PHILOSOPHY UNIT 1

Mr. Dyer 2026

Straw-Man Fallacy (Bully’s Fallacy)

Mischaracterizing the opponent’s argument and then attacking that misrepresentation instead of the original argument. (EX- A: “We should put more money into public libraries.” B: “So you don’t want to fund public schools?”)

Ad Hominem Fallacy (Bully’s Fallacy pt.2)

Using the opponent’s identity as a reason to attack the argument. (EX- “We shouldn’t trust the mayor’s opinion on homelessness because she has a nice house.”)

Argument from Authority (Fallacy of Celebrity Advertisers / Ethos)

Using an appealing figure to put across an argument. (EX- “My dentist says I should never floss at night.”)

False Dichotomy (Fallacy of the Pushy Salesman / False Binary)

Forcing a choice between two solutions when there could be more. (EX- “He said he wasn’t Christian, so he must be Jewish.”)

Fallacy of Confirmation (Politician’s Fallacy)

Leaning more towards confirming information rather than disproving it. (EX- A: “Crime went down in 10 towns when we cut taxes." B: “But crime went up in 20 other towns!”)

Monte Carlo Fallacy (Gambler’s Fallacy)

The misleading belief that the odds on the exact same gamble will improve after each attempt. (EX- “My sister already has two daughters, her third child will definitely be a son.” It’s still an exact 50/50 chance.)

Begging the Question (Presumption Fallacy / Circular Reasoning / Affirming the Consequent)

Using the conclusion to prove a premise or assuming the conclusion is already true to prove a different point. (EX- “God must exist because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the Word of God.”)

What are the three laws of logic and who invented them?

1. The Law of Identity, 2. The Law of Non-Contradiction, 3. The Law of Excluded Middle. Invented by Aristotle.

What is the Law of Identity?

Every entity is identical to itself; A is A. (EX: Plato is identical to himself, nothing else in the universe is Plato. When you speak of your opinion on God, you are not discussing God; you are discussing your own opinion. The two are separate identities.)

What is the Law of Non-Contradiction?

An entity cannot be two opposite things; A cannot simultaneously be A and not A (EX: Plato cannot be dead and not dead)

What is the Law of Excluded Middle?

There cannot be middle ground between two opposite ideas; everything is either A or not A. (EX: All propositions are either true or false, every plant on Earth is either a tree or not a tree.)

Define “argument”.

A set of statements consisting of a premise or premises that support and prove a conclusion. (The one necessary requirement when engaging in philosophy

Define “philosophy”.

The pursuit of wisdom through argumentation, the love of knowledge (philo + sophia), both a thing (like a collection of philosophical works) and an activity

Define “proposition”.

The non-linguistic meaning of a sentence, the essence of the idea that words are used to put across. (EX: “I’m hungry”, “I have a physiological desire for food” and “J’ai faim” all share the same proposition despite none sharing words.)

Define “conditional”.

A statement in the form “if-then”. If one thing is true, the second must be too. (EX: “If I don’t study tonight, then I have to study all day tomorrow.")

Define “deductive”.

An argument in which the conclusion is derived directly from the premises. General principle to specific conclusion. (EX: “All cats are blue. Violet is a cat. Therefore, Violet is blue."“)

Define “non-deductive”(inductive).

An argument in which the premises provide good but not sound evidence to support the conclusion. (EX: “Most cats are blue. Violet is a cat. Therefore, Violet is blue.”)

Define “valid”.

An adjective describing an argument in which the premises logically lead to the conclusion- if the premises were to be true, then the conclusion would be guaranteed to be true. (EX: “It rains every single Monday. Tomorrow is a Monday. Therefore, it will rain tomorrow.”)

Define “invalid”.

The opposite of a valid. Describes an argument in which the conclusion does not logically follow the premises. (EX: “It rains every single Monday. Tomorrow is a Monday. Therefore, it will rain on Wednesday.”)

Define “sound”.

An adjective used to describe an argument that is both valid and true. Completely sound arguments are very rare.

Define “contradiction”.

A proposition (in the form “x and not x”) containing opposite ideas that cannot simultaneously be true (Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction). (EX: Plato is alive and dead → could be read as Plato is alive and not alive. Plato cannot be both A and not A.)

Define “fallacy”.

A logical blunder that renders an argument invalid & unsound. (EX: “If Violet is blue, she must be a cat. Violet is a cat. Therefore, she must be blue.”)

Define “thought experiment”.

A theoretical experiment used to test a philosophical hypothesis or prove a theory or principle. (EX: “If there is an edge to the universe and we reach it, we can throw a spear at it. If the spear bounces back, then it cannot be the edge of the universe, as the spear bounced off some kind of matter outside of the boundary. If the spear goes through, then there is more space to be explored. Either way, there is no actual edge, so the universe must be infinite.” → Obviously, we cannot reach- let alone find- this hypothetical “edge of the universe”. This is simply a thought experiment used to argue the infinite universe theory.)

Define “rhetoric”.

The art of effective language and figurative speech used to impress or persuade in which the proposition doesn’t always match the words, sometimes considered void of meaning. (“Are you sure you want to do that?” in a threatening tone could have the proposition “Don’t do that”. The question is not necessary and an answer is not expected, therefore it is empty rhetoric.)

What are the 4 C’s?

Think critically, clearly, correctly, and comprehensively.

Define “logic”.

The study of correct reasoning. Logic is the basis of philosophy, it is to philosophy what mathematics is to physics.

In terms of arguments, what is standard form? What is explicit form?

Standard form is the original format in which an argument is presented, be it through narration, storytelling, journalling, etc… Explicit form is the reworded, refined version of an argument in the format 1. Premise 2. Premise 3. Conclusion. (EX: Standard: "If God is infinitely good, His infinite goodness would destroy any and all evil present in the world. Yet, evil still exists. Therefore, God must not exist.” Explicit: 1. God is infinitely good. 2. The existence of infinite good would destroy all evil. 3. Evil exists. 4. Therefore, God must not exist.)

How do you evaluate the validity of a non-deductive argument?

An inductive argument cannot be labelled “valid” or “invalid”. There are degrees of strength (probability of truth). (EX: “My last car was red and it was reliable. This tends to show that all red cars are reliable.” “Most water fountains do not spray juice. This tends to show that this water fountain will not spray juice.” The second argument is stronger.)