Kaarten: CSK Key Terms | Quizlet

Analogy

Comparison used to clarify or argue by similarity (and expose weaknesses in reasoning)

Analysis

Breaking a subject into parts to understand meaning or function

Spatial Organisation

arrangement of information according to physical location

chronological organisation

arrangement of ideas or events according to time order

structural organisation

the overall framework and internal arrangement of a text

process analysis

explaining how something works or how it is done step by step

general to specific (logical progressions)

moving from broad ideas to detailed examples

abstract to concrete (logical progressions)

moving from theoretical ideas to tangible examples

countering the opposition

addressing and responding to opposing views

parallelism

use of similar grammatical structures to emphasise connections

climactic organisation

ordering ideas from least to most important

aporia

unresolved doubt or contradiction within a text

premise

a reason supporting a conclusion (facts, evidence, reasons, subarguments)

inference

the logical connection between premises and conclusion; conclusion reached through evidence & reasoning

inductive argument

using specific evidence to support a broader conclusion (probably true)

argument by authority

relying on expert opinion

argument by witness

relying on testimony

argument by generalisation

reasoning from examples to general claims (statistical/observational)

argument by cause

a cause-and-effect relationship, explaining how or why one event or phenomenon (the cause) leads to another

argument by sign

inferring from indicators or symptoms (smoke=fire)

acceptability

whether a premise is reasonable to believe

consistency

absence of contradictions among premises

falsafiability

possibility of being proven false

corrigibility

openness to revision when new evidence appears

sufficiency

whether premises provide enough support for conclusion

deductive argument

conclusion follows necessarily from premises (conclusion is certain)

syllogism

logical argument with two premises (major/minor) and a conclusion

categorical syllogism

syllogism using 2 premises and 1 conclusion

hypothetical syllogism

syllogism using conditioinal statements (if x, then y, and if y then z)

disjunctive syllogism

syllogism using either/or statements (it is x or y. if it is not x, it is y)

argument by analogy

reasoning based on similarities

abduction

inference to the best explanation

rational persuasion

persuasion through reasons rather than force

rhetoric

art of persuasion (logos, ethos, pathos)

logos

appeal to reason, analytical

pathos

appeal to emotion

ethos

appeal to credibility and authority (shared norms and values)

rhetorical situation

context involving speaker, audience, purpose

S-test

satisfactory (believable), supportive (relevant to conclusion), support (sum of premises support the conclusion)

enthymeme

argument with an unstated or missing premise (premise is assumed to be obvious and implied rather than stated); audience has to fill in the missing premise

missing premise

assumed, obvious but unstated premise

concealed (hidden) premise

intentionally unstated assumption

independent premise

supports the conclusion alone

dependent premise

works only with other premises to support a conclusion

positively relevant premise

increases support for conclusion

negatively relevant premise

weakens the support for conclusion

argument as artifact

argument as a finished product (premises are linked to a conclusion by means of an inference)

argument as process

argument as ongoing reasoning activity. exchange between two or more people seeking to resolve a disagreement about a situation

sub-argument

argument supporting a premise of another argumetn

illative core of an argument

premises plus conclusion forming the argument´s core

dialectical tier of an argument

responses to objections and alternatives

absurd example

exaggerated counter-example revealing weakness

principle of charity

interprets arguments in their strongest form

dialectical obligation

duty to address opposing arguments

method of absurd examples

testing claims by extreme extension

eristic

argumentative style aimed at winning rather than truth

1. fallacies of satisfactoriness

premises are not reliable

2. fallacies of support

premises are plausible but irrelevant for supporting the conclusion

3. fallacies of sufficienccy

premises are plausible and relevant, but not enough. (too weak)

4. fallacies of evasion

avoidance of the issue

5.fallacies of oversimplification

excessively reducing the complexity

6. non sequitur

the conclusion does not follow the premise

7. circumstantial ad hominem

attacking the circumstances, ulterior motives

8. ad hominem tu quoque

someone trying to discredit an argument because of the author´s hypocrisy

9. abusive ad hominem

attacking the author´s character

10. affirming the consequent

incorrectly assuming that (if --> then) statements are true

11. amphiboly

a sentence´s grammatical structure creates ambiguity in the reason/meaning

12. appeal to ignorance

claiming something as true, simply because it hasnt been proven false

13. appeal to popularity

claiming something is true, only because many people believe it is

14. appeal to force

using threats and intimidation rather than logic to prove the truth of a conclusion

15. begging the question

restating the claim in different worse

16. composition fallacy

assuming that just because some parts are true, the whole as a collective must also be true

17. division fallacy

assuming that because the whole is true, the individual part must also be true

equivocation

shifting keyword meanings while acting like it has the same meaning

false dilemma

presents only 2 options as the only possibilities --> oversimplified "either/or"

two wrongs make a right

claiming a wrongful act as okay just because someone else also did it

whataboutism

deflecting criticism - pointing out a different issue (shifting blame)

bothsidesism

presenting two opposing points as equally valid, even though the evidence clearly favours only one

guilt by association

wrongly discrediting an idea by relating the writer to a negatively perceived group

hasty generalisation

someone drawing a conclusion about a whole group based on a small unrepresentative sample

slippery slope

claiming that a minor event will lead to a series of related events that culminate to an undesirable outcome

post hoc fallacy

sequence mistaken for a cause (if A than B, then A caused B)

red herring

distraction from the issue (unrelated) by introducing an irrelevant topic

evading the issue

avoiding the central question

straw man

misrepresenting/exaggerating opponent´s argument to make it easier to attack

status quo fallacy

resisting change when a better option is present due to fear of loss (overvaluing the familiar)

etymological fallacy

the mistaken belief that a word's original or historical meaning is its only true or correct meaning

genetic fallacy

judging an idea based on its origin (eg. saying a theory is false just because a disliked politician proposed it)

ad feminam

attacking a woman´s argument by discrediting her due to her gender

reification

treating an abstract concept as if it were a real/physical thing (science/nature)

common cause fallacy

mistakenly believing that one event causes another because they happen together (when there is a third variable present)

cherry picking

selectively presenting only evidence that supports the argument

naturalistic fallacy

assuming that because something is natural, it must be good or right

dialectics

reasoning through contradiction ( study of arguments geared to find the truth)

genealogy

historical analysis of concepts

ontology

the study of existence. theory of being

epistemology

theory of knowledge

mirror of nature

view of knowledge as a passive reflection

performativity

language as action

multi-vocality

presence of multiple voices or meanings