more objects, events, or other phenomena being compared in a story or dialog, which have little or nothing in common – [See - A hasty comparison.]
Slanted Question
A question which contains bias.
Larger Number Rule/ Law of Large Numbers
The larger the number of chance repetitious events, the closer the events will approach a predictable ratio.
Gambler’s Fallacy
The belief that recent past events in a series can influence the outcome of the next event in the series. This reasoning is fallacious when the events have a predictable ratio of results, as is the case in flipping a coin, where the predictable ratio of heads to tails is 50-50.
(Assumption that the previous random events will effect future random events and the odds of these events.)
Causal Reasoning
One event necessarily leads to another event.
Non-Sequitur
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion; an inference that does not follow from the premises.
Post Hoc Fallacy
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Reasoning that X caused Y simply because Y occurred after X.
(Just because one thing happened before the other does not mean that the first caused the second.)
Causal Claim / Cause-and-effect Claim
A statement that says or implies that the presence or absence of one thing caused or causes another.
Relevant Difference
A relevant difference is one that is not unreasonable to suppose caused the feature in question.
(An effect present is not present in another similar situation. The attempt is to find the difference between the situations where the effect was seen and where it was not.)
Common Thread
In common thread reasoning, multiple occurrences of a feature are said to be united by a single relevant common thread.
(The same effect is common in multiple situations and the cause links them.)
Experimental Group
The members of a group who are exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are all exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Control Group
The members of a group who are not exposed to the suspected causal factor.
(The sample of the target population whose members are treated exactly as the members of the experimental group are except that thy are not exposed to the suspected causal agent.)
Hypothesis
Supposition offered as a starting point for further investigation.
Statistically Significant
To say that some finding is statistically significant at a given confidence level – say, .05 – is essentially to say that the finding could have arisen by chance in only about five cases out of one hundred.
(The idea that it would be unreasonable to attribute this difference in frequency to chance.)
Controlled Cause-to-Effect
An experiment designed to test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect. A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group. If the effect is then found to occur with significantly more frequency in the experimental group, the suspected causal agent is considered a causal factor for the effect.
(A causal agent is introduced into the experimental group but not the control group.)
Non-Experimental Cause-to-Effect
To test whether something is a causal facto for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. Instead a study is conducted on a group of individuals in which exposure has resulted from their own actions or circumstances.)
Non-Experimental Effect-to-Cause
To test whether something is a causal factor for a given effect.
(No introduction of causal agent occurs. The members of the experimental group display the effect as compared with the control group. Showing that the suspected causal agent is a causal factor in the population involved.)
Circularity
The property of a “causal” claim where the “cause” merely restates the effect. (The “cause” restarts the effect.)
Non-testability
The inability to test if something is true or false (“There are aliens in the universe.” For now, this is non-testable.)
Excessive Vagueness
A statement that is too vague to pinpoint a meaning and thus is non-testable.
Unnecessary Assumptions
The denial of apparent truth in order to accept an unreliable alternative.
Conflict-with well established Theory
A claim that conflicts with well-established theory. This claim does not support the burden of proof placed on it. There is good reason to reject this claim without powerful evidence of its truth (High Burdon of Proof).
Inductive Generalization
A claim who attempts to have a statement true about every member of a set.
Conclusion Indicators
Therefore
It follows that…
We may conclude that…
This serves to show that…
Thus
Hence
Accordingly
Consequently
So
Premise Indicators
Since
For
Because
In view of…
This is implied by…
Given
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)