Logic (3) PHI 151
Popular in Introduction to Philosophy
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Ashley Childers on Wednesday February 24, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHI 151 at University of Southern Mississippi taught by Paula Smithka in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 25 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Southern Mississippi.
Reviews for Logic (3)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/24/16
Inductive Reasoning – degrees of probability o Good argument (Strong) Technically all are invalid because of the loose connection o Cogent Strong with true premises o Enumerative Induction Generalizations Based on a sample of a group you can generalize about the whole group Criteria: o Sample size. Proportionate to what you’re generalizing Stereotypes: generalizations with small samples o Unbiased/representative Predictions That the future will be like the past PUN o Principle of the uniformity of nature o Arguments by analogy (analogical reasoning) Criteria: The more similarities the better Take into account important differences o Abduction Inferences to the best explanation Data/observations Explanation/account for (Hypothesis) Criteria: Conservatism o Has to fit with already known data Simplicity (Parsimony) o Does the job without unnecessary complications o Metaphysically Challenged (not real) When arguments go wrong o Informal fallacies Detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument As compared to formal which deal with form o Appeal to force: arguer threatens the reader/listener Such as bullying or blackmail o Appeal to Pity (Admisericoridam): arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener Sad animal/children/veterans commercials o Appeal to the people: arguer incites a mob mentality (direct form) or appeals to our desire for security, love or respect (indirect form) Direct: revolution! Or political conventions Martin Luther King Jr. Hitler Indirect: Bandwagon (everyone else to I must too) Appeal to popularity o “Everyone believes in a god, therefore there must be one…” says that this is truth just because most believe it Appeal to vanity: o Love admiration and esteemed The few, the proud, the Marines Weight loss, wrinkle cream, etc. Appeal to Snobbery: o Not apart of the Posh but apart of the elite College commercials Ford with commercial (without decals) The Most Interesting Man in the World o Argument against the person: arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing the opponent (ad hominem abuse), presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or she (ad hominem circumstantial), or by presenting the opponent as a hypocrite (tu quoque) For this to occur there must be two arguers Used often in politics (abusive) Don’t listen to (person) because he’s a (insult, type of thing, etc.) Circumstantial Appeal to the circumstances o The opponent arguer has these opinions because they benefit from them o Tu quoque- (you/also) two wrongs make a right fallacy I should be innocent because you are also guilty o Straw man: Arguer distorts an opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted argument Creationist on evolution o Appeal to Unqualified Authority: arguer cites an untrustworthy author Person appealed to who is outside the realm of expertise o Appeal to Ignorance: Premise report that nothing is know or proved about some subject, and then a conclusion is drawn No conclusive evidence yet a conclusion is drawn Example: It can not be proven that there is no afterlife, therefore there is an afterlife. Innocent until proven guilty o Hasty Generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample Generalization drawn when sample size is too small AKA Stereotypes o False Cause: conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection If I don’t wear my lucky shoelaces the team will lose the game Superstitious Gamblers Fallacy: either I cant lose or my luck will turn around o Slippery Slope: Conclusion depends on an unlikely chain of causes <snowball effect> Plausible premise but implausible conclusion Dying your hair a crazy color will lead to tattoos and piercings, tattoos and piercings will lead to drugs, drugs lead to rebellion, rebellion will lead to jail o Begging the Question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out a key premise, restating the conclusion as a premise, or reasoning in a circle Example: The bible proves that god exist because the bible says so, the bible is truth because it is the word of god In media Begging the question means that we need to do more research and investigation o Complex Questions: Multiple questions are concealed as a single question Joel, have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet? Discredits people who are not paying attention Two questions in one, do you beat you girlfriend and have you stopped o False Dichotomy: An “either … or…” premise hides additional information False dilemma If I cant go to the Motionless in White concert I will be miserable for the rest of my life, you don’t want me to be miserable for the rest of my life so can I go to the Motionless in White concert o Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase Uses a key term in two distinct ways Love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, Stevie Wonder is love Any law can be repealed by legislative authority, gravity is a law, therefore gravity can be repealed by legislative authority o Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous statement made by someone other that the arguer You do not want to fix these! Professor J said that he will give a lecture on heart failure in the biology lecture hall, There must have been many heart failures in the Biology lecture hall. o Composition: An attribute is wrongly transferred from the parts to the whole Each piece of wood that makes up the house is lightweight. Therefore the whole house is lightweight. Combined experiences, A law firm has a combined experience of 100 years, (does not state how many employees) o Division: an attribute is wrongly transferred from the whole to the parts The house is heavy, therefore every piece of the house is heavy.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'