PHIL 103 midterm

Argument

a series of propositions the truth of one of which (conclusion) is taken to be supported by the truth of others (the premises)

Deductive arguments

intended to guarantee their conclusions, and must be valid by definition. They cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion.

Standard form

Premise one

Premise two

line

conclusion

Declarative sentence

States a fact, opinion, or conveys information. Cannot be a question.

Validity

An argument is valid if and only if both that (1) it is not possible that all the premises are true and (2) the conclusion is false.

Soundness

An argument is sound if and only if (1) the argument is both valid and (2) all the premises are true.

Inductive Arguments

An argument that uses premises to support a general conclusion that is probably true but not guaranteed.

Assuring

when a speaker indicates that he or she reasons for the premises of an argument

guarding

occurs when a speaker weakens his or her claim

discounting

occurs when a speaker anticipates possible objections in order to dismiss them.

extended arguments

state premises and produce evidence for each premise.

statistical generalization 

greater than 0% or smaller than 100%

begging the question

fallacy in which a point is assumed to be true in the absence of any justification for its truth.

Equivocation

using multiple meanings of an ambiguous term to confuse or deceive.

fallacy of equivocation

when the force of an argument depends on shifts of meaning, even when there is no intent of deception.

amphibolies

ambiguous sentence structure, not just in the word

ambiguous terms

words that have at least two overlapping meanings.

vagueness

words when borderline cases for its application occur; rational people can disagree. 

lexical ambiguity

words that are ambiguous

structural ambiguity

amphibolies, ambiguous sentence structures.

Ostensive definition

pointing to something physically to define to someone what something is. Can be problematic when the person doesn’t know what you are pointing at or confuses it with something else in the general direction. 

verbal extensional definition

verbally name all the members of a specific category or group of things in a set (eg. prizefighters; name all the prizefighters). 

Intensional definition

set of all and only those properties that a thing must possess for that term to apply.

lexical definition

type of intensional definition: should state the set of properties

circular definition

the definition includes the word being defined.

explicit extensional

all the items in the class in which the term applies

denotative extensional

a partial list of the items in the set to which a term applies

itension

set of properties or attributes that a set of things must possess for the term to apply to it.

explicit intensional

ALL the properties that make the set of things that particular thing

stipulative definition

introduces a new meaning to the dictionary and assigns it a meaning. Can be to save time, remove emotional baggage, can be either true or false, and should not already have a widely understood meaning.

precising definition

removing vagueness by changing the way you use the word (ex. heap of sand will be 500 grains of sand or more()

theoretical definition

in the field that it relates to, and in connection to other terms (H20 is the term for water used by chemists)

persuasive definition

using a different word for something to have emotional response, or trying to persuade someone of something in the definition of a word.

operational definition

exact measurements of things (eg. this table is three feet long)

use

using the word in a sentence

mention

when you are talking about/debating a word

When disambiguating

FIRST comletely rewrite the sentence structure, SECOND keep the original sentence structure and then add on to it to make it disambiguous. 

deductive arguments

an argument which does not introduce new information; makes it so that you can deduce what is occurring, can be true or false, but is valid by structure.

inductive arguments

probability; premises are true, conclusion is probably true

a valid argument

cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion. 

fallacious arguments

the premises of fallacious arguments, even if true, do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

causal arguments

arguments that bring something new to the table based off of past information, present information, etc.

Fallacy

in order to commit a fallacy, we must offer or accept non evidence as evidence for a claim.

Black and white fallacy

base a conclusion on a limited set of alternatives when a broader range of possibilities is a available.

fallacy of equivocation

using a word one way in an argument in the premise and then another way in the conclusion.

appeal to force

“argument: with a threat of force instead of evidence - appeals to fear rather than reason

appeal to pity

confuse feeling sorry for someone with evidence for the truth of the assertion made by someone being pitied. 

fallacious arguments

the premises of such arguments, even if true, do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

Argument from consensus

some assertion is held to be either correct or incorrect on the grounds that most people believe or reject the assertion.

statistical syllogism

an argument in inductive form that closely resembles the deductive but the general premise is statistical rather than universal

rule of total evidence

whether all available relevant evidence has been considered in selecting the reference class

fallacy of incomplete evidence

when the reference class in a statistical syllogism is not based on all relevant evidence, the argument is fallacious.

argument from authority 

experts saying something to try to be more believable; must be actual experts in the field that they are discussing, and experts must agree. 

argument against the person

instead of attacking the person’s position, you attack their character

Necessary causal condition

Without A, B will not occur

Causally sufficient

whenever A occurs, B will also occur

statistical syllogism standards

closeness to 100% (strength) and whether all available relevant evidence has been considered. 

statistical syllogism fallacy

fallacy of incomplete evidence

Argument from authority standards

authority is an expert in the field and experts agree on the matter.

argument from authority

appeal to authority

argument from authority fallacy

fallacy of consensus

argument against the person fallacy

abusive, circumstantial, tu quo que

ad hominem abusive 

person attacked character of person making argument

ad hominem circumstantial

attacking the character of someone who just happens to be in a certain position.

ad hominem tu quo que

accusing the person making the argument of hypocrisy

argument from analogy

an inductive argument that argues that because two or more things are similar in some ways,so they must be similar in other ways. 

argument from analogy standards

relevance of similarity

argument from analogy fallacy

slippery slope

arguments based on samples

inductive arguments where conclusions from smaller samples are drawn to apply to larger populations; fallacy = hasty generalization

arguments based on samples standards

sample must be large enough and have sufficient variation

method of agreement

looks at antecedent circumstances to see whether a circumstance is common to each occurrence of the event for which a cause is sought. 

causal argument

an argument that states a causal relationship holds or fails to hold between two types of things 

method of difference

to find the cause of an event or condition e, we should try to find two cases - one where e occurs and one where e does not occur - that are similar in all aspects except for one in their antecedent circumstances; then the antecedent circumstance that is present when e is present and absent when e is not, is the cause of e - problems include if the real cause isn’t listed in antecedent circumstances and it can be hard to find two almost identical situations.

joint method of agreement and difference

apply the method of agreement in all the cases in which the condition occurs, and again to all the cases in which the conclusion does not occur; then compare the two sets in the same way that two individual causes are compared in the method of difference - look for multiples cases to compare various antecedents. 

method of noncomitant variation

change in strength of effect is accounted for by change in strength of cause. more x = moreo r less e and vice versa 

Method of residues

if not caused by other circumstances, the only other option must be the cause. uses known causes to account for as much of the complex effect as possible, and then invoking additional cause to account for the remainder.