Principles of Reasoning Final (copy)

Question to ask of Appeal to popularity?

1. Are there any other plausible explanation's for the subject's popularity?
2. Would the truth of the proposed explanation be less surprising than the truth of any competitor?

Questions to Ask of Negative Ad Hominems

Does this..
1. Give us a reason to think that the source is not being honest or sincere in this case?
2. Give us reason to think the source is not in a good position to know in this case?

Questions to ask of inductive generalizations

1. Is the sample large enough?
2. Is the sample diverse enough?

Questions to ask of inference to the best explanation

1. How likely is the proposed explanation?
2. Are there any other plausible explanations?
3. Would the truth of the proposed explanation be less surprising than the truth of the competitor?

Questions to ask of Testimony

1. Is the source credible? (history of lying, something to gain, capability)
2. Is the claim plausible given what you know about the world?

Questions to ask of any arguments from analogy

1. Are the similarities relevant?
2. Are there relevant differences?

Questions to ask of inductive applications

1. Is the individual in question a member of the subject class or not a member of the predicate class?
2. Is the individual in question a member of other relevant classes?

Modus Ponens (MP)

1. A
2. If A then B
3. So, B

Modus Tollens (MT)

1. If A then B
2. Not B
3. Not A

Hypothetical Syllogisms (HS)

1. If A, then B
2. If B then C
3. So, if A then C

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

1. Either A or B
2. Not A
3. So B

Denying the Antecedent (DA) (Illusory form)

1. If A, then B
2. No A
3. No B

Affirming the Consequent (AC) (Illusory Form)

1. If A then B
2. B
3. So, A

Standard Form

For conditionals identified "if" part as the antecedent and the "then" part as the consequent

Reasoning

The mental process that ends with a conclusion (reason by means of argument)

Argument

A collection of propositions in which one purposely justifies the other

Factually Correct

When all of an argument's premises are true

Logically Strong

When the premise, if true provides strong support for the truth of the conclusion

Conditional

Expresses a relationship between two things

Cooperative Dialogue

A form of communication between two or more people that has at its heart a shared effort to learn, understand, figure out or decide something

Deductive

When an argument is maximally logically strong as the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion

Inductive

It is less than maximally strong as the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

Strict Conditionals

Conditionals that allow for no exceptions

Strong Conditionals

Conditionals that describe a regular pattern but which allow for exceptions

Antecedent

Part immediately following the "if" (conditionals)

Consequent

Part immediately following the "then" (conditionals)

Bias

Preference that inhibits impartial evaluation

Defeasability

An argument is this when the logical strength is subject to new information

Arguments from Analogy

Argument in which one or more similarities are used to infer the presence of a further similarity

Inference to the Best Explanation

Argues that some specific explanation is probable given that it is the most likely explanation among those available (defeasible)

Inductive Generalization

Concludes that the population has some sort of characteristic because the sample has that characteristic

Causal Inference

A family of arguments all of which ultimately conclude that one thing caused another (most of them are inference to the best explanation)

"Straw Man" Arguments

Argument that draws a negative conclusion about a claim, viewpoint or organization on the basis of misrepresentation of it

Ad Hominem

Argument that draws a conclusion about the credibility assumption on the basis of some feature of a source

Appeal to Popularity

Argument that draws a conclusion about the truth or merit of some claim, behavior or product on the basis of popularity (often logically weak) (strong instances look for people's thoughtful determination of the subject's merit) (also wont tell us if a claim has merit or not)

Inductive Application

An argument which draws a conclusion about an individual or small group on the basis of a statistical generalization (all include statistical generalization as a premise)

Basis of Testimony

When a person believes something primarily because someone else claims its true (vigilant trust)
*any case in which a person believes something is true because someone said it

Deiner

Denies what the speaker says. A denier uses a feature of a person to conclude that what they've said is false or incorrect. Ad hominem only challenges a source’s credibility not explicitly false

A question to ask about cases of agreement or disagreement?

Is the person credible about this specific claim? (if not it doesn't tell you anything)

Appeal to Popularity Form

1. X is popular among the members of some group
2. So, X is probably good in some respect

Statistical Claim

A statement expressing a numerical factor (includes most or few)

Key Question for Thinking about Statistics

What, exactly, was counted? (understanding relevant terms in a statistic)

Comparative Statistic

Gives us a numerical measure of how much something has changed, or how two different groups are related

Averages in a Statistic

An average is a simple way of summarizing numerical information, and does not capture the way the information varies

Importance of Scale in Graphs

By changing scales you can make a difference in a graph look much more (smaller intervals) or much less (bigger intervals) significant

What is the "right" scale for a graph?

It honestly really depends on what's being represented. What would count as a significant change to the kind of object being studied?

Complete Cause of an Effect

A group or set of conditions that which together causes an effect

Partial Cause of an Effect

Any individual circumstance or event that is part of a complete cause

Reliable Cause of an Effect

An event, the occurence of which makes it very likely that the effect will occur ex. light switch

Probabilistic Cause of an Effect

Partial cause that raises the likelihood that the effect will occur, but does not reliably bring about the effect

Positive Correlation

X is positively correlated with Y when and only when the percentage of Xs that are Ys are greater than the percentage of non-Xs that are Ys

Negative Correlation

X is negatively correlated with Y when and only when the percentage of Xs that are Ys is less than the percentage of non-X's that are Y's

Types of Explanations for Correlation

Type 1: X causally contributes to Y.

Type 2: Y causally contributes to X.

Type 3: This is some underlying causal factor or factors which relate X to Y.

Type 4: The correlation is accidental or coincidental.

Consider that...

Causes precede their effects

Significant Correlations

Correlations that are suggestive of a causal relationship

Observational Study

To perform this a researcher would systematically identify and examine a group to see if there is a significant correlation between the two factors in question

Experimental Study

Researchers go beyond mere observations to intervene by systematically exposing subjects to the suspected cause

Confounding

A factor which is (i) correlated with the suspected cause under investigation and (ii) a partial cause of the effect

(must account for confounding factors)

Control for Factor

To ensure that there is no difference with respect to that variable between the two groups you are comparing. Allows you to isolate the potential effects of the factor you are interested in.

How to limit influence of unknown confounders in randomized controlled studies

-limits possibility of sheer coincidence by observing large array of information
-can rule out Y's are causing X's since causes precede effects
-random choosing of participants and distributing into control and experimental group distributes possible confounders equally between groups

Sound

When and only when an argument is both factually correct and logically strong.