Week 2 notes
Popular in Intro to Philosophy
Popular in Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Nozima Notetaker on Friday September 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 1050 at Saint Louis University taught by Dr. Archer Joel in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 10 views. For similar materials see Intro to Philosophy in Philosophy at Saint Louis University.
Reviews for Week 2 notes
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: 09/02/16
08/29/2016 Rules of logic: modes ponens modes tollens hypothetical syllogism disjunctive syllogism constructive dilemma Reductio ad absurdum Validity and soundness An argument is valid if the structure of the argument follows one of the six rules of logic. Or combination of rules (validity is all about structure). o Ex. If SLU is a school, then SLU has students. SLU does not have students. Therefore, SLU is not a school. (follows rules of modes tollens). Problem is that one of the premises is false. This argument is valid, but no soundness An argument is sound, if the argument is both valid and all the premises are true. o Validity is only structure, soundness is both valid and true. o Ex. If dogs are pets, then dogs are animals. Dogs are pets. Therefore, dogs are animals. Premises of the argument are true. In order to show that argument is false; either show that one of the premises is false, or show that the argument is invalid. o Ex. If Sam is a cat, then Sam has four legs. Sam has four legs. Therefore, Sam is a cat. Not a valid argument. This has a form. If p then q. q. therefore p. o Ex. If I own a car, then I own four-wheeled vehicle. I own a four-wheeled vehicle. Therefore, I own a car. Not a valid argument. Looks like modes ponens, but it is a fallacy. Affirming a consequent fallacy Fallacies Fallacy is mistake in reasoning. 10 basic fallacies: 1) Ad hominem (“to the man”) a. Attacking a person rather than an argument he or she makes. i. Be able to distinguish bn people and argument b. Ex. It is not surprise that Carl Sagan argues for life on Mars- after all, he was well known atheist. So I do not believe his argument c. Are not the same thing as insults. i. Have to attack in context of an argument. ii. Ex. Flip someone off bc they cut you on the road not context of an argument, therefore, not ad hominem. 2) Ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) a. Appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment (жалость). b. Ex. “the reason I deserve a promotion is that I had a rough childhood. My parents never paid attention to me, and I ended up not doing well in school”. c. Appeal to special treatment. 3) Ad populum (appeal to crowd) a. Appealing to the emotions of a crowd; also appealing to a person to go along with the crowd (“Everyone is doing it”) b. Either appeal to emotions of the crowd or appeal to the crowd as an authority, when the crowd is not a good authority. c. Peer pressure. d. Ex “Listen, people will understand if I cheat on the test this time. After all, people cheated on a test at some point in their lives”. 08/31/2016 4) Affirming consequent. a. If p, then q. q. therefore, p. b. Ex. If he goes to the gym then he is an a good shape. He is in a good shape. Therefore, he goes to the gym. c. Missing out on alternative possibilities. 5) Denying the antecedent: a. If p, then q. not p. therefore, not q. b. Ex. If Sam works hard, therefore, Sam will be rich. Sam is not working hard. Therefore, Sam is not rich. 6) Begging the question: a. Argue in a circular way b. To beg the question is to assume that which needs to be proved. c. Ex. Tom cannot be a liar because he told me that he was not one. i. Tautology: “If it is raining, then it is raining” (repetition) d. Ex. God exists because it says so in the Bible and I know that Bible is true because God wrote it. i. Assuming that needs to be proved (assuming the conclusion). 7) Equivocations: a. Sliding from one meaning of a tern to another meaning of the term in the middle of the argument b. Ex. Women are not equal. This is because they are physically different from men. So, the law should stop pretending that women and men are equal. 8) Straw men: a. Constructing a caricature of the opposing view, one that misrepresents the view so that it becomes easy to refute. b. Ex: Christianity must be false. Christians believe, after all, that the earth is flat and that has been shown false for centuries. i. Attacking a caricature of Christianity. ii. Misrepresenting the Christians. 9) Red herring: a. Introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject to divert attention form the main subject. b. Ex: “Mom, can I go to a party tonight”. “How can I be sure that you won’t drink alcohol?”. “Mom, how you can believe that when I have been doing homework all day?” 10) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (or post hoc for short): a. assuming causation too readily on the basis of mere succession in time. b. Ex. Every time the rooster cows, then sun comes up. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to come up. 11) Slippery Slope fallacy (will not be on the quiz) a. occurs when arguing for certain position b. if you adopt A, then all of sudden will happen c. you should not change the rules of soccer because everyone will else will start to change everything (all the rules) d. one small change will bring big change& big consequences.
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'