Term
|
Definition
| claims to be valid or invalid |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| claims to be strong or weak, rather than valid or invalid |
|
|
Term
| Statistical Generalization |
|
Definition
| uses a sample proportion to generalize about a population; must be large, representative, have acceptable premises, and be unbiased |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| from information concerning a population, we draw a conclusion concerning a member or subset of that population |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the group containing a certain feature that should bring up all relevant evidence to bear on a subject |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| sufficient if and only if anything that has feature F also has feature G |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| necessary if and only if anything that lacks feature F also lacks feature G |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| candidate/target must both be present |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| candidate/target must both be absent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| making sure there are many of the right types of cases, some of which are able to fail both SCT and NCT |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| candidates that survive SCT and NCT and also fit in well with systems of other causally generalization |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| causally relevant factors that play a key role in our causal investigations |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when something is a prior event or change that stands out against the background of fixed conditions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when the target is always absent/present, but there is a variation of how much it is there |
|
|
Term
| Positively (Negatively) Correlated |
|
Definition
when A varies directly with B; negatively occurs in the opposite direction
4 possibilities when there is correlation:
1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. some third thing causes A&B
4. accidental correlation |
|
|
Term
| Inference to the Best Explanation |
|
Definition
measured by 7 standards:
1. explanatory
2. deep
3. powerful
4. falsifiable
5. modest
6. simple
7. conservative
when you have settled on a cause that meets the standards, you can say that it has more explanatory value than other causes, or that you have strong inductive support for that hypothesis |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
says that if A has properties P, Q, R and so does B, C, D, all of which also have property X, then A probably also has X
is strong if:
1. premises are true
2. similarities are relevant (specific)
3. similarities are important
4. few/no relevant dis-analogies
5. conclusion is of the right strength (usually weak) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
assumes things will average out over time
example: you are not more likely to flip a heads just because you've had ten tails in a row |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the percentage of outcomes will come closer to the theoretical predicted average of out comes the more trials made |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| characterizes things as more/less probable based on previous experiences and beliefs |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
judging the probability of something based on how easily it comes to mind
example: one assuming death by murder is more common than cancer because of the news |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| non-monetary ways to factoring in considerations before making a bet; such as effects of success/failure on one's resources and preferences, diminishing marginal value |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| takes into account probability of winning, net gain, and net loss |
|
|
Term
| Diminishing Marginal Value |
|
Definition
as the payoff gets larger, the value diminishes
example: buying a million lottery tickets, NOT when dealing with the mafia |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when you know the probabilities of different outcomes |
|
|
Term
| Decisions Under Ignorance |
|
Definition
when you don't know some or all of the probabilities of different outcomes
ways of making decisions under ignorance:
1. rule of dominance
2. rule of insufficient reason
3. maximax rule
4. maximin rule
5. disaster avoidance |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| option that's outcome is the best no matter what (obvious choice, but rarely available) |
|
|
Term
| Rule of Insufficient Reason |
|
Definition
| assigning arbitrary, but equal probabilities to all outcomes; how you break things down changes what can be the best option |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| choosing the option with the best outcome (doesn't consider probability) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| choosing the option with the best of the worst outcomes (doesn't consider probability) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| choosing the option that minimizes the chance of a disaster |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
showing there is adequate reason to reject an argument by proving:
1. premises are false
2. conclusion leads to absurd results
3. conclusion doesn't follow from premises
4. argument begs the question |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
universal claim refuted by a single case; defended against by:
1. denying the counterexample is a thing of that kind
2. denying that it lacks said feature |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| one that cannot be handled if you can modify the original claim slightly |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| one that can still be handled if you modify the original claim slightly |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
refuting a claim by showing it implies something absurd; standards:
1. is y absurd?
2. does x really imply y?
3. can x be modified in a minor way that it no longer implies y?
*if yes, yes, no, then the argument is a good reductio |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
when you're unsure if a conclusion is false, you can create a similar argument in virtue/form that is in fact invalid; standards:
1. conclusion must be false
2. premises must be true
3. actually invalid
to refute a parallel argument, one can:
1. deny the conclusions is false
2. deny premises are true
3. deny the parallel argument has the same form |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| refuting an argument by counterexample or reductio that doesn't accurately characterize the position being refuted; a caricature of a position that is false or problematic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| fallacy where one presents only two choices when there are actually more |
|
|
Term
| Sorites Argument (Argument from the Heap) |
|
Definition
claims that a series of insignificant changes cannot result in a significant change; untrue
*example: adding one cent 1,000,000,000 will result in being richness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
unclarity that occurs when something applies along a continuum or a series of small changes; can be fixed by definition or adoption of more precise rules
*example: baldness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
aim to show there is no significant difference between two things on a continuum; 3 types:
1. Conceptual
2. Fairness
3. Causal |
|
|
Term
| Conceptual Slippery-Slope Arguments |
|
Definition
claims that objects at opposite ends of a continuum don't different in an important enough way to draw a distinction; fix by adding purposes of a proposed theory that helps determine what is important to the theory
*example: Paris Hilton is the same as a salt crystal |
|
|
Term
| Fairness Slippery-Slope Arguments |
|
Definition
claims that differences that do exist are so small that they make it unfair to treat them any differently; still better to draw some line than not one at all
*example: percentages that are between two letter grades |
|
|
Term
| Causal Slippery-Slope Arguments |
|
Definition
claim that one thing that doesn't seem that bad will lead to much more horrible effects; one can respond by (or a combination of both, the strongest way):
1. denying the effects are horrible
2. denying the effects are likely
*example: smoking weed leads to use of black tar heroin |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
occurs if and only if a word/phrase is misleading because it is hard to tell which of a number of possible meanings is being used in the context; two types:
1. Semantic
2. Syntactic
one can respond by:
1. disambiguating
2. using a context that forces one interpretation over another |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ambiguity of individual terms or words |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| more than one possible interpretation of a sentence due to structure |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| rewriting a sentence so one of its possible meanings becomes clear |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
when an argument uses the same expression in different ways in separate parts of the argument
*example: six is an odd number of legs for a horse, odd numbers can't be divided by two; therefore, six can't be divided by two |
|
|
Term
| Lexical or Dictionary Definition |
|
Definition
meaning of a word in a particular language
*example: car- automobile |
|
|
Term
| Disambiguating Definition |
|
Definition
distinguishes which of several meanings is intended
*example: river banks, rather than financial banks |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
assigns a meaning to a new word or a new meaning to a familiar word
*example: in this case, a googol means 1 followed by one-thousand zeros |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
draws a sharp boundary around a fuzzy term
*example: what population constitutes a 'small city' |
|
|
Term
| Systematic (Theoretical) Definition |
|
Definition
gives structure to subject matter
*example: terms in geometry |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
argument directed at the person making the claim rather than their argument; some are justified, some aren't; 3 types:
1. Deniers
2. Silencers
3. Dismissers |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
deny the truth of what is said or the strength of an argument based on who is making it
*example: it is justified to deny the strength of a hired purger's argument |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
revoking someone's right to speak without necessarily denying the truth of what they are saying
*example: someone who is not a senator has no right to be speaking their views in congress |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
dismiss the speaker as untrustworthy and unreliable as a reason not to believe their argument
*example: a businessman/woman who makes decisions for monetary gain wants embargoes with Cuba to end to benefit from trade, rather than mending relations as he/she may say |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
when the irrelevant origin of an argument is attacked rather than the actual claim
*example: Marxists opposing all views that come from capitalism |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
citing someone who has the reasons to support an argument instead of the actual reasons; should answer yes to 1-4:
1. is the authority in the appropriate field?
2. can the kind question be answered with expert consensus?
3. is the authority cited correctly (true claim, spot-check)
4. can the authority be trusted?
5. why is an appeal to authority being made? (the best arguments stand on their own) |
|
|
Term
| Fallacy of Relevance (Appeal to Authority) |
|
Definition
| when the cited authority is not in the appropriate field |
|
|
Term
| Fallacy of Excessive Footnotes (Appeal to Authority) |
|
Definition
| the best arguments stand on their own, so too many appeals to authority is characteristic of a fallacious argument) |
|
|
Term
| Appeal to Popular Opinion |
|
Definition
| when the reason for believing something is because it is widely accepted |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| an appeal to popular opinion that has been accepted for a long time |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| includes appeals to pity (when used to argue a defendant not guilty, usually fallacious), appeals to fear (often amplified), appeals to outrage (be aware of common assumptions), and appeals to positive emotions (make sure positivity isn't clouding negativity) |
|
|
Term
| Circular Reasoning (Vacuity) |
|
Definition
occurs if and only if one of the premises used directly or indirectly supports a conclusion equivalent to itself; occurs by:
1. restating the conclusion in different words
2. suppressing premises that restate the conclusion
3. placing the conclusion at the end and restating it as a premise later
*example: saying that abortion is immoral as support for an argument against the immorality of abortion |
|
|
Term
| Begging the Question (Vacuity) |
|
Definition
similar to circularity; an argument begs the question if and only if:
1. it depends on a premise supported by nothing other than the conclusion
2. there is a need for an independent reason |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
positions set up in a way that nothing can possibly refute it
*example: clairvoyant claims when their predictions are correct they can see into the future and when they are incorrect, bad vibrations interfered |
|
|
