Philosophy year 12 Exam Sem1

critical reasoning, political philosophy, epistemology

Reductionism

theory that science progresses linearly

falsificationism on scientific development

progress through the refutation of hypotheses

relativism

philosopher: Kuhn

science develops through paradigm shifts

rationalism

knowledge comes from the mind

empiricism

knowledge comes from the senses

skepticism

absolute certainty is required for knowledge

positivism

the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge

falsification principle

philosopher: karl popper

for a theory to be scientific it must be able to be tested and possibly proven wrong

science should attempt to disprove theories

tripartite theory of knowledge

knowledge is a justified, true belief

libertarianism

minimum government interference, and maximum personal liberties (negative freedoms)

negative freedoms

freedom from external interference

positive freedoms

freedom to fulfil one’s potential

egalitarianism

all people should be treated as equals from birth

liberalism

freedom to live our own ways of life

interests of state should not override interests of individuals

only limits on freedom is to safeguard other individuals freedoms

socialism

response to capitalism

preserve social equality

economic equality through government interference

secularism

separation of church and state

social contract

implied agreement between state and society to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection

liberal democracy

fair, free and competitive elections

Hobbes on state of nature

nasty, brutish, short

The leviathan

an absolute power. unjust leadership > chaos

rousseau on state of nature

idyllic in perfect harmony

rousseau on social contract

legitimacy of the state is created by the consent of the people

locke on state of nature

humans have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property

general good

rousseau- the individual will put aside his egoism to create a general will

formal fallacies

denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent

denying the antecedent

if P, then Q.

not P

therefore: not Q

affirming the consequent

if P, then Q.

Q

therefore: P

Begging the question

circular reasoning; using what you’re trying to prove as support for your argument

false dichotomy

presents 2 options when there are more

strawman

misrepresents an opponents argument to make it easier to rebuke

ad populum

uses the popularity of something as reasoning for it being good/right

appeal to adverse consequences

you must be wrong, otherwise dangerous/unrealistic scenario ensues

weasel words

vague, ambigious and euphemism/jargon

euphemism

softening the blow

jargon

unnecessary uncommon/confusing terms

vague

unclear, lacking details

ambiguous

allowing for multiple interpretations

modus ponens

If P, then Q

P

therefore: Q

modus tollens

If P, then Q

not Q

therefore: not P