Critical Thinking vocab

Etymological fallacy

When an argument makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on the word’s history/root (etymology)

Inference

To judge that some proposition is rationally supported by some other proposition—the conclusion is supported by the premise(s)

Reason

The ability or capacity to make inferences

Reasoning

The process of making inferences

Generic: Mental process involving moving from one or more thoughts to another thought

Belief

A subject taking a proposition to be true

Paradox

A set of propositions, all of which seem true, but which together provide rational support for a conclusion that seems obviously false

Dialetheism

Graham Priest’s view that there are true contradictions

Epistemic injustice

The form of injustice committed when a knower is not recognized as such due to prejudicial views about their group

Hermeneutic injustice

The form of injustice that occurs when someone lacks the concepts required to make sense of the consequences of discrimination against them

Strong inference

When the premises provide rational support for the conclusion

If all the premises were true, the conclusion would more likely be true than false

Weak inference

When the premises do not provide rational support for the conclusion

If all the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely true than false

Rational support

If all the premises were true, then the conclusion would more likely be true than false (idea that premises provide support)

Separation (inference)

The rational strength of an inference is completely separate from the question of whether the premises of that inference are true

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Experimental tool used to measure the strength of unconscious associations between concepts

Inferential strength

The degree to which the premises provide rational support for the conclusion

Naturalistic fallacy

The mistake of inferring a conclusion about what is good/right from premises about what is natural or happened in the past

Misinformation

False content created and spread without the intention to deceive

Disinformation

False content created and spread with the intention to deceive

Wishful thinking bias

The tendency to believe something primarily because we want it to be true

The action of believing something due to desires

Motivated reasoning

The tendency for our reasoning and our assessment of evidence strength to be unconsciously affected by our emotions, desires, or pre-existing beliefs

The process of reasoning is motivated by some desire

Cognitive bias

A systematic, unconscious pattern of thought that negatively affects our ability to reason well

Tendency to deviate from good rational standards

Cognitive heuristic

Mental shortcuts that help us make reasonable decisions quickly but also gives rise to predictable cognitive biases

System 1 mental processes

Automatic, immediate, and constantly running system driven by feelings, associations, and impressions

System 2 mental processes

Require conscious effort and thought and needs to be actively engaged

Applies rational principles or rules and can only handle one task at a time

Availability heuristic

Judging frequency or likelihood of an event based on how easily a matching example comes to mind

Representative heuristic

Categorizing a person, object, or event by comparing it to an existing mental prototype or stereotype

Peak-end rule

Judging an entire past experience based on how intensely you felt at its highest point and how you felt at the end rather than the overall average of the experience

Cognitive ease

Given a choice between immediate conclusion and effortful conclusion we gravitate toward the former because it is less demanding

Illusion of control

The assumption that our choices are mostly the result of our own deliberate and effortful thinking

Rationalization

The process whereby someone retrospectively provides reasons for a belief that they originally formed on non-rational grounds

Belief perseverance

The tendency to retain existing beliefs even when faced with contradictory evidence that should prompt us to revise our beliefs

Attribute substitution

The tendency to unconsciously answer a related, easier question when faced with a more difficult question

Problem due to belief perseverance

Probabilistic reasoning

Reasoning about chances or probabilities

Confirmation bias

The tendency to notice, focus on, or give more weight to potential evidence for our pre-existing beliefs, and to neglect or discount evidence against them

Framing effect

The tendency to let the way information is presented to us shape our decisions and judgments, even when underlying facts are identical

Status quo bias

The tendency to prefer the current state (status quo) over available alternatives, and to perceive any change as a loss rather than neutral

Alternate wording: Tendency to notice, focus on, and give more weight to potential evidence for views that are already widely accepted or reflect how things are

Loss aversion

The tendency to weigh potential losses more heavily than equivalent potential gains

Anchoring effect

The tendency for numerical and quantitative judgments to be ‘anchored’ by previous experiences even when the previous experiences are irrelevant

Ex. having larger numbers at the end of our phone number and being asked if we would pay that number’s worth for an object, and we would pay higher the higher the numbers are

Soldier mindset

Type of thinking used to maintain beliefs to boost our self-esteem and preserve our morale

Guided by the questions “can I believe it?” or “must I believe it?”

Scout mindset

Thinking used to fix problems and sharpen our judgment

Guided by the question “is it true?”

Rational irrationality hypothesis

Idea that the human mind has the evolved ability to make unconscious trade-offs between scout and soldier mindsets

Uses 2 different definitions of the word rational

Epistemic rationality

Having beliefs that are well-justified

Instrumental rationality

Acting effectively to achieve your goals

Present bias

Feature of our intuitive decision-making in which we care too much about short-term consequences and too little about long-term consequences

Argument

A set of propositions, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises presented as providing rational support for the conclusion

Set

Collection of things/statements defined by its members

Proposition

Content that can be expressed by a sentence, believed by a mind, and objectively true/false whether or not anyone has thought it

A statement you can prove true or false

Fact

A true proposition

Premise

Proposition that is intended to inferentially support the conclusion of an argument

Conclusion

Proposition that the premises of an argument are intended to inferentially support

Circular argument

An argument that has just one premise identical to its conclusion

Rationally strong argument

Aka. rationally strong inference; if the premises were true, the conclusion would be more likely true than false

Separation (argument)

The strength of an argument is completely independent from the question of whether the premises of that argument are true

Deductively valid argument

An argument where if all the premises were true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true

Impossible for true premises and false conclusion

Inductively strong argument

An argument where if the premises were true, the conclusion would be more likely true than false, but still has possibility of falseness

Fast answer bias

The tendency to respond to a question with the answer that seems the most obvious, fits a pattern, meets our expectations, or makes us happy

Quickest, ‘easiest’ answer

Evidence primary effect

The tendency to let the order in which information is presented to us shape our decisions and judgments

Argument assessment rule 1

Never add extra premises of your own

Argument assessment rule 2

Remember to identify and add all the implicit premises

Implicit premise

An intended but not stated premise of an argument

Non-monotonic

The feature of an inductively strong argument that they can be strengthened/weakened by the addition of new premises

Defeater

A premise which, when added to the premises of an inductively strong argument, creates a new and weaker argument than the original

A statement that undercuts the original argument

Proof

A deductively valid argument with premises that are known for certain

Principle of explosion

An argument with contradictory premises is always deductively valid