Epistemology, Fallacies, Critical Thinking, and Logic

Vocabulary practice flashcards covering epistemology, common logical fallacies, critical thinking strategies, Plato's allegory of the cave, and deduction vs. induction.

Noetic structure

The entire network of beliefs a person holds, including how those beliefs relate to one another and the degree of confidence placed in each.

Foundationalism

The view that justified beliefs rest on a foundation of basic beliefs—beliefs that are self-evident or directly experienced and do not need support from other beliefs.

Infinite regression theory

The problem where every belief requires justification from another belief, creating an endless chain of justification with no starting foundation.

Coherentism

The view that a belief is justified if it fits logically into a web of mutually supporting beliefs, rather than resting on foundational beliefs.

A priori knowledge

Knowledge gained independently of sensory experience, justified by reason alone (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried men" or "$2 + 2 = 4$").

A posteriori knowledge

Knowledge derived from sensory experience and empirical observation (e.g., "Water freezes at $0^\circ\text{C}$" or "It is raining outside").

Personal experience

Information or beliefs gained directly through one's own senses, perception, and lived events.

Background information

The collection of well-supported general facts, common sense, and baseline knowledge used to evaluate new claims.

Reid’s principle (Principle of Credulity)

The idea that we have a default duty to believe others' testimony unless we have specific, strong reasons to doubt them.

Formal fallacy

A flaw in the structural form of a deductive argument that makes it invalid, regardless of whether the statements are true.

Informal fallacy

A flaw in the content, context, or clarity of an argument rather than its structural form.

Affirming the consequent

A formal fallacy of the form: If $P$, then $Q$. $Q$. Therefore, $P$.

Denying the antecedent

A formal fallacy of the form: If $P$, then $Q$. Not $P$. Therefore, not $Q$.

Ad hominem

Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

Appeal to the people (Bandwagon)

Claiming something is true or right because it is popular or widely believed.

Appeal to pity

Attempting to win an argument by provoking feelings of sympathy rather than presenting evidence.

Irrelevant conclusion

An argument that leads to a conclusion different from the one it was originally supposed to prove.

Begging the question

Assuming the truth of the conclusion in one of the premises (circular logic).

Red herring

Distracting from the main argument by introducing a completely irrelevant topic.

Genetic fallacy

Dismissing or accepting an argument solely based on where or from whom it originated.

Appeal to ignorance

Claiming a statement is true simply because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa).

Straw man

Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

Fallacious appeal to authority

Citing an authority figure who lacks expertise in the relevant field.

Hasty generalization

Drawing a broad conclusion from a sample size that is far too small or unrepresentative.

False cause

Assuming a causal relationship between two events without sufficient evidence.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Asserting that because Event B occurred after Event A, Event A must have caused Event B.

Non causa pro causa

Mistaking something that is not the cause for the actual cause of an event.

Slippery slope

Arguing without evidence that a small initial step will inevitably trigger a chain of extreme consequences.

False dilemma

Presenting only two extreme choices when more options actually exist.

Fallacy of suppressed evidence

Leaving out critical evidence that contradicts the conclusion being argued.

Special pleading

Applying rules or standards to others while inventing an exemption for oneself without justification.

Fallacy of accident

Applying a general rule to a specific case where exceptional circumstances make the rule inapplicable.

Equivocation

Using a key word or phrase with different meanings in the same argument to mislead.

Fallacy of composition

Arguing that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole.

Fallacy of division

Arguing that what is true of the whole must also be true of each individual part.

Weasel words

Words used to create the impression of a firm claim while leaving a legal loophole or escape route (e.g., "helps fight," "up to," "virtually," "could").

Euphemisms

Mild, indirect, or agreeable words used in place of harsh, unpleasant, or blunt terms.

Dysphemisms

Harsh, derogatory, or unpleasant terms used to evoke a negative emotional reaction.

Innuendo

An indirect or subtle hint or insinuation, typically suggestive or disparaging, made without saying it outright.

The Myth of the Cave

Plato's allegory describing prisoners chained in a dark cave seeing only shadows on a wall, illustrating the journey of the soul from ignorance to enlightenment.

Education (Plato/Socrates)

Not putting knowledge into an empty mind, but turning the whole soul away from the world of shadows toward the light of truth and reality.

Philosopher-kings

Rulers identified by Socrates and Plato as most fit to rule because they possess true knowledge of the Good and have no personal desire for political power.

Deductive argument

An argument intended to guarantee the absolute truth of its conclusion if its premises are true.

Valid argument

A deductive argument structured such that it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time.

Intuitive test for validity

Assuming all premises are true and trying to imagine a scenario where the conclusion could still be false; if none can be imagined, the argument is valid.

Counterexample

A specific instance or imaginary scenario that demonstrates how an argument's premises can be true while its conclusion is false.

Method of counterexample

Constructing a parallel argument with the exact same form, using obviously true premises and a false conclusion, to prove the original argument invalid.

Modus ponens

A valid argument form: If $P$, then $Q$. $P$. Therefore, $Q$.

Modus tollens

A valid argument form: If $P$, then $Q$. Not $Q$. Therefore, not $P$.

Disjunctive syllogism

A valid argument form: $P$ or $Q$. Not $P$. Therefore, $Q$.

Hypothetical syllogism

A valid argument form: If $P$, then $Q$. If $Q$, then $R$. Therefore, if $P$, then $R$.

Sound argument

A deductive argument that is both valid and has all true premises.

Inductive argument

An argument intended to show that the conclusion is probable or likely true, given the truth of the premises.

Strong inductive argument

An inductive argument structured such that if its premises are true, its conclusion is highly probable.

Analogical argument

An inductive argument that reasons that because two things are similar in several known respects, they are likely similar in another, unknown respect.

Enumerative induction

An inductive argument that arrives at a general conclusion about a target group based on premises about a sample of that group.

Generalization from a sample

Reasoning from properties observed in a subgroup to properties of the entire population.

Inference to the best explanation

An inductive argument that begins with an observation and infers the hypothesis that best explains that observation (abductive reasoning).

Cogent argument

An inductive argument that is both strong and has all true premises.