philosophy unit 1

Brief History of Philosophy

• philosophy used to encompass multiple fields of theoretical inquiry (physics, chemistry, psychology)

  ex: psychology used to be considered « philosophy of the mind » but became empirical → discipline of its own

Empirical methodology

one the settles questions through the use of observation. Gathers data to form conclusions rather than abstract theory or personal opinion.

philosophy only depends on this for solutions to SOME of it’s questions

Methodology of Philosophy

argument and counter argument.

philosophers will debate within a field until it is dominated by one or two main theories _> develops scientific al or empirical methodology

The last philosopher…

often becomes the founder of a new field

ex: Isaac Newton would have considered himself a philosopher but we know him as a physicist

Traditions & Philosophy

discovering truth based solely on human intellect & observations, not methodology.

Philosophy vs Science

in this century, philosophical movement considered the task of philosophy to not come out with truths of its own but to analyze truths of science

Value of Philosophy

leads to a better understanding of issues (ex: existence of god, nature of morality, nature of perception) that as thinking beings we can’t ignore. it makes one a better thinker

socrates

showed people that they didn’t really know what they though that they had. asked questions about foundations of a subject - ex: to talk about justice you need to know what it is

why was socrates questioning useful?

1. can show us when we do not know what we think we know

2. help us see more clearly what we do in fact know

   helps being to consciousness more of our own world view.

philosophers critical task

what is meant by a concept or principle?

asking what does this REALLY mean?

counterexamples

philosophers can disprove generalizations

ex: what makes an act « good » from a moral pov? 1: if it is an act that leads to great happiness in great numbers. 2: well if someone is tortured and everyone is happy, is that still morally good?

definitions & principles

create examples that will work to test our definitions and principles to see wait we have actually captured what they mean. great deal of conceptual analysis is done this way.

implicit knowledge

we just know our concept because we know how to use them

ex: we know what a chair is because we can point to one or use one

explicit knowledge

information that can be easily documented, stored, and shared, such as facts, data, manuals, and procedures

constructive task

the search for a consistent view as to how things hang together (physical objects, ideas, pains, human rights)

why does consistency matter?

all areas of philosophy are interconnected

ex: if science is the only valid way of knowing, your ethics must be justifiable by science too

why do implications matter?

• Every theory or belief implies other things.

• If you say, “X is true,” then certain consequences must also be true.

• Hiding those awkward consequences = bad philosophy.

• Good philosophy = being honest, even if your view seems to lead somewhere “crazy.”

truth vs arguments

philosophers believe that arguments are the means by which we will find the truth. presenting strong arguments can defend a novel or standard view.

« crazy » views

something may seem unlikely when it occurs but will be proved useful later on.

ex: materialism was not widely accepted until this century, yet it was developed since the early Greeks.

Logic

helps to distinguish good arguments from bad ones. NOT an incapable antidote to sloppy reasoning but to provide techniques to help us discover inconsistencies, unacceptable inferences and problematic premises in arguments

Epistemology

study of the nature and rationality of knowledge (claims). attempt to determine what we know and in what grounds. what distinguishes justified belief from opinion

moral theory

normative ethics is the presenting and defending of different sets of moral rules. largely an analytic concern with the nature of moral discourse.

metaphysics

study of the nature of reality, an attempt to answer questions about whether things do or could exist as they are alleged to.

ex: meanings of such terms as substance, causality, quality, relation, mind, God.

Brief intro to logic

__ is one of the oldest and most useful academic subjects. has an obvious application to the attempt of everyone to introduce and sustain coherency among our beliefs about ourselves + the world in which we live

a statement

a declarative sentence which can be either true or false

ex: the cat is on the mat

NOT « come here! » as that is a command

proposition

the meaning or content behind the statement

ex: sam is sad (sam must be sad)

argument

a group of statements where the premises support the conclusion

premise: all humans are mortal. socrates is a human

conclusion: socrates is mortal

valid

describes the FORM of the argument, not the truth of its conclusion

a ____ argument: is the premises is true then the conclusion must be true

it does NOT guarantee the premises is true

sentence vs proposition

1: specific arrangements of words in a language

2: the meaning (the possible state of affairs) those sentences express

ex: John disliked Paul vs Paul was disliked by John = same 1 but different 2

Argument vs Inference

1. a set of statements in an evidence conferring relation. ‘the product’

2. the mental reasoning process of moving from premises to conclusion. ‘the process’

   they are related but not the same

philosophical argument

two conditions must both be present

factual claim: at least one statement offers evidence or reasons

inferential claim: those reasons actually support some sort of conclusion

argument vs explanation

1. Ex: “The ground is wet because it rained last night.” (We all accept it rained; we’re explaining why the ground is wet.)

   • 2. The ground is wet because it rained last night.” (Here, we’re trying to prove it rained by pointing to the wet ground.)

deductive vs inductive argument

1. an argument which the premises are claimed to provide necessary support for the conclusion (they are assumed true) can be valid or invalid

2. premises do NOT provide necessary support for the conclusion (probability the conclusion)

valid deductive argument

premises support the conclusion in such a way that if assumes true it is impossible for the conclusion to be fake. conclusion never includes information not inckuded in the premises, iron clad and unsurprising

valid vs invalid example (deductive)

1. all fishes are doctors, all doctors are martian’s = all fish are martians

2. all salmon are fish, all cod are fish = all salmon are cod

strong vs weak example (inductive)

1. 95% of all albertans are rich, sally is an albertan = sally is rich

2. 10% of all albertans are rich, sally is an albertan = sally is rich

fallacies

refer to those mistakes in reasoning that are worth studying because of their regular use and seductive nature

premises for fallacies

relevant - to the conclusion (must relate)

sufficient - to warrant accepting the conclusion (must be strong enough)

acceptable - to their own right (reasonable or believable)

fallacy of irrelevant reason (non sequitur)

the reason given doesn’t really relate to the conclusion.

giving an answer that sounds related but doesn’t actually prove the point

fallacy of hasty conclusion

evidence isn’t strong enough to support the conclusion. jumping to conclusions without enough proof

fallacy of problematic premise

the premise itself isn’t reasonable or believable. building a statement on a false or shaky starting point.

testing for invalidity

validity isn’t about context but about form

the counter example method is a way to show invalidity

ex: all a are b, all c are b = all a are c > test this with substitution test > a = men, b= mortals, c= cats > all men are mortal, all cats are mortal ≠ all men are cats

propositional logic

• developed by the stoics (third century BCE, 20 years after aristotles death)

• Instead of reasoning about categories (“All cats are animals”), it reasons about whole sentences that can be true or false (“It is raining”).

• We use letters (A, B, C…) to stand in for these whole statements.

conjunction, disjunction, and conditional

1. a compound statement of the form a AND b. ex: it is raining and it is cold

2. may be inclusive or exclusive, a OR b. ex: i’ll have tea or coffee

3. the if-then (IF is an antecedent; THEN is a consequent) ex: if it rains then the ground will be wet.

disjunctive syllogism vs modus ponens

1. either or rule. either A or B. ex: i’ll either fish or cut bait > i hate cutting bait > i’ll fish

2. affirms the antecedent. if a, then b. ex: if i work hard, then i’ll get a good grade = im working hard i’ll get a good grade

modus tollens vs hypothetical syllogism

1. denying the consequent. if a, then b. not b = not a. ex: if i work hard then i will get a good grade > i did not get a good grade = i did not work hard

2. chain reasoning. if a, then B > if b, then c = if a then c. ex: if i study then i can pass the test > passing test means i can complete my degree = studying will help complete my degree

dilemma

1. valid only for the inclusive “or”, either A or B, if A then X, if B then Y > either x or y. ex: i must walk or drive to the store > walking will cause sore feet, driving will be burning expensive gas = either sore feet or burn gas

affirming a disjunct

valid only for the exclusive or. either a or b, a___ not b. ex: can get academic credit for either a full or half term course but not both. i have credit for a full term = i will not get half term credit

two common seductive fallacies

1. denying the antecedent: if a then b, not a; not b. ex: if i pass the test then i must have studied > i did not pass the test so i didn’t study

2. affirming the consequent: if a, then b. b____ a. ex: if i work had then i’ll pass the course > i passed the course so i worked hard

dilemma example

Either the general deliberately disobeyed his orders, or he failed to understand them. If he disobeyed his orders, he was disloyal; and if he failed to understand them, he was stupid. Therefore, he was either disloyal or stupid.

A = The general deliberately disobeyed his orders.
B = The general failed to understand his orders.
X = The general was disloyal.
Y = The general was stupid.

going between the horns

1. Attack the first premise (“Either A or B”). Show there’s another option C.

   • Example: Maybe the general’s secretary sabotaged the orders — so it’s not just A or B.

grasping one of the horns

2. Accept “Either A or B,” but challenge one of the conditionals. Maybe disobeying wasn’t disloyal (he thought the orders were unlawful). Or maybe misunderstanding doesn’t mean he was stupid (the orders were unclear).

charging the bull

3. Keep the structure, but twist it to a new conclusion.

   • Example: If he disobeyed, maybe the orders were unlawful. If he misunderstood, maybe they were unclear.

   • New conclusion: “The orders were unlawful or unclear” — shifting blame away from the general.

reductio ad absurdum

The Latin means “reduction to the absurd.”

The basic move: assume something is true, show that it leads to a contradiction or something impossible, and therefore conclude it must be false.

It’s like saying: “Let’s suppose… oh wait, that makes nonsense happen… so the supposition must be wrong.”

form is reductio argument

to prove Not S, assume S. Deduce from a either a false statement, or the contradictory of S (not S). or a self contradictory statement (T and not T). conclude that S must be false, hence Not S is the case

reductio ad absurdum everyday example

• Sarcasm or exaggeration often uses a reductio style:
  

  • “If we let students retake one test, then we’ll have to let them retake every test, and then no test will matter at all. That’s absurd.”

• Or the “when pigs fly” move: “Sure, that’ll happen… when pigs fly.”

cultural note about reductio

what counts as absurd depends on the context. in canada: a for profit healthcare system seems absurd; in the usa: it’s normal = the same reductio won’t persuade everyone