Philosophy Exam 1 Study Guide

________- believing some claim because you saw something, heard something, etc.

Sensory experience

________- believing some claim because you read about it or were told it was true by someone else.

Testimony

________- when one inappropriately concludes that some further chain of events, ideas, or beliefs will follow from some initial event, idea, or belief and thus we should reject the initial event, idea, or belief.

Slippery slope

________- believing some claim because you remember its being true.

Memory

________- a person fallaciously draws a conclusion about characteristics of a whole group based upon premises concerning characteristics of a small sample of the group.

Hasty generalization

________ evils- do not result from intentions or negligence.

Natural

________- believing some claim because the claim is about what is going on in your own mind, e.g., what you are currently thinking or currently feeling.

Introspection

________- the speaker intends the conclusion to follow from the premises with the probability or likelihood such that, if all the premises are true, then the conclusion probably or likely is true, but it is still possible the conclusion is false.

Inductive arguments

________- all value terms refer to our own personal attitudes toward various objects, events, individuals, etc.

Metaphysical

________- insisting that every claim we might be inclined to accept as true is logically supported with sufficient evidence.

Rational argumentation

________- we know to what objects value terms refer via the fact that we have direct access to our own personal attitudes.

Epistemic

________- fallacy of concluding something based upon premises that include only two options, when, in fact there are three or more options.

False dilemma

________- study of value itself.

Axiology

________ always contain historically important elements, but are always contemporary in some important sense.

Philosophical issues

________ allows evil to exist so that you can respond to it, thus developing and perfecting our characters.

God

________ of wisdom, devoted to understanding the fundamental nature of everything.

Love

________- study of the ultimate nature of reality.

Metaphysics

________ pop culture.

Philosophy permeates

Our intuitions are easily contaminated by ________- i.e., by aspects of our culture, upbringing, education, current emotional states, personal biases, desires, etc.

non evidential factors

________- view that no one knows anything or that there is almost nothing that anyone truly knows.

Global skepticism

________- someone concludes that a persons claims or arguments are false or not worth listening to because of premises that concern an attack on the actions, personality, or ideology of the person putting forward the claim or argument.

Ad hominem fallacies

________- believe in something if there is evidence to believe in it.

Evidential reasons

________- all value terms refer to objects in some reality that is inaccessible to us by way of our senses, the realm of the forms.

Metaphysical

________- study of knowledge itself.

Epistemology

________ is an intelligent entity who created the universe.

God

________- we know to what objects value terms refer via the fact that our reason is in continual intellectual contact with the above mentioned reality.

Epistemic

the speaker intends the conclusion to follow the premises with absolute certainty; if all premises are true the conclusion must be true without any doubt

Deductive arguments 

the speaker intends the conclusion to follow from the premises with the probability or likelihood such that, if all the premises are true, then the conclusion probably or likely is true, but it is still possible the conclusion is false

Inductive arguments 

someone uses claims and arguments that have nothing to do with the issue in order to get someone to draw a conclusion they believe to be true

Red herring 

a person fallaciously draws a conclusion about characteristics of a whole group based upon premises concerning characteristics of a small sample of the group

Hasty generalization

when one inappropriately concludes that some further chain of events, ideas, or beliefs will follow from some initial event, idea, or belief and thus we should reject the initial event, idea, or belief

Slippery slope

fallacy of concluding something based upon premises that include only two options, when, in fact there are three or more options

False dilemma

fallacy that sounds like what it is, incorrectly drawing a conclusion from premises based upon a non-credible, non-qualified, or illegitimate authority figure

Argument from inappropriate authority

someone concludes that a persons claims or arguments are false or not worth listening to because of premises that concern an attack on the actions, personality, or ideology of the person putting forward the claim or argument

Ad hominem fallacies

Cartmanland and the Problem of Evil

Assigned Reading 3

misuse of free will; those who make "bad calls" can be held responsible

Moral evils

do not result from intentions or negligence

Natural evils

reason to believe something if it makes you better off

Prudential reasons

believe in something if there is evidence to believe in it

Evidential reasons

insisting on clarity in our ideas, thoughts, and words

Conceptual analysis

insisting that every claim we might be inclined to accept as true is logically supported with sufficient evidence

Rational argumentation

study of the ultimate nature of reality

Metaphysics

study of knowledge itself

Epistemology

study of value itself

Axiology

the premises

Set of sentences some of which

the conclusion

Are supposed to provide sufficient evidence for believing one another

all value terms refer to objects in some reality that is inaccessible to us by way of our senses, the realm of the forms

Metaphysical

we know to what objects value terms refer via the fact that our reason is in continual intellectual contact with the above mentioned reality

Epistemic

all value terms refer to our own personal attitudes toward various objects, events, individuals, etc

Metaphysical

we know to what objects value terms refer via the fact that we have direct access to our own personal attitudes

Epistemic

believing some claim because you saw something, heard something, etc

Sensory experience

believing some claim because you remember its being true

Memory

believing some claim because you read about it or were told it was true by someone else

Testimony

believing some claim because the claim is about what is going on in your own mind, e.g., what you are currently thinking or currently feeling

Introspection

believing some claim because you logically inferred it was true

Reason

that is, it seems to allow the possibility that I could know very specific facts about literary history without doing any research at all

It sounds metaphysically spooky

i.e., by aspects of our culture, upbringing, education, current emotional states, personal biases, desires, etc

Our intuitions are easily contaminated by non-evidential factors

that is, it does not seem to be able to account for knowledge we have of logical or mathematical truths, claims about the future, claims about unobservable entities, or even claims about empirical knowledge itself

It sounds metaphysically incomplete

view that we lack knowledge of a certain specific claim or of a set of claims that are related in some way

Local skepticism

view that no one knows anything or that there is almost nothing that anyone truly knows

Global skepticism