Term
|
Definition
| to be so confused or opaque as to be difficult to understand. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
words, phrases that appear to make little/no change in the content of a statement when they actually suck out all or most of its content
ex: is----->may/ may be
will--->can |
|
|
Term
| extemporaneous justification |
|
Definition
| attacking a criticism on the spot, as soon as it is said, without thinking about it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| unquestionable claims within religion |
|
|
Term
| how to deal with herd instinct/group think |
|
Definition
-ask why
-find out what critics have to say |
|
|
Term
| herd instinct/ group-think |
|
Definition
| a group believes the same "norms" (values, beliefs, practices) |
|
|
Term
| what do we do about provincialism? |
|
Definition
gain a more comprehensive perspective: ask
-who else will be affected?
-how will they be affected?
-what do they think about it?
-would I be willing to be in their position? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a limited perspective shaped by the ideas, interests, and kinds of behavior favored by the groups with which we identify |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-informative
-directive
-expressive |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| possible relationships between cognitive and emotive meaning |
|
Definition
-emotive supports cognitive
-emotive substitutes all info.
-cognitive and emotive contradict each other (cognitive says it's positive, while emotive says it's negative, and vice versa). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
something is expressed positively, when in reality, it is negative.
postive language----->bad reality |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Something is expressed negatively, when in reality, it is positive
negative language----->positive reality |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
something is expressed with neutral emotions, when in reality, it is negative
neutral language----->negative reality |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ex: war----->"police action" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
making something positive sound negative
ex: He told the truth----->(+)
He finally told the truth----->(-) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| an attack on the opponent, rather than the opponent's argument |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
arguing that a slope is slippery without providing good reason
slippery slope argument: states that one small first step will lead to a chain of events resulting in some significant event |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| drawing a conclusion from relevant, but insignificant evidence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| making the conclusion that you are trying to prove into a premise |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| believing something is true because there is no good evidenct to believe it is false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
justifying a wrong by pointing to a similar wrong done by others
ex: "You cheated on that test!"
"Well, you cheated on the math
test last week!" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when evidence contrary to one's position is overlooked |
|
|
Term
| to refute Fallacy of False Dilemma |
|
Definition
| supply the missing options |
|
|
Term
| positive lesson of Fallacy of False Dilemma |
|
Definition
| search thoroughly for all possibilities |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a dilemma is created, when there really is no dilemma
ex: "America, love it or leave it!"
I don't have to love it or leave
it; I can stay and hate it. |
|
|
Term
| to refute Fallcy of Omitted Info. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| positive lesson of Fallacy of Omitted Info. |
|
Definition
| rational inquiry is sustained until you can make an informed judgment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| info is read out of context/ not relevant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| positive lesson of Straw Man |
|
Definition
| critical thinkers find the best arguments and are as persuasive as possible |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-gross misrepresentation
-attacking the weakest argument |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| positive lesson of inconsistency |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-place to place
-words and actions |
|
|
Term
| calling an argument true involves this |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the set of objects to which a property can be meaningfully or sensibly applied |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a three-part system consisting of a set of propostions, another proposition, and a chain of reasoning which demonstrates that the conclusion is logically implied by the premises |
|
|
Term
| if these 5 factors changed, you would be different |
|
Definition
| time period, culture, family, religion, socioeconomic class |
|
|
Term
| self-conscious reconstruction of the self |
|
Definition
| you evaluate morals, values, etc, to observe what to preserve, trash, and add |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| rational, human, political/legal |
|
|
Term
| what we label an opinion that results from an informed judgment |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the foundational and enduring elements of your system of beliefs |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| failure to achieve this often initiates a process that can lead to violence |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| instance-generalizing deductions |
|
Definition
| deductions with the words "all" or "no" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| deductions with the word "some" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| premises the audience already knows (premises that don't have to be proven) |
|
|
Term
| the audience relativity of proof |
|
Definition
| in an argument, when you start with what the audience already knows, and build from there. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a proposition that functions as a premise and a conclusion |
|
|
Term
| an argument is a two-part system consisting of what? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| two characteritics of a cogent deductive argument |
|
Definition
| all true premises, valid argument |
|
|
Term
| building blocks of arguments |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of a valid deductive argument |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| an argument that has an intermediate conclusion for its conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| requires something to exist for it to be true |
|
|
Term
| wereas deductive validity is an all-or-nothing matter, inductive strength is this |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| no inductive argument is this |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| indvctive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, leads to this |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| this is the essential idea involved in inductive reasoning |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| this is not susceptible to additional info |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| this is susceptible to additional info. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| this is not context relative |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the relationship between the premises and conclusion in an inductive argument |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| this form of reasoning, when it is good, leads to certain conclusions, given the truth of the premises |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P-Q-P+Q
-------
T-T-T
T-F-F
F-T-F
F-F-F |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If P and Q are true, then P+Q is true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-If P+Q is true, then P is true
-If P+Q is true, then Q is true |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| you can have P or Q, but not both |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P-Q-PvQ
-------
T-F-T
F-T-T
T-T-T
F-F-F |
|
|
Term
| non-exclusive sense of "or" |
|
Definition
| you can have P or Q or both |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PvQ PvQ
-P -Q
----- -----
Q P |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P-Q-P----->Q
T-T-T
T-F-F
F-T-T
F-F-F |
|
|
Term
| fallacy of denying the antecedent |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| fallacy of affiring the consequent |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the law of non-contradiction |
|
Definition
| No properties can be both true and false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the law of an excluded middle |
|
Definition
| every proposition must be either true or false |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| what is true is true; what is false is false |
|
|
Term
| when no object in a given class can have more than one given property |
|
Definition
| mutually exclusive properties |
|
|
Term
| when every object in a class has at least one of a set of properties |
|
Definition
| jointly exhaustive properties |
|
|
Term
| biconditional proposition truth table |
|
Definition
P-Q-P<----->Q
T-T-T
F-F-T
T-F-F
F-T-F |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ends: what do we want?
means: how do we get there? |
|
|
Term
| why is appeal to tradition wrong? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| to refute appeal to popularity |
|
Definition
analogy
ex: "I believe_____because lots of
people believe it"
"Well, lots of people believed the
world was flat, but they were
wrong." |
|
|
Term
| positive lesson to appeal to popularity |
|
Definition
| popularity is not evidence |
|
|
Term
| positive lessons of appeal to authority |
|
Definition
1. Think things through for myself whenever possible
2. Make sure subject matter is appropriate
3. Make sure expert is appropriate |
|
|
Term
| how to choose an expert to appeal to authority |
|
Definition
1. genuine expertise in relevant area
2. disinterested----->no personal gain
3. trustworthy
4. history of excellence in judgment on the subject |
|
|
Term
| to refute appeal to authority |
|
Definition
1. you can't rely on an expert
2. that expert is no good |
|
|
Term
| when to appeal to authority |
|
Definition
1. I don't have the time/ability to judge for myself
2. There is shared view among experts
3. Appropriate subject matter-it isn't something I should judge for myself, like moral issues or political questions
4. Appropriate subject matter-it isn't bogus; there is actually knowledge about it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| being convinced by an argument that isn't cogent |
|
|
Term
| things to assess for in conductive cogency |
|
Definition
1. relevance
2. truth
3. completeness
4. coherence
5. weight of premises
6. defensibility
7. implications and presuppositions
8. relative cogency |
|
|
Term
| 4 ways to respond to a counter premise |
|
Definition
1. irrelevant
2. false
3. actually a proconsideration
4. insufficient/insignificant |
|
|
Term
| countervailing considerations |
|
Definition
| we get all info. before us, and it doesn't all point the same way |
|
|
Term
| possibilities of a conductive argument |
|
Definition
| defensible or indefensible |
|
|
Term
| releationship between premises in a conductive argument |
|
Definition
| preponderance of the evidence |
|
|
Term
| questions to ask for inductive cogency |
|
Definition
1. was the sample large enough
2. was the sample representative?
3. is the argument strong?
4. has anything relevant happened or changed that could affect data? |
|
|
Term
| ways an inductive generalization could go wrong |
|
Definition
1. sample is insufficient
2. sample is unrepresentative
3. could be biased
4. something could have changed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 73% of Americans oppose the government bailout of banks |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The upcoming concert by Paramore will be good, since the last 5 times I saw them in concert, they were good. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
___________,therefore___________
ex: He is a politician, therefore, he is very probably a liar. |
|
|
