SSR Lec2 Cr-Th CH2

Ambiguity

A sentence is ambiguous in a given context when there is more than one possible way of interpreting it in that context.

Lexical ambiguity

Word or phrase with multiple different extensions, which could all fit within the current context. (e.g. “oldest friend”) With more context the ambiguity often disappears (e.g. … he Is 94 years old)

Syntactic ambiguity

A sentence that can be interpreted in terms of different clear propositions

Vagueness

A statement with an inexact or unclear meaning

Primary connotation

Something falls within the extension of a term if, and only if, these conditions are met.

Secondary connotation

Characteristics that the things within the extensions usually exhibit, but not necessarily.

A metaphor works based on ….? connotation

Secondary.

Logical benchmark of rationality?

Consistency of belief (making deductively valid inferences)

Probabilistic benchmark of rationality

Consistency of degree of belief (updating beliefs in accordance with the rules of probability.

Rational decision benchmark of rationality.

Consistency of preference and choice (Deciding in a manner that maximises expected utility.

belief bias

Existing convictions/beliefs influence the evaluation of the structure of an argument

Conversational implicature.

Using language in a way that implies things without us actually saying it.

Is this true 3-step?

How unexpected is the hypothesis if given to be true?

How unexpected … to be false?

What did you expect the probability to be for the hypothesis to be true beforehand?

Allais paradox

Instead of maximising expected utility, we are sensitive to logically irrelevant contextual variation.

homonyms

Words that sound the same but have different meanings and often different spellings.

Rhetorical question

Question not really used to ask a question, but to make a point in an indirect way.

Verbal irony

Saying the opposite of what you mean, often for humor or emphasis

implicitly relative sentence

Make a comparison with some group of things, but that comparison is not explicitly mentioned

Quantifiers

are words and phrases that tell us how many/much of something there are/is, or how often something happens.

Often these do not give an exact value, but rough guide.

How do quantifiers cause problems for critical thinkers?

1. People use them without sufficient precision

2. Some quantifier words are themselves vague (e..g. “some”)

3. People omit them

4. 
   

Counterexamples

Exceptions that we use to challenge the truth of a generalising claim

Generalisations

Categorical statements involving extreme quantifiers (e.g. all, no, never)

Soft generalisations

Generalisations that would more accurately convey the speakers meaning if a softer quantifier is added (e.g. generally, on average)

Hard generalisations

Generalisation intended to apply without exception

2 Problems with generalisations (the anti -generalisers idea)

1. People often misinterpret soft- for hard generalisations

2. Even when all ambiguity is resolved, people take offence in generalisations about (their) groups

Rhetorical force

This is the rhetorical aspect of a sentence’s meaning. It is not part of the propositional content that it expresses; rather, it is the emotive or otherwise suggestive window dressing surrounding the proposition

Implicature

meaning that is not stated but which one can reasonably take to be intended given the context in which the sentence is written or uttered.

Can something be implicated without meaning to do so?

Yes

Fallacies

Are arguments. They give reasons why their conclusion should be accepted, but the reasons are not good reasons; fallacies constitute bad reasoning.

Rhetorical ploys

Non-argumentative. these persuasive devices may appear to provide reasons for accepting a claim, but their real persuasive capacity depends on something non-argumentative.

Appeal to novelty

Here someone attempts to persuade us to try or buy something because the item is

new and, by implication, different from and better than existing related items.

Appeal to popularity

Like the appeal to novelty, this ploy appeals to our desire to run with the crowd,

not to appear different from the norm and not to miss out on what others have.

Appeal to compassion, pity or guilt.

This common rhetorical ploy operates by attempting to move us to do something purely by evoking a feeling of compassion towards the recipients of the suggested act or belief, or a feeling of guilt about their plight.

The feeling alone does not provide a good reason for us to perform the act in question. But it makes you think of good reasons why you should, yourself.

Appeal to cuteness

This rhetorical technique supplements its words with images of children, animals or animated characters to deliver a message.

Brands use it for improved brand awareness under consumers.

Appeal to sexiness

This rhetorical technique supplements its words with images of sexy people. This has 2 reasons. People think the product is associated with sexy people (“all sexy people have/do this, and therefore I should”) or, the product is simply seen as more desirable by its association with a desirable person.

Appeal to wealth, status, power, hipness, coolness, etc.

Same idea as appeal to sexiness and cuteness.

Appeal to fear (scare tactics).

This is the tactic of trying to elicit fear in one’s audience in order to influence their behaviour or attitudes.

Appeal to ridicule

This ploy occurs when a speaker/writer attacks their opponent’s position or claim by casting it in a light that will make it seem ridiculous to their audience.

Direct attack and the hard sell tactics.

Often takes the form of a very simple slogan. For instance, ‘Say no to higher tuition fees!’

Notice that we are given no reason to say ‘no’ or to drink tea. The belief of those who employ the direct attack is that the more we hear or read these commands and internalise them, the more likely we are to do as they advocate, despite having been given no reason to do so.

We often talk about ‘giving someone the hard sell’. The hard sell is simply the direct attack repeated persistently

Scare quote tactics

This tactic is a means of influencing opinion against a view that one opposes. The speaker/writer takes key words in terms of which their opponent expresses their views and attempts to discredit those views by making them appear ridiculous or suspicious through the use of scare quotes.

E.g: My opponent does of course have his reasons for what he believes to be right.

VS.

My opponent does of course have his ‘reasons’ for what he believes to be right

Trading on an equivocation

This ploy deliberately exploits the ambiguity, and in some cases the vagueness, of a word or phrase in the given context. Although nothing false is claimed, the speaker or writer manages to influence our actions or beliefs by misleading us.

Trading on implicature

This is the tactic of using a statement’s implicature to mislead the audience. Since the proposition implicated is not actually stated by the speaker, the speaker can hope to avoid responsibility for having misled the audience.

Many questions (leading questions)

an attempt to mislead an audience into accepting a proposition by embedding it in a question.

e.g. Why do cats paint?

Smokescreen (changing the subject)

This is the tactic of avoiding discussion of an issue or acknowledgement of a point through deflecting attention or distracting one’s opponent from the issue at hand by addressing a different (possibly, but not necessarily, related) issue.

Whataboutism / Whataboutery

Type of smokescreen. Distracting attention from the person at hand to a different person

Buzzwords

This is the technique of using fashionable or otherwise currently ‘hot’ words or phrases that are loaded with rhetorical power due to their rich secondary connotation.

Jargon

Jargon is an often impenetrable way of speaking or writing that uses words or phrases that are likely to be unfamiliar to most of the audience, or which uses familiar words in unfamiliar ways

Acronyms

Acronyms are series of initials used as though they are a word to provide an abbreviation for a name or phrase. As with jargon, the rhetorical power of the use of acronyms lies in their ability to create insiders who are able to decode them and understand what they are being used to convey, and to exclude those who aren’t “in the know”.

Spin

It is the art of framing information so that it highlights favourable facts and minimises, distracts from, or entirely recontextualizes negative ones.

Gas-lighting

Gas-­ lighting occurs when we use language rhetorically to cast doubt onto someone’s claims by making the speaker or writer themselves seem and feel less confident about their claim, Usually a claim about something negative that has happened or is happening to them, such as physical abuse.

Through questioning, contradicting, discrediting and undermining their victim, the gas-­ lighter manipulates their victim into doubting their own memories and perceptions, to the extent that they might even doubt their own sanity.