week 3 notes
week 3 notes PHIL 194
Popular in Critical Reasoning
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Trevor Meed on Saturday September 12, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 194 at St. Cloud State University taught by Swank, Casey in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 26 views. For similar materials see Critical Reasoning in PHIL-Philosophy at St. Cloud State University.
Reviews for week 3 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: 09/12/15
Study group week 3 notes Chapter2 notes Talking about argument Logical connectedness o Rational acceptability ofan argument depends on strength between premise and conclusion and evidence from the premise o Are 3 forms High lowweak and failed 0 high Beckyis a hockey player all hockey players like purple since Becky likes purple she isa hockey player 0 lowweak Becky loves tojump Becky must play basketball 0 failed Becky loves purple Becky is an airplane pilot Rational acceptability 0 Logical connectedness and evidence support are needed for rational acceptability 0 Truth vs Evidence are different concepts 0 Truth concerns how things are a belief is true ifthings are represented by it 0 Evidence is information availableto thinkers thinkthe Ssenses could be false Rational Acceptability Logical connectedness Evidence support Concerns the strenght of the Concerns relevant informations relation ofinference avalibleto thinkers Linguistic Merit o It is language that follows correct grammar vocab style and does not breakthe rules of language 0 Inferences must have some level of linguistic merit belowthat level linguistic merit makes no difference to rational acceptability Rhetorical Power 0 Persuasive Communication is a feature brought about by linguistic or nonlinguisticfactors o Rhetorical powerdoes not bear on rational acceptability ofan inference 0 Therefore itfalls outsidethe province of logical thinking Rhetoricvs Logical Thinking o Rhetoricand rational acceptability are independent ofone another 0 Rhetoric is concerned with the techniques of persuasion which have no relation to rational acceptability 0 Logical thinkingfocuses only on rational acceptability which is the criterion of adequate reasoning Some terms ofArt 0 Proposition athoughtthat is eithertrue represented bythigs as they areorfase misrepresented stuff Boston isthe US capital isfalse proposition 0 Propositions can be contrasted with concepts which have no truth conditions Boston has no truth value because it is a concept Argument the linguistic expression ofan inference Statementthe linguisticexpression ofa belief Statements and beliefs are true orfalse Truth conditions the conditions underwhich a statement or belief is true orfalse Proposition a thought with a truth value istrue or false Information content of statement and belief represent state of affair Speech acts 0 Informative used to convey information 0 Only information expressions have truth values 0 Directives language used for eliciting an audience a response 0 Expressive language used for communicating the speaker s mental state feelings perceptions etc o Comissives language used for bringing about a state of affairs Represents fact Informative Audience does someting directives What speaker use language for convey own attitude expressive or attitude commisive Se nte nce types 0 Declare 0 describe state of affairs 0 verb is in indicative form 0 primary means of conveyinformation o Inte rrogative 0 To obtaina response fromthe audience 0 Has questions 0 Primary means ofasking questions 0 Imperative o Attempt to make facts match the words 0 The verb is in imperative mood 0 Primary means of making requests and convey wishes o Exclamatory o Convey the speaker s emotion orstrong opinion 0 Has an exclamation 0 Primary means of convey expressions toward audience or event commit one self to action In questions the speaker intent is elicit an answer in requests the speaker action intention is elicit an action Sentence types declarative inte rrogative imperative l informative directives expressive and commisive directive questions directive request expressive wishes Indirect use and figurative language 0 Indirect use a speech act is performed by way ofanotherspeech act 0 Figurative language inguisticexpression 0 You are a donkey Is an example offigurative language Definition 0 Are two sides 0 Definiendumthatwhichis defined 0 Definiensthat which providesthe definition Reconstruct definitions 0 Definiendum is listed first on the left 0 Definiensislisted second on the right 0 Place quotdf between the two exclamatory expressive occasionally empathatic directives and informative Reportive definition 0 Intended to give meaningofword orphrase o Definies and Definiendum should be synonymous when done correctly 0 Are tested by counterexample satisfies one side and not the other 0 Iftoo broad or too narrow will not be same so it will be proved false Ostensive vs Contextual definitions 0 Ostensive definitions can t give definitions but points or shows one o Contextual definitions Definiens offer replacement ofthe Definiendum helps explain quotifthen or quoteitheror because we cannot define if then instead we give two examples with ifthen then eitheror because they are used the same way so giving two examples ofthe same thing but with different words will help people to see what the original phrase orwords mean
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'