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
|
|
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 |
|
|
