Term
| What are System 1 and System 2 thinking? What kind of thinking is critical thinking as we do it in this course? |
|
Definition
| System 1 is fast thinking and makes up the majority of our decisions, we wouldn't have the capacity to always do System thinking which is critical thinking / slow thinking |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Claims are a statement that is either true or false (regardless of if we can evaluate its truth) |
|
|
Term
| What kinds of sentences are not claims? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are objective, subjective, prescriptive, value claims? |
|
Definition
| (not official defs) objective is T/F regardless of psychological state, subjective truth can vary depending on a persons feelings and perspective, prescriptive claims make a statement about how people ought to act and they have an implied value claim which is showing a value (right wrong immoral etc) |
|
|
Term
| Definitions: why are they not claims? |
|
Definition
| definitions report the usage of a word within a given community, they are not something to be evaluated as T/F they can be narrow, broad, good, bad |
|
|
Term
| What happens when claims masquerade as definitions? |
|
Definition
| when claims masquerade as definitions, we consider the definition to be concealing a claim that needs support |
|
|
Term
| What are reportive vs stipulative definitions? |
|
Definition
| reportive are reporting the typical usage of a word in a given community and stipulative are outlined / defined in the context of the argument |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem of vagueness? |
|
Definition
| vagueness is a problem with both logistic and factual evaluation, if we cannot tell what the argument being made is we cannot evaluate it therefore not claims |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between simple vagueness and ambiguity (ambiguity is a type of vagueness)? |
|
Definition
| simple vagueness is a confusion on what is being argued - ambiguity is not a vagueness of what is being said, but not knowing which of multiple definitions a word is using |
|
|
Term
| what is the subjectivist fallacy? |
|
Definition
| that just because people disagree on a claim it is subjective - a fallacy of reasoning |
|
|
Term
| what is the drawing the line fallacy? |
|
Definition
| just because there is a gray area, there is no context where there are clear cases - just because fine details cannot be identifies doesn't mean big ones also can't |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| exploiting the multiple different meanings of a word for your argument |
|
|
Term
| what is begging the question? |
|
Definition
| when one of the claims is similar or the same to the conclusion you are making, you are structuring claims that make an argument you agree to (this is technically a valid argument) |
|
|
Term
| what is confirmation bias? |
|
Definition
| it is a cognitive bias wherein people will seek out and notice the information that agrees with their preconcieved beliefs |
|
|
Term
| Arguments: What are they? |
|
Definition
| they are a set of claims (premises) presented as support for another claim (conclusion) |
|
|
Term
| What do indicator words do and why are they not perfect indicators? |
|
Definition
| they help to point out the claims inside a body of text, not perfect because you can have claims with no indicator words and you can have indicator words used in other contexts |
|
|
Term
| What are valid, invalid, strong, weak arguments and their relationships? |
|
Definition
| these are logical evaluations -- a valid argument is an argumen tthat if the premises are taken as true - there is no way for the conclusion to be false, if its not valid its automatically invalid which is a scale from strong (the premises reasonable support the conclusion to be true) to weak (the premises do not give reasonable support to believe the conclusion is true) |
|
|
Term
| What makes an argument good or bad? |
|
Definition
| good or bad is an all inclusive description of logical and factual evaluations - it is good if it is valid or strong with true premises, pretty much all other combinations are bad,( strong or valid with false premises) weak is always bad |
|
|
Term
| What are the logical and the factual standpoints? |
|
Definition
| factual is looking at the premises to see if they're true or if they have enough rationing to believe they are and logical is if the premises are taken to be true do they give good reason to believe the conclusion |
|
|
Term
| The three tests for a good argument are...? |
|
Definition
| 1. factual - its premises are true/plausible 2. logical - the argument is valid or strong 3. the premises are each more plausible than the conclusion (don't have to worry about this one much unless there is vaguness or begging the question) |
|
|
Term
| What is the principle of charity? |
|
Definition
| there are three assumptions to make about the argument you are evaluating 1. the person knows how to reason well 2. they know enough about the topic they are arguing and 3. they are not lying |
|
|
Term
| Implying and inferring—what is the difference and the relationship between them? |
|
Definition
| claims imply and people infer, adding in missing claims by POC that are implied in the persons argument and we are inferring that is what they intented to say |
|
|
Term
| How do we reason with prescriptive claims? |
|
Definition
| we do not need to assume that prescriptive claims are subjective (difference of morals) or vague (good, bad, right, wrong), but we need to be clear about the way in which the terms are being used -- prescriptive claims are reasoned with as objective claims |
|
|
Term
| what is the difference between contradictories and contraries? |
|
Definition
| contradictories are two claims that cannot be true at the same time AND cannot be false at the same time (opposite truth values) - the truth of one falsifies the other and the false of one makes the other true and contraries cannot be true at the same time but can be false at the same time |
|
|
Term
| what is the law of non-contradiction? |
|
Definition
| a claim cannot be true and not-true at the same time, if it is a valid argument (conc must be true given true premises) and the premises are in fact true, there is no way to say the conclusion is false - it would be self contradictory |
|
|
Term
| explain deductive vs inductive arguments |
|
Definition
| deductive = valid and inductive = invalid (you induce from the evidence of premises) |
|
|
Term
| name the three types of inductive arguments talked about in class |
|
Definition
| inductive generalization (specific case to general case ie sample to general popn) + inductive prediction (inference from set of observations to predicted observation) + enumerative induction (inference from a list of factual claims to a conclusion ie circumstantial evidence in court) |
|
|
Term
| is vagueness an issue with the logical or factual standpoint of an argument |
|
Definition
| technically both since its unclear to distinguish what is being said, prof reccomends to leave it in for logical evaluation and standardize it to properly represent the argument being made then evaluating it in factual sections |
|
|
Term
| Are cognitive biases actually fallacies? (You should grasp what a cog. bias and a fallacy are.) |
|
Definition
| my guess is no, cognitive biases are human nature whereas fallacies are common mistakes (real answer - no, cognitive bias is different from a mistake in reasoning (a fallacy) because it is the way our brains work and doesn’t necessarily lead to a mistake in reasoning) |
|
|
Term
| Why do we care about claims—why not just talk about sentences and reasoning? |
|
Definition
| claims can be evaluated as true or false and they give us a standard format to properly evaluate (real answer - claims are specific types of sentences that are linguistic entities that can function as reasons for arguments) - sentences and reasoning can do the same thing in a lot of cases but leave room for individual interpretation of what exactly is being stated |
|
|
Term
| What is wrong with this sentence: “There is so much disagreement about vaccines, so whether vaccines do anything or not is a matter of opinion”? |
|
Definition
| this is the subjectivist fallacy, just because there is diagreeance that the issue is subjective or not able to be evaluated |
|
|
Term
| Why should we pay close attention when people use definitions in their arguments? |
|
Definition
| because definitions can be inaccurate and disguise a claim within an argument that needs support and to be evaluated |
|
|
Term
| Its hard to give a good definition, because good definitions are exhaustive. It’s easier to ________________________________. Can you fill in the blank? |
|
Definition
| make a working definition in the context of the argument you are making |
|
|
Term
| If almost all words are vague, why is vagueness not usually a problem when we are trying to understand a claim? |
|
Definition
| vagueness is usually not a problem because the context of the argumnent helps to understand the way it is being used |
|
|
Term
| How many truth-values are there? What are they? |
|
Definition
| there are only two truth values - true and false |
|
|
Term
| What does “being rational” mean in this course? |
|
Definition
| rational thinking, being able to reasonably believe and write supportive claims, use good judgement |
|
|
Term
| Good arguments need to satisfy 3 conditions. The first two conditions are fairly straightforward, what is the point of the third condition? |
|
Definition
| the third condition is because the point of arguments is to give reasons to believe a conclusion, if the premises are more believably then the argument isn't structured well ot meaningully |
|
|
Term
| Can you fill in the blank successfully? “If two claims are contradictories, then_______________________________________________.” |
|
Definition
| they cannot be true at the same time and cannot be false at the same time |
|
|
Term
| What are the two different standpoints for evaluating argument? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What is the principle of Charity (3 parts)? |
|
Definition
| 1. the person knows what they are talking about 2. they are not lying 3. they can reason well |
|
|
Term
| What is the relationship between a prescriptive claim and a value (or value claim)? |
|
Definition
| prescrptive claims always have an implied value claim |
|
|
Term
| Why is a command not a prescriptive claim? |
|
Definition
| because commands do not have value implied in them and also may not be structured like a claim (possible to be evaluated as true or false) |
|
|
Term
| what are the steps to evaluating an argument ? |
|
Definition
| raw material - standardizing - what type of argument - truth evaluation - finalize with defining as good or bad argument |
|
|
Term
| can you reject a premise because it is vague? |
|
Definition
| yes - but standardize and reject in factual evaluation stage |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between infer and imply? |
|
Definition
| a passage will imply but people infer |
|
|
Term
| what are the compound claims and their parts |
|
Definition
| conjunction (conjuncts), disjunction (disjuncts), conditional (antecedent and consequent), negation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| show the truth conditions for the logical operators (and can test for valitidy) |
|
|
Term
| how many truth values and truth conditions do claims have? |
|
Definition
| two truth values - true or false and truth conditions are evaluating in what scenario a claim would be true or false |
|
|
Term
| list the contradictories of the compund claims (negation) in the following order 1. P, then Q 2. P 3. P and Q 4. P or Q |
|
Definition
| 1. P, notQ 2. not P 3. notP or notQ 4. notP and notQ |
|
|
Term
| what are the four valid forms of argument we talked about (one is fallacious) |
|
Definition
| Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Excluding the Possibilities, Reasoning in a Chain |
|
|
Term
| What are the invalid forms of conditional arguments? |
|
Definition
| affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| what is affirming the consequent? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| what is denying the antecedent? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| what is the difference of excluding the possibilities and false dilemma? |
|
Definition
| false dilemma is a problem when its presented as a valid argument - excluding possibilities is valid but fellacious I think |
|
|
Term
| what are necessary and sufficient conditions? |
|
Definition
| necessary is needed but does not guarantee something, sufficient guarantees the thing in itself |
|
|
Term
| write necessary and sufficient expressed as a conditional |
|
Definition
| if P (sufficient), then Q means that Q is necessary for P and vice versa |
|
|
Term
| why do we have cognitive biases? |
|
Definition
| because of evolution or socialization and we have more information to process than we can think critically about, also the need to protect self-worth |
|
|
Term
| what is the confirmation bias? |
|
Definition
| your brain will seek out or recognize information that confirms your preconcieved belief |
|
|
Term
| what is the availability error/heuristic? |
|
Definition
| pay more attention to local and attention grabbing infor that is usually negative |
|
|
Term
| what is the fundamental attribution error? |
|
Definition
| attributing something to someones personality that can be / could be explained through circumstance |
|
|
Term
| what is the anchoring bias? |
|
Definition
| using the first piece of information found as a evaluation point for further info / research |
|
|
Term
| what is the own race bias? |
|
Definition
| people are able to remember faces of people of their own race better |
|
|
Term
| what is the difference between epistemic and metaphysical questions? |
|
Definition
| epistemic is our beliefs and knowledge systems where as metaphysical is the reality of the world outside of us |
|
|
Term
| which branch (epistemic or metaphysical) is truth? Why? |
|
Definition
| truth is metaphysical because it exists in the world outside of us and our knowledges/beliefs may not match the truth |
|
|
Term
| when is "true for me" right? |
|
Definition
| when used to signal an experience that comes from an identity not shared with other people - the "truth" of reality is different for men and women for example |
|
|
Term
| why is "true for me" wrong? |
|
Definition
| it is pretending to be something its not - a subjective claim presented as objective, my truth = the truth, lacks necessary justification |
|
|
Term
| what is the basic theory of knowledge? |
|
Definition
| knowledge is a true, justified, belief |
|
|
Term
| describe the importance of justification in the basic theory of knowledge |
|
Definition
| it is asking whether we are legitimate in making a claim to knowledge, it is drawing the connection between our psychology and the world |
|
|
Term
| what are the important cognitive biases? |
|
Definition
| confirmation, availability error, fundamental attribution error, anchoring bias, own race bias |
|
|
Term
| what are the important fallacies? |
|
Definition
| begging the question, hasty generalization, subjectivist fallacy, false dilemma, gamblers fallacy, accepting premises because you accept conclusion, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent |
|
|
Term
| what is the false dillema fallacy? |
|
Definition
| an argument that is presented as having exhaustive options to justify the conclusion, when another explanation exists / could exist |
|
|
Term
| what is gamblers fallacy? |
|
Definition
| treat events as connected when they aren't (ie the next coin toss must be heads bc three were tails but all coin tosses have same probability) |
|
|
Term
| what is accepting premises because you accept conclusion? |
|
Definition
| it is a fallacy - just something to watch out for, also called arguing backwards |
|
|
Term
| what is the is-ought fallacy? |
|
Definition
| reaoning from descriptive claims to a prescriptive conclusion - a prescriptive claim needs to be added |
|
|
Term
| why don't we explicitely list the value claim embedded in a prescrptive claim? |
|
Definition
| because the values we share are obvious and often don't need to be said explicitly |
|
|
Term
| what is the structure for reasoning from analogy? |
|
Definition
| S is similar to T in certain known repects - P / S has a further feature - F / Therefore, T also has the feature F or something similar to F / S is source, T is target, F is feature only the analog is known to have, P is property shared by S and T |
|
|
Term
| what is the important question for analogy reasoning analysis? |
|
Definition
| do the relevant similarities outweigh the relevent dissimilarities? |
|
|
Term
| what is the most important consideration for analogy reasoning analysis? |
|
Definition
| does the similarities make us confident the target is like the source in the way we are claiming |
|
|
Term
| is the basic theory of knowledge epistemic or metaphysical? |
|
Definition
| both, belief is epistemic, truth is metaphys and justified is both |
|
|
Term
| what constitutes justification? |
|
Definition
| when we have good reasons, it does not conflict with other beliefs we hold that have good reasons - it provides the best explanation for something |
|
|
Term
| what is the main way to tell the difference between objective and subjective claims |
|
Definition
| where we find the information to evaluate the truth value (subjective will be based on someone psychological / internal state) |
|
|
