PHIL1005 Logic and Critical Thinking

Classic Conditions for Someone Knowing Something (S knows P)

i) P is true

ii) S believes P

iii) S is justified in believing P

Gettier’s Case 1: Smith has evidence that a) Jones will get the job and Jones has 10 coins in his pocket.

He concludes b) the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket.

[if (a) entails (b) he can justifiably assume it]

Does he “know” b)?

Disproof: Smith unknowably gets the job AND happens to have 10 coins in his pocket which he wasn’t aware of.

Thus, (b) is true: the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket.

BUT Smith made a lucky but correct conclusion off misleading information!

So we cannot say that Smith “knows” (c) to be true.

Gettier’s Case 2: Smith has evidence that Jones owns a Ford (he drives one), and has a friend Brown, whom he doesn’t know the whereabouts of. Smith asserts:

a) either Jones owns a ford OR Brown is in Boston

b) either Jones owns a ford OR Brown is in Barcelona

c) either Jones owns a ford OR Brown is in Brest-Litovisk

randomly selecting those three places

Does Smith “know “ a), b), or c)?

Disproof: Jones happens to be driving a rented Ford, and does not own it. Unrelatedly, Brown happens to be in Barcelona.

thus, b) is rendered correct, but not in the way Smith assumed: the part he held true was false, and the part he expected false was true.

So, we cannot say Smith '“knows” (b) to be true.

tacit premises

author thinks certain premises are implied and does not mention them, but their absence changes/invalidates the conclusion

Structure of an argument

Premise 1

Premise 2

Conclusion

Definition of Logic

study of how to move from truths to truths: if you start with truths you must end with truths

definition of Probability

how to deal with uncertainty in logic mathematically: if you start with probable circumstances, you estimate a probable outcome

definition of Social Epistemology

study of how knowledge depends on social context

network effect

knowledge spreads as people tell others- little is found out firsthand.

Who tells who tells who?

characteristic of analytic philosophy

focuses on terms as they are used in real life

JTB analysis

knowledge = a justified true belief

• no truth = mere belief

• no belief = mere mistake

• no justification = mere opinion

However, Gettier holds this as a bad definition: this is not SUFFICIENT for knowledge to be held

necessary conditions

MUST be true for something to be a certain thing, eg for X to be Y

sufficient conditions

IF this is true, it GUARANTEES that something is a certain thing, eg for X to be Y

deductive logic

studies what follows a statement with certainty

studies connection between statements, not the truth of the statements

inductive logic

studies what follows a statement without certainty, only mere probability

valid arguments

IF the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true

there is no way to render a false conclusion from true premises if the logic connecting the two is correct, without loopholes/oversights

invalid arguments

there is a way to render the conclusion false (through a loophole/oversight) even if we (suspend disbelief and) assume the premises true

premises and conclusion may be TRUE, but the conclusion may rely on unspoken premises

sound arguments

valid argument + true premises

if the conclusion follows premises and the premises are true, the conclusion must be true

what is a proposition?

1. stated assertion that can be true or false

2. denoted by capital letter eg P

3. can have logical structure (eg uses AND, OR)

mutually exclusive propositions

if one is true, the other must be false

compatible propositions

one or both of the propositions may be true

logical entailment

if the first is true, the second must be true

how did WWI shift methods of power?

powerful people used to rely on concealment and mystique for inaccessible power, but then needed to use celebrity and total visibility to garner support

the first use of propaganda → advertising

propaganda’s original meaning

“propagating the faith”

Lord Herbert Kitchener’s Strategy

posters, media vans, his own personal image as “the ideal British man” to gather voluntary recruits for the army

George Creel and Woodrow Wilson’s Strategy

use posters, “I want you” image of Uncle Sam (fictional idealised American man), pull a switch on campaign promise to not join war

“war-will”

surrender of individual wants to the greater group’s desired course of action eg to join war

responses to WWI propaganda success

• cynicism at rapidness

• greater examination of single-view comms as propagandistic

• free speech protection

• application to commercial advertising in 1920s

Scientific Advertising: demand engineering

create desire for products (by presenting a solution to a problem, or by inventing a new problem/insecurity and then proposing to solve it)

reason-why technique

Scientific Advertising: branding

loyalty to a maker, firm or product through the belief that it is special and different from other similar products

selling a reputation

Scientific Advertising: targeted advertisements

spotlight the concerns of a specific demographic (especially ones emerging newly into consumer base) and propose to solve them

impact of a female consumer

need to sell not a solution to a problem, but an overall promise of a better/aspirational life OR deliverance from shame/scandal

utilise paid endorsement to sell aspirational narrative

Euler diagrams

map the relationships between premises to illustrate the different Possibilities (ways the world could be (think other dimensions))

A’B ; B’A ; A and B ; Neither A or B ; A and/or B

Advertising through information

give you propositions about products (whether they are true/false)

→ product does x, give me your money

Advertising through association

set up non-propositional associations with feelings and desires (flow through effect between premises and conclusion)

→ buy products to chase feelings

Advertising through expectation

convey propositions about what other people think about products → relying on shared expectations to convey information to others

→ you think other people care what you do eg engineered insecurities