Term
|
Definition
|
- any series of statements that is claiming a thesis to be either true or false
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
- present evidence - this shows whether a thesis is true or false
- They represent and defend positions
|
|
|
Term
| When do arguements occur? |
|
Definition
|
- typically occur within the context of some controversy
|
|
|
Term
| What do arguements suspose to contain? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What do GOOD arguements ALWAYS have? |
|
Definition
|
- all good arguments have statements that are logically tied together
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
- statements are NOT arguments
|
|
|
Term
| What are the 2 parts to an arguement? |
|
Definition
|
- There is always one part of the argument that states a conclusion = this is the thesis of the statement
- the 2nd part states at least one premise - this part supplies the evidence = “because”
|
|
|
Term
| What do all arguements suspose to be made up of? |
|
Definition
|
- All arguments = at least 2 statements + a premise + conclusion
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
- present facts (present evidence)
- a statement presumed true
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
the logical connection between the premises and conclusions.
|
|
|
Term
| What does a STRONG inference do? |
|
Definition
|
tells us just how logical the argument is
|
|
|
Term
| What do inferences connect in an arguement? |
|
Definition
|
- an argument is a series of statements, where some, the premises, provide evidence or reasons for others, the conclusions. These two kinds of statements are connected by the logical inference.
|
|
|
Term
| - When forming or evaluating arguments we look at two factors: |
|
Definition
|
1) the truth value of the premises, and 2) the form and strength of the inference.
|
|
|
Term
| *The 2 forms of Inference: |
|
Definition
|
1) induction
2) deduction
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
- What philosophers prefer
-conclusion is suppose to be “necessary” – this is based on the premise
- Use reasoning by elimination
- premises must be true
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
deduction = necessary = such that its conclusion cannot be false if its supporting premises are true
|
|
|
Term
| What is a sound arguement? |
|
Definition
|
a really good deduction (one that can never be refute by anyone at any time)
|
|
|
Term
| How many kinds of deductions are there? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
DEDUCTION
= 2 premises + 1 conclusion
- a necessary relationship
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
DEDUCTION
symbolic reasoning – employs mathematical relations which are always necessary = proofs
|
|
|
Term
| Arguments from definitions: |
|
Definition
|
DEDUCTION
one of the most common forms – based on the meaning of terms
|
|
|
Term
| Arguments from laws, principles, axioms and other formulas : |
|
Definition
|
DEDUCTION
like arguments with definitions – we are to understand the properties of certain general concepts and apply them to situations, people, events, nations, cultures, and make judgments about them
|
|
|
Term
| Arguments from hypotheses or conjectures: |
|
Definition
|
DEDUCTIONS
an attempt to deduce the conditions and their effects on people, events, nations and ect. – composed of conditions
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
DEDUCTION
method of arguing by questions and answer, where the answers are analyzed for their truth and completeness
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
- the most common form of inference
- the conclusion is suppose to be probable (likely) to be true based on the premises
- Probabilities – beyond reasonable doubt – NOT NECESSARY
|
|
|
Term
| How many types of inductions are there? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
INDUCTION
the arguments go from some to many – the greater the sample the higher the probability of accuracy
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
INDUCTION
a claim about some future event based on past events or trends
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
INDUCTION
a claim about a trend and the likely outcome – NOT a predication since no single event is said to occur – generalizes about the future
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
INDUCTION
a claim about one thing due to its likeness to something else – VERY common – the strength of the inference depends on the similarity in structure, form and purpose of the two or more items in comparison
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
strong inference + true premises
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
- A mistake in logic NOT in truth
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
a deductive argument that has an invalid form
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
OR attacks directed against a person – this is called ad hominem, which is Latin for “against the person”
|
|
|
Term
| How many types of fallacies are there? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
such as the bible or the opinion of Church Leaders (unless you are arguing some point relevant to the Bible or leaders)
|
|
|
Term
| Appeal to popular opinion: |
|
Definition
|
no matter how popular something is that doesn’t mean that the popular opinion is true
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
If I don’t know something all that proves is that I don’t know it. No conclusion is proven by such a means. “we can not know that God exists because I can not prove it.” – the fact that he can not prove it does not mean that God’s existence can not be proven.
|
|
|
Term
| Appeal to coincidence or Status quo: |
|
Definition
|
“what happens” may or may not prove something to be true.- EX. The fact that Bush was president of the US at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Russia may or may not be significant to that world event – if you argued that election of Bush caused the collapse of the Soviet Union this would be illegitimate unless other relevant data was incl
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
apples should be compared with apples – if one argues that the US was morally superior to other countries because we are economically superior that is a form of equivocation – you are implying that “morality: is like “economy.” – this is unlikely to be true.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
you must be consistent with your claims – if you say “all religions are the same” but later say that “Christianity is better than Islam,” you are NOT being consistent
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
this occurs when you presume that your thesis is true when you actually have not presented any evidence for it.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
this occurs when either the conclusion is made that has nothing or little to do with the premises or the whole argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
very common – usually occurs when some small bad thing happens, such as, a bridge collapses, and then the arguer reasons that is this bridge collapses than many bridges with collapse – i.e. immigration
|
|
|
Term
| Name the 7 types of deductions:
SMAAAAD
CHLD |
|
Definition
|
1) Syllogisms
2) Mathematical formulas
3) Arguments from definitions
4) Arguments from Laws, Principles, Axions, and other formulas
5) Arugments from Hypothesis or conjectures
6) Arguments from causality
7) Dialectics
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
a more specific form or hypothetical arguments where the subject is always identified as a cause of some effect - i.e. carbon dioxide when it replaces the ozone in the atmosphere fails to prevent the suns rays from penetrating the atmosphere; for this reason we have seen a gradual rise in te earths ambient temp during the past 60 years. if carbon continues to replace the ozone layer the consequeces is an ever increasing warmer earth
|
|
|
Term
| Name the 4 types of inductions:
FGAP |
|
Definition
|
1) generalization
2) predictions
3) forecasts
4) analogies
|
|
|
Term
| Name all of the fallacies:
APIC BI-NESS!! |
|
Definition
|
1) Appeal to authority
2) Appeal to popular opinion
3) Appeal to ignorance
4) Appeal to coincidence or status qua
5) Begging the question
6) Irrelevancy
7) name-calling
8) equivocation
9) self-contradicitons
10) slippery-slope
|
|
|