Term
|
Definition
| An argument wheere the premises of the argument require the relation and the following of the conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument that is valid as well as all true premises. |
|
|
Term
Dealing with Word Problems
"It is easy to show that the total contribution of a computer program to society is reduced by assigning a owner to it. Each potential user of the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay, or forgo use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties,. But each time someone chooses to forgo use of the program, this hams that person without benefiting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros is negative." |
|
Definition
1) Conclusion: The total contribution is reduced
2) Premise 1: In a society with ownership, each potential user either pays or forgoes use.
3) Premise 2: If a user pays, it's a zero-sum transfer.
4) Premise 3: If a user forgoes, it harms the person
5) Conclusion: No matter what, basically, there's nothing good that comes form it.
a) INVALID, but only technically. The premises don't necessitate the conclusion, but only bc choice of words |
|
|
Term
Method of Counterexample
I. If Socrates was a philosopher, then he wasn't a historian.
II. Socrates wasn't a historian
III. Socrates was a philosopher |
|
Definition
1) INVALID
2) To use the Counterexample:
a) P: Philosopher, Q: wasn't a historian
b) If p, then q. Q. then P
c) Distill the argument, that shows that the form in b) is never valid. NEVER.
d) However, the following IS ALWAYS VALID.
e) If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An English mathematician and philosopher, whose philosophic argument was called the Clifford Principle. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. |
|
|
Term
| Richard Feldman on Evidence |
|
Definition
| It is epistemically wrong to believe a proposition when one's evidence does not support such proposition. |
|
|
Term
| William James on Propositions |
|
Definition
Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot, by its nature, be decided on intellectual grounds.
TL;DR: When we are given two theories, humanity must choose. |
|
|
Term
| William James on Believing w/o Evidence |
|
Definition
| It is not wrong to believe in an alternative option to an argument when said argument can't be decided on intellectual grounds. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Atheism (Believing that God does/doesn't exist)
Agnosticism (believing or not believing that God exists)
There's a difference here. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| from the point of view of knowledge or getting at the truth |
|
|
Term
| What makes an option genuine? |
|
Definition
| Forced (you must choose), living (hypotheses have some appeal), or momentous (now or never, not trivial, hugely significant) |
|
|
Term
| William James' Argument that Believing in God isn't wrong |
|
Definition
James' Argument
1. The evidence for and against God's existence is counterbalanced. (50/50)
2.Therefore, the religious option is not decidable on intellectual grounds.
3. The religious optinon is live, forced, and momentous.
4. Therefore, the religious option is genuine.
5. If an option is genuine and not intellectually decidable , then it is not wong to decide it on non-intellectual grounds.
6. SO, I t is not wrong to decide the relgious option on non-intellectual grounds.
7. It's not wrong to believe that god exists, even though the evidence is
counter-balanced. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| supported by reason alone |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Argument supported by reason |
|
|
Term
| What does Anselm define the /concept/ of god as? |
|
Definition
| Something that which nothing greater can be thought. |
|
|
Term
| Anselm's Ontological Argument in favor of God |
|
Definition
1. One can think about and understand the concept of god (somthing that which nothing greater can be thought, STWNGCBT)
2. If (1) is true, then STWNGCBT exists in the mind.
3. STWNGCBT (concept of God) exists in the minds [1, 2]
4. If (3) is true, then either it exists in the mind alone, or reality as well.
5. It doesn't exist in the mind alone.
6. It exists in reality [3, 4, 5]
7. It is real.
8. Therefore, God is real. (according to Anselm b4 Rowe challenges it.) |
|
|
Term
| Anselm's Revised Argument after Rowe and Gaunilo (perfect island = God) challenges. |
|
Definition
1. God exists in the understanding.
2. God is a logically possible being.
3. If something exists only in the understaning, and it is a logically possible being, then possibly, it is greater than it actually is.
4. God exists only in the understanding [assumption for reductio]
5. By that logic, God is possibly greater than He actually is. [2, 3, 4]
6. So, God is a being that which a greater is possible.
7. So, the being that which none greater is possible, is a being than which a greater is possible.
7a. PARADOXICAL.
8. [7] is a contradiction, so the assumption is false.
9. So, God exiss in reality as well as the understanding.
Note about 9. Read [3] to find proof for it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| X is logically possible if and only if (iff) X's existence does not entail a logical contradiction. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| X is a logically contingent thing (iff) it is both logically possible that it both does and does not exist. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| X is a logically impossible thing (iff) X is not logically possible. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| X is a logivally necessary thing (iff) it is not logically possible that X does /not/ exist. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| X is a logically possible thing (iff) X's existence is logically possible. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Existence is a great-making property. Anything that doesn't exist but might have existed..would have been a greater thing if it had existed. |
|
|
Term
| Boiled-down Cosmological Argument |
|
Definition
Argument for a cause to the universe, arguing for the existence of a "supreme being" (aka God.)
Basically, "Something created the universe, what was it?"
"GOD!"
"Yes, yes, we'll go with that." |
|
|
Term
| Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) |
|
Definition
| There must be an explanation of the existence of any being, and of the truth of any positive fact whatsoever. |
|
|
Term
| General Teleological Argument |
|
Definition
1. The universe was designed.
2. If the universe was designed, surely there must be a designer?
3. So, there is a designer of the Universe (namely, God.) |
|
|
Term
What are God's three core qualities that make Him God?
(Qualities attacked in The Problem of Evil) |
|
Definition
Omnipotency (all-powerful)
Omnibenevolence (all-good)
Omniscient (all-seeing)
Wholly good being, God of traditional theism |
|
|
Term
| The Inductive Problem of Evil |
|
Definition
1. Suppose that God - a wholly good, omnipotent being, exists. [Assumption for reductio]
2. A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can [Principle #1 of God]
3. If [1 and 2], then God eliminates evil as far as it can.
4. God eliminates evil as far as He can. [1, 2, 3]
5. There are no limiuts to what an omnipotent being can do [Principle #2]
6. If [1] and [5], then there are no limits to what God can do.
7. If [4] and [6], then there should be no evil.
8. Evil is entirely elimated [4, 7, 8]
9. Evil still exists, however.
10. [8] and [9] contradict, so the assumption is false.
11. God is proven false. |
|
|
Term
| Solution 1 for the Problem of Evil: "Good cannot exist w/o evil" |
|
Definition
Theodicy of the Solution =
Principle: a good thing eliminates evil as far as it can except for when _not_ eliminating the evil is required for making things overall better than they would have been normally. |
|
|
Term
| External world Skepticism |
|
Definition
How do you know that the world we're living in right now isn't the real world at all?
What if what we experience is all a dream? |
|
|
Term
| Descartes' Method of Doubt |
|
Definition
1. Withhold assent from propositions that are not completely certain (FOUNDATION)
2. Not completely certain: those things about the external world arrived at by the senses, specific beliefs about time and space. |
|
|
Term
| G.E. Moore's Argument for an External World |
|
Definition
1. Here is a hand \(o_o)
2. Here is another hand \(o_o)/
3. Therefore, since there is more than 2 objects separate of my mind, the world is real \(^_^)/ |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument for the explanation of the external world, stating that the external world (as far as we know) is simply made up of our ideas and nothing else. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The idealism argument that states that the world is made up of the ideas of the population, not just one person's ideas. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The concept that the /only things we know for sure/ are ideas (abstractions of thought). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This train of thought holds that entities (people, objects, etc.) exist independently of the human mind, going directly against idealism. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The theory (however farfetched it is) that the world we live in is a simulation made by machines/other humans. |
|
|
Term
| Epistemiological "Commonsensism" |
|
Definition
| The belief that common sense, or common knowledge, should be the baseline of philosophical inquiry. |
|
|
Term
| Inference to the best Explanation (IBE) |
|
Definition
"The lawn is wet
If it rained last night, it would make sense that the lawn would be wet.
Therefore, it rained last night."
P happened.
Q would presumably cause P.
Therefore, Q happened. |
|
|
