Philosophy Midterm

Argument

A group of statements, one or more of which, the premises, are claimed to provide suppoert for or reason to believe one of the others, the conclusion.

Premise

A statement in an argument that sets forth the evidence that is claimed to support the conclusin.

Statement

A complete thought capable of being true or false.

Good argument

An argument for which the premises actually do provide adequate support for, or good reasons to believe the conclusion.

Deductive Argument

An argument in which the arguer claims that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true.

Inductive Argument

An argument in which the arguer claims that it is merely improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true.

Valid Argument

An argument where it is impossible for it to have all true premises with a false conclusion.

Sound Argument

An argument that is valid and all of its premises are true.

Valid Forms

Modus ponens, modus tollens, disjuncitve syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, dilemma

Invalid Forms

Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent.

Modus Ponens

If P then Q. P. Thus Q.

Modus Tollens

If P then Q. Not Q. Thus not P.

Disjunctive Syllogism

Either P or Q. Not P, thus Q.

Hypothetical Syllogism.

If P then Q. If Q then R. Thus, if P then R.

Dilemma

Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. Thus either R or S.

Denying the Antecedent

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q.

Affirming the consequent

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore P

Appeal to force

If you don't accept that P, then you will be in bad trouble. Therefore P.

Appeal to Pity

If you don't accept that P, then some other people will be in bad trouble. Therefore P.

Appeal to the people.

If you accept that P, then you will be a member of the in crowd. Therefore P.

Ad Hominem

Person S claims that P. Person S is defective in some way. Therefore P is false.

Attacking a straw man.

Distorting a persons claim and proving it false, then saying you proved their original claim false.

All arguments have at least two premises.

False

Some arguments can have two conclusions.

False

The conclusion of an argument can sometimes be presented before the premises.

True

If an argument is deductive its conclusion is true.

False

Sampling arguments

A sampling argument is a type of reasoning that draws conclusions about an entire population based on evidence from a smaller, representative subset (sample) of that population

Analogical Arguments

Analogical arguments are inductive arguments that infer a further similarity between two things based on similarities already observed, typically following the pattern: if A and B share properties a, b, c, and A has property x, then B probably has x as well.

The importance of definition

Before you can begin any type of argument about anything, in Meno's case: can virtue be taught, you need to be able to define what virtue is.

Meno's Paradox

How can look for something you don't know at all what it is. How will you aim to search for something you don't know at all. How will you know you've discovered the thing you were looking for if you don't know what you're looking for is.

The slave boy demonstration

To prove that learning is recollection, Socrates attempts to show that a slave boy is able to figure out how to double a square.

The theory of recollection

That all learning is recollection from a past life, so when you learn a new thing that's just remembering it from a past life.

The method of hypothesis

proposing a possible answer to a problem (taking a guess and investigating it), using hypothetical reasoning.

The difference between knowledge and true opinion

Knowledge and true opinion do not differ with respect to success in action, but in the way that knowledge is tied down by being able to justify your answer, whereas true opinion you cannot.

Key differences between lying and bullshitting.

A bullshitter doesn't care about the truth at all, they just spew stuff for whatever their goal is, whereas a liar cares about the truth and lies in accordance with it. Also bullshitting is connected to being fake/phony and bluffing.

The link between bullshitting and fakery/phoniness

Bullshitting and fakery are similar in their disregard for the truth, but bullshitting is broader, it's bluffing that can be fake without necessarily being factually false.

The connection between free speech and the virtues of letting your beliefs be challenged

If our beliefs are never challenged they are mere prejudice, lacking supporting arguments. Allowing them to be challenged allow for them to be refined, tested, and potentially improved through open challenge.

Mill's assumption that it is through reason that we respond to challenges to our beliefs.

It rests on the idea that human judgment is fallible and that the only way to be confident in one's beliefs is to remain open to criticism and evidence

The central feature of evidentialism

People have the moral duty to form beliefs in accord with the available evidence.

Belief Creating the fact (Go back into slides and look at this slide)

Cases in which believing it helps make it true

• Performative utterances: Saying it makes it so

• James' examples: Believing it makes it so

Are beliefs voluntary or involuntary?

Beliefs are largely involuntary

The relationship between rationality of belief and morality of belief

Rationality of belief concerns whether our beliefs are formed and maintained in accordance with evidence, logic, and reason, while morality of belief concerns whether holding those beliefs is ethically permissible or responsible, often in light of their social, political, or interpersonal consequences

Formal Testimony:

Ex: Witness testimony in a courtroom

Ordinarily would be irresponsible to trust what they say without verifying reliability of testifier.

Informal Testimony

Ex: A classmate's testimony where they went to high school

Ordinarily would be fine to trust what they say. Reliability of testifier is taken for granted.

Reductive Theory of Testimony

Beliefs from testimony are essentially inferential beliefs

Testimony is thus reducible to a kind of inference

The hearer needs supporting evidence of the testifier's

reliability/trustworthiness

Non-reductive Theory of Testimony

Beliefs from testimony come directly from hearing/reading the

testimony

Testimonial beliefs do not involve any inference at all, not even

"unconscious inference"

The hearer doesn't necessarily need any evidence that the testifier is

reliable/trustworthy

The relationships between testimony & trust & expertise

Testimony, trust, and expertise are interdependent: testimony is the communicative act, trust is the epistemic and social condition that makes acceptance rational, and expertise can shape but does not automatically guarantee that trust.

Scientific beliefs: the 'lone genius' vs. scientific communities

Lone genius is a myth, most scientific beliefs and discoveries were done by multiple groups of people sharing data, evidence, etc, to get to a certain conclusion.

Examples of how communities influence a person's beliefs

People's beliefs are greatly influenced—both

directly and indirectly—by the views that are

predominant in their surrounding community

- Religious beliefs

- Political beliefs

- Sports beliefs

These come from SOCIAL PRESSURE< EXPERIENCES, REPEATED EXPOSURE TO OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS' BELIEFS

The relationship between community informed beliefs and consensus-building

Community‑informed beliefs and consensus‑building are deeply interconnected: shared, locally grounded values provide the foundation for trust, dialogue, and agreement, while consensus‑building processes help translate those beliefs into collective action and sustainable decisions.

The importance of diversity within a belief community

Everyone would believe the same thing, leads to group think, could leave all community members believing the wrong thing, the person with different beliefs is often persecuted in the community.

Pascal's notion of 'intuitions of the heart'

But then Pascal goes on to suggest another potential source of

belief: intuitions of the heart

• This is an additional source of not just belief but also of knowledge

• It is in addition to experience and reason

• He claims that it is via these intuitions of the heart that we come

to know "first principles"

• First principles are the foundational starting points—the axioms—upon

which our reasoning relies

Relationship between reason and belief in God's existence

In order to reason to the conclusion that 'God

exists' or that 'God does not exist' we need to

possess evidence to support our reasoning

• If there is a lack of evidence—if there is no light—

then we can't draw a conclusion one way or the

other

• Pascal thinks that this is the case with respect to

God's existence; there just isn't enough evidence

to prove or disprove His existence

Relationship between 'rational belief' and 'betting strategies'

Rational belief uses evidence to come to a conclusion, but betting strategies determines what the worst and best outcomes are of believing or not believing in a thing, and then chooses to believe the thing with the mildest consequence for being wrong and the best consequence for being right.

Argument that the question "What is virtue?" must be answered before addressing the question

"Can virtue be taught?"

To answer whether virtue can be taught, one must first know what virtue is. As Socrates points out in Meno, if we do not know the nature of virtue, we cannot identify the qualities it possesses, and thus cannot determine whether those qualities are transmissible through teaching

The slave boy argument (pp. 72-78)

• How the argument proceeds

• What the argument is ultimately supposed to show

Socrates illustrates this by engaging Meno's untrained slave boy in a geometric problem, demonstrating that the boy is capable of arriving at the correct answer through guided questioning, implying that knowledge is innate.

Argument that the best teachers of a craft are those who are expert practitioners of it

Expert practitioners bring deep, embodied knowledge and authentic authority that novice or purely theoretical teachers cannot replicate, making them uniquely qualified to transmit a craft effectively.

Argument that knowledge is distinct from true opinion

Knowledge is distinct from true opinion because it requires not only truth and belief but also rational justification or understanding, which true opinion alone cannot provide

Mill's two main premises in support of free speech & his support for those premises

Mill's two central premises in On Liberty are:

The harm principle - The only legitimate reason for society or the state to interfere with an individual's liberty of action is to prevent harm to others; a person's own good, physical or moral, is not enough to justify interference firstamendment.mtsu.edu+2.

The value of free discussion - Even false or unpopular opinions are valuable because they may contain partial truths, challenge prevailing ideas, and help society discover and refine the truth; silencing them risks stagnation and error

Clifford's reasons for thinking evidentialism is true

William K. Clifford argued that it is always wrong, everywhere, and for anyone to believe something without sufficient evidence

James' argument against evidentialism

there are situations where belief must precede evidence, and in those cases, belief can be justified even without sufficient proof

Pascal's argument that we should bet on God

Blaise Pascal's "wager" is a pragmatic argument for believing in the Christian God, framed as a decision-theoretic choice between two options: believe in God or do not believe Britannica+1.

Core reasoning Pascal argued that we cannot prove or disprove God's existence, so we should choose the option with the best possible outcome and the least possible loss Wikipedia. He set up four possibilities: