Topics. Evaluating. arguments. 1 Introduction. PHI 1101, Section I (P. Rusnock) 2 Evaluating Premises. Introduction
|
|
- Darren Waters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Topics ( and Critical Thinking, Chapter 2) Fall : 1 : 2 Now that we know how to identify and their parts, we move to our next question: how can we tell if an argument is a strong one? That is, how well is the conclusion supported? Two elements to be considered: Are the premises any good? Is the reasoning any good? Sometimes it s easy to tell that a premise is a good one; sometimes obvious that it is no good; and many cases where it s hard or even impossible to tell. Canada shares a border with the USA. It never gets cold in Ottawa. There is life on other planets. : 3 : 4 Similarly with reasoning The quality of premises and reasoning are independent Either Jack or Jill is a doctor. Jack isn t a doctor. So Jill is. Jill is a doctor. So she has red hair. Given a choice between two things, Jill prefers vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream and chocolate ice cream to fish tacos. So Jill prefers vanilla ice cream to fish tacos. The two questions are independent: reasoning can be good or bad with true premises but also with false premises. Ottawa is east of Toronto and Toronto is east of Winnipeg. So Ottawa is east of Winnipeg. Ottawa is east of Winnipeg and Montreal is east of Winnipeg. So Ottawa is east of Montreal. Ottawa is east of Moncton and Moncton is east of Halifax. So Ottawa is east of Halifax. Ottawa is east of Moncton and Ottawa is east of Halifax, so Moncton is east of Halifax. So we ask, and answer, the two questions separately. : 5 : 6
2 Truth, rational acceptability Strength of claims In the best cases, our premises are not only true but also known to be true. This is not possible in a great many instances, however, and so we often set our sights on rational acceptability. The roof of this building won t collapse during our class. This plane won t crash if I take it. I won t get food poisoning if I eat this sandwich. Etc. Rational acceptability has degrees, and our language accordingly has expressions that indicate how strongly someone is committed to a claim: It is certain that..., There can be no doubt that... It is virtually/nearly/almost certain that..., It is highly probable/likely that... It is likely/probable that... It is possible that..., It may happen that..., etc. We ask (when reading and writing): is the appropriate degree of acceptance expressed? : 7 : 8 propositions Statistical claims Many propositions state something about one or more things or individuals of a certain kind. The more individuals or things concerned, the wider the scope of the claim. 1 At least one person has walked on the moon. 2 Several people have walked on the moon. 3 Many people have walked on the moon. 4 Most people have walked on the moon. 5 Everyone has walked on the moon. The wider the scope, the stronger the claim. We ask: is the scope of the claim appropriate? Sometimes a more or less precise number is used to indicate the scope of a claim. Three out of four dentists recommend Whizzo toothpaste. Between 46 and 54% of Americans think that the President should be impeached Special cases: 0% (none) and 100% (all): universal propositions : 9 : 10 Universal claims Refutation by counterexample A universal generalization is a proposition stating that all things of a certain kind have (or lack) a certain attribute. All medical doctors have studied anatomy. All crows are black No human being is perfect. (Every human being is imperfect.) No ostrich can fly. (Every ostrich is incapable of flying.) Because they are so strong, universal claims are often hard to prove when they are true and correspondingly easy to disprove, or refute, when false. A single example of an object or individual that is P but not Q is enough to refute a claim of the form All P are Q. Everyone in this class is wearing glasses. no one in this class is wearing glasses. No professors wear glasses, etc. When we consider a universal generalization as a premise, accordingly, we ask: are there any counterexamples? (exercises, p. 30) : 11 : 12
3 Some questions to ask about sources Often, we accept a claim based on someone else s testimony they assure us that something is true, and we take them at their word. If we did not do this, our would be extremely limited. But taking another s word for something can also lead us astray. Is the source reliable? What is his or her track record for telling the truth or providing reliable? Is the source competent and in a position to know the relevant facts? Is there any reason to suspect bias? Do other reliable sources agree? How many? Do any reliable sources disagree? How many? : 13 : 14 Failures: When many sources speak... Sources who lie Sources who spread false beliefs while taking them to be true False confidence Incompetence and ignorance Anosognosia and the Dunning-Kruger effect Bias, intentional and unintentional, conscious and unconscious Are they all reliable? Are they independent? How many speak for, how many against? Is there a reasonable explanation of the disagreement? : 15 : 16 or Authorities, real or merely alleged: some questions to ask Certain people are recognized as experts or authorities in a given field: their opinions are accorded more weight because they are in a better position to know by virtue of their training, experience, etc. Universities are full of them; and we train quite a few of them. Though we can be led astray by experts, I think it fair to say that it is more common today for people to make the mistake of not trusting experts enough. Is there a field of expertise? Is the source recognized as an expert in the relevant area or field? Is there any reason to suspect incompetence, bias, or corruption? Do other experts agree? Is there a reasonable explanation for disagreements among experts in the field? If someone else appeals to experts in an argument, how have they been chosen? (Watch for cherry-picking, the selection of precisely those authorities who support a given position.) : 17 : 18
4 and commonly-held beliefs In most argumentative contexts, the participants can count on some claims being granted without supporting reasons, because everyone there accepts them as true. varies across groups There are also commonly held false beliefs; we do well to be aware of these when entering into discussion with people who hold them. We say that a set of propositions is inconsistent if it is impossible for all of them to be true together. Example: Alice is older than Bob. Bob is older than Carol. Carol is older than Alice. In this, as in many examples, we can recognize inconsistency without knowing whether the individual claims are true or false. A finding of inconsistency tells us that at least one of the claims is false, but may not indicate which one. However, an argument that relies on all the premises in an inconsistent set is in trouble. This is why consistency matters for acceptability. : 19 : 20 : First Remarks reliable principles/patterns Most often, reasoning follows repeatable patterns or forms: we can also say that it is guided by general principles. Accordingly, evaluating reasoning often boils down to determining whether these forms or principles are reliable. One of three things is true: A, B or C. A is not true and B is not true. So C must be true. There are two things of a certain kind and another two things of that kind. So altogether there are four. If P, then Q. Not Q, So not P. : 21 : 22 And some unreliable ones Showing that a principle is not trustworthy One of three things is true: A, B, or C. A is not true. So C is true. Three or four things of a certain kind have a certain property. So all things of that kind do. If P, then Q. Not P, So not Q. We can show that a principle or form of inference used in an argument is not trustworthy by giving an example of an argument in which the same principle is used, but produces obvious unacceptable results. Consider the argument: If it rains, we won t go for a bike ride. It won t rain, however. So we will go for a bike ride. If we just think about rain and bicycles, etc., it can be hard to see that the reasoning is poor. But once we identify the form of inference as: If P, then not Q. Not P. So Q we can show this form to be unreliable by pointing to an instance like this one: If we re in Winnipeg right now, then we re not in Nova Scotia. We re not in Winnipeg. So we re in Nova Scotia. : 23 : 24
5 Another example Example: Smoking can cause lung cancer. Mary died from lung cancer. So Mary must have been a smoker. Form/Principle: X can cause Y. Y occurred, So X occurred. Parallel argument: Falling off the top of the Empire State Building can cause death. Napoleon is dead. So Napoleon fell off the top of the Empire State Building. : 25
A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N
ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around
More informationNested Testimony, Nested Probability, and a Defense of Testimonial Reductionism Benjamin Bayer September 2, 2011
Nested Testimony, Nested Probability, and a Defense of Testimonial Reductionism Benjamin Bayer September 2, 2011 In her book Learning from Words (2008), Jennifer Lackey argues for a dualist view of testimonial
More informationThe Assurance of God's Faithfulness
The Assurance of God's Faithfulness by Kel Good A central doctrine held by many of us who subscribe to "moral government," which comes under much criticism, is the idea that God is voluntarily good. This
More informationA Short Course in Logic Example 3
A Short Course in Logic Example 3 I) Recognizing Arguments III) Evaluating Arguments II) Analyzing Arguments Bad Argument: Bad Inference Identifying the Parts of the Argument Premises Inferences Diagramming
More informationDoes God exist? The argument from miracles
Does God exist? The argument from miracles We ve now discussed three of the central arguments for the existence of God. Beginning today, we will examine the case against belief in God. Next time, we ll
More informationARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments
ARGUMENTS Arguments arguments 1 Argument Worksheet 1. An argument is a collection of propositions with one proposition, the conclusion, following from the other propositions, the premises. Inference is
More informationCausal fallacies; Causation and experiments. Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Winter 2010 UC San Diego 2/26/2010
Causal fallacies; Causation and experiments Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Winter 2010 UC San Diego 2/26/2010 Review Diagramming causal relations - Variables as nodes (boxes) - Causal relations as
More informationwhat makes reasons sufficient?
Mark Schroeder University of Southern California August 2, 2010 what makes reasons sufficient? This paper addresses the question: what makes reasons sufficient? and offers the answer, being at least as
More informationChapter 4. Credibility
Chapter 4 Credibility How believable is a claim? How credible is a source? 2 Not an all-or-nothing thing! Statements/sources vary in credibility. 3 For example: The teacher owns a duck. The teacher owns
More informationThe Toulmin Model in Brief
The Toulmin Model in Brief A popular form of argument is the Toulmin model (other forms include classical and Rogerian). This model is named after Stephen Toulmin, who in The Uses of Argument proposed
More informationEvaluating Arguments
Govier: A Practical Study of Argument 1 Evaluating Arguments Chapter 4 begins an important discussion on how to evaluate arguments. The basics on how to evaluate arguments are presented in this chapter
More informationCSC290 Communication Skills for Computer Scientists
CSC290 Communication Skills for Computer Scientists Lisa Zhang Lecture 2; Sep 17, 2018 Announcements Blog post #1 due Sunday 8:59pm Submit a link to your blog post on MarkUs (should be operational next
More informationIn a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the
The Flow of Argument Lecture 9 In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the central concept of validity. Visualizing syllogisms in terms of three-circle Venn diagrams gave us
More informationLogic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!
Logic Book Part 1 by Skylar Ruloff Contents Introduction 3 I Validity and Soundness 4 II Argument Forms 10 III Counterexamples and Categorical Statements 15 IV Strength and Cogency 21 2 Introduction This
More informationHANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13
1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the
More informationTheory of Knowledge Series
Online Free Resources Theory of Knowledge Series Ways of Knowing info@lanternaeducation.com www.lanternaeducation.com What are Ways of Knowing? Ways of Knowledge All knowledge comes from somewhere. Even
More informationWell, how are we supposed to know that Jesus performed miracles on earth? Pretty clearly, the answer is: on the basis of testimony.
Miracles Last time we were discussing the Incarnation, and in particular the question of how one might acquire sufficient evidence for it to be rational to believe that a human being, Jesus of Nazareth,
More information1 EVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
1 EVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE In this paper, we study something called corroborative evidence. A typical example would be a case where a witness saw the accused leaving a crime scene, and physical
More informationExperience and Foundationalism in Audi s The Architecture of Reason
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXVII, No. 1, July 2003 Experience and Foundationalism in Audi s The Architecture of Reason WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG Dartmouth College Robert Audi s The Architecture
More informationCommon Morality: Deciding What to Do 1
Common Morality: Deciding What to Do 1 By Bernard Gert (1934-2011) [Page 15] Analogy between Morality and Grammar Common morality is complex, but it is less complex than the grammar of a language. Just
More informationAppeal to Authority (Ad Verecundiam) An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Appeal to Authority (Ad Verecundiam) An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: 1) Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2) Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3)
More informationWhat should I believe? What should I believe when people disagree with me?
What should I believe? What should I believe when people disagree with me? Imagine that you are at a horse track with a friend. Two horses, Whitey and Blacky, are competing for the lead down the stretch.
More informationAre There Moral Facts
Are There Moral Facts Birkbeck Philosophy Study Guide 2016 Are There Moral Facts? Dr. Cristian Constantinescu & Prof. Hallvard Lillehammer Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College This Study Guide is
More informationHARE S PRESCRIPTIVISM
Michael Lacewing Prescriptivism Theories of what morality is fall into two broad families cognitivism and noncognitivism. The distinction is now understood by philosophers to depend on whether one thinks
More informationChapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics
Chapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics TRUE/FALSE 1. The statement "nearly all Americans believe that individual liberty should be respected" is a normative claim. F This is a statement about people's beliefs;
More informationA Warning about So-Called Rationalists
A Warning about So-Called Rationalists Mark F. Sharlow Have you ever heard of rationalism and rationalists? If so, have you wondered what these words mean? A rationalist is someone who believes that reason
More informationPHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen.
Introduction PHI 244 Welcome to PHI 244, About Stephen Texts Course Requirements Syllabus Points of Interest Website http://seschmid.org, http://seschmid.org/teaching Email Policy 1 2 Argument Worksheet
More informationIndian Philosophy Prof. Satya Sundar Sethy Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Indian Philosophy Prof. Satya Sundar Sethy Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module No. # 05 Lecture No. # 23 The Nyaya Philosophy Hello, today we will
More informationQuick Write # 11. Create a narrative for the following image
Welcome to class Quick Write # 11 Create a narrative for the following image Day 17 Agenda Quick Write # 11 Peer editing Review Autobiographical Narrative reading Book Club presentations Peer Editing
More informationThe University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethics.
Reply to Southwood, Kearns and Star, and Cullity Author(s): by John Broome Source: Ethics, Vol. 119, No. 1 (October 2008), pp. 96-108 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/592584.
More informationEthical non-naturalism
Michael Lacewing Ethical non-naturalism Ethical non-naturalism is usually understood as a form of cognitivist moral realism. So we first need to understand what cognitivism and moral realism is before
More informationPhysicalism and Conceptual Analysis * Esa Díaz-León.
Physicalism and Conceptual Analysis * Esa Díaz-León pip01ed@sheffield.ac.uk Physicalism is a widely held claim about the nature of the world. But, as it happens, it also has its detractors. The first step
More informationSelf-Evidence and A Priori Moral Knowledge
Self-Evidence and A Priori Moral Knowledge Colorado State University BIBLID [0873-626X (2012) 33; pp. 459-467] Abstract According to rationalists about moral knowledge, some moral truths are knowable a
More informationPHL340 Handout 8: Evaluating Dogmatism
PHL340 Handout 8: Evaluating Dogmatism 1 Dogmatism Last class we looked at Jim Pryor s paper on dogmatism about perceptual justification (for background on the notion of justification, see the handout
More informationAcademic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion.
ACADEMIC SKILLS THINKING CRITICALLY In the everyday sense of the word, critical has negative connotations. But at University, Critical Thinking is a positive process of understanding different points of
More informationCritical Thinking. The Four Big Steps. First example. I. Recognizing Arguments. The Nature of Basics
Critical Thinking The Very Basics (at least as I see them) Dona Warren Department of Philosophy The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point What You ll Learn Here I. How to recognize arguments II. How to
More informationIntroduction Questions to Ask in Judging Whether A Really Causes B
1 Introduction We live in an age when the boundaries between science and science fiction are becoming increasingly blurred. It sometimes seems that nothing is too strange to be true. How can we decide
More informationOn the alleged perversity of the evidential view of testimony
700 arnon keren On the alleged perversity of the evidential view of testimony ARNON KEREN 1. My wife tells me that it s raining, and as a result, I now have a reason to believe that it s raining. But what
More informationTheories of epistemic justification can be divided into two groups: internalist and
1 Internalism and externalism about justification Theories of epistemic justification can be divided into two groups: internalist and externalist. Internalist theories of justification say that whatever
More informationA Brief Introduction to Key Terms
1 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 5 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 1.1 Arguments Arguments crop up in conversations, political debates, lectures, editorials, comic strips, novels, television programs,
More informationKNOWLEDGE ON AFFECTIVE TRUST. Arnon Keren
Abstracta SPECIAL ISSUE VI, pp. 33 46, 2012 KNOWLEDGE ON AFFECTIVE TRUST Arnon Keren Epistemologists of testimony widely agree on the fact that our reliance on other people's testimony is extensive. However,
More informationSession Two. The Critical Thinker s Toolkit
Session Two The Critical Thinker s Toolkit Entailment and Strong Suggestion redux How can we distinguish entailment from strong suggestion? Ask yourself this: Is it possible for the statements in the
More informationWriting the Persuasive Essay
Writing the Persuasive Essay What is a persuasive/argument essay? In persuasive writing, a writer takes a position FOR or AGAINST an issue and writes to convince the reader to believe or do something Persuasive
More informationAsking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking M. Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley
Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking M. Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley A Decision Making and Support Systems Perspective by Richard Day M. Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley look to change
More informationEVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. Douglas Walton Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Canada
EVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE Douglas Walton Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Canada Chris Reed School of Computing, University of Dundee, UK In this paper, we study something called
More informationNecessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. i-ix, 379. ISBN $35.00.
Appeared in Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (2003), pp. 367-379. Scott Soames. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. i-ix, 379.
More informationPURITAN REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY CHAPTER SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF REASON FOR THE HOPE WITHIN SUBMITTED TO DR. JAMES GRIER
PURITAN REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY CHAPTER SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF REASON FOR THE HOPE WITHIN SUBMITTED TO DR. JAMES GRIER FOR INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETICS BY MICHAEL DEWALT GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
More informationEpistemic Responsibility in Science
Epistemic Responsibility in Science Haixin Dang had27@pitt.edu Social Epistemology Networking Event Oslo May 24, 2018 I Motivating the problem Examples: - Observation of Top Quark Production in p p Collisions
More informationKnowledge and Authority
Knowledge and Authority Epistemic authority Formally, epistemic authority is often expressed using expert principles, e.g. If you know that an expert believes P, then you should believe P The rough idea
More informationComments on Lasersohn
Comments on Lasersohn John MacFarlane September 29, 2006 I ll begin by saying a bit about Lasersohn s framework for relativist semantics and how it compares to the one I ve been recommending. I ll focus
More informationGet The Services of An Experienced Dentist
Get The Services of An Experienced Dentist Generally, we go see an experienced dentist when we wish to check out a problematic tooth. Do not think that it is very late, as it is surely not. An important
More informationA solution to the problem of hijacked experience
A solution to the problem of hijacked experience Jill is not sure what Jack s current mood is, but she fears that he is angry with her. Then Jack steps into the room. Jill gets a good look at his face.
More informationLogical (formal) fallacies
Fallacies in academic writing Chad Nilep There are many possible sources of fallacy an idea that is mistakenly thought to be true, even though it may be untrue in academic writing. The phrase logical fallacy
More informationThere are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds
More informationVol. II, No. 5, Reason, Truth and History, 127. LARS BERGSTRÖM
Croatian Journal of Philosophy Vol. II, No. 5, 2002 L. Bergström, Putnam on the Fact-Value Dichotomy 1 Putnam on the Fact-Value Dichotomy LARS BERGSTRÖM Stockholm University In Reason, Truth and History
More informationAyer s linguistic theory of the a priori
Ayer s linguistic theory of the a priori phil 43904 Jeff Speaks December 4, 2007 1 The problem of a priori knowledge....................... 1 2 Necessity and the a priori............................ 2
More informationAPPENDIX A CRITICAL THINKING MISTAKES
APPENDIX A CRITICAL THINKING MISTAKES Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking aimed at deciding what to believe and what to do. Throughout this book, we have identified mistakes that a
More informationPart II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments
Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments Week 4: Propositional Logic and Truth Tables Lecture 4.1: Introduction to deductive logic Deductive arguments = presented as being valid, and successful only
More informationOn Dogramaci. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2015 Vol. 4, No. 4,
Epistemic Evaluations: Consequences, Costs and Benefits Peter Graham, Zachary Bachman, Meredith McFadden and Megan Stotts University of California, Riverside It is our pleasure to contribute to a discussion
More informationPHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING
PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING By John Bloore Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy, written by John Wttersten, http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#h7 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905 1997) Known for Deductive-Nomological
More informationUnit 2. Spelling Most Common Words Root Words. Student Page. Most Common Words
1. the 2. of 3. and 4. a 5. to 6. in 7. is 8. you 9. that 10. it 11. he 12. for 13. was 14. on 15. are 16. as 17. with 18. his 19. they 20. at 21. be 22. this 23. from 24. I 25. have 26. or 27. by 28.
More informationAs noted, a deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. We have certainty with deductive arguments in
As noted, a deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. We have certainty with deductive arguments in that if the premises of the argument are true, then
More informationAfraid of the Dark: Nagel and Rationalizing the Fear of Death
Afraid of the Dark: Nagel and Rationalizing the Fear of Death T homas Nagel, in his article Death (1994) sets out to examine what it is about death that a person finds so objectionable. He begins by assigning
More informationCritical Thinking. What is critical thinking? Speaker: Frank Reed
Critical Thinking Speaker: Frank Reed If you looked at the text prior to starting this course, you may have noticed that Critical Thinking (CT) is not included. Our advisors here at IHCC want us to teach
More informationLecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).
TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument
More informationSkepticism and Internalism
Skepticism and Internalism John Greco Abstract: This paper explores a familiar skeptical problematic and considers some strategies for responding to it. Section 1 reconstructs and disambiguates the skeptical
More informationLogic Practice Test 1
Logic Practice Test 1 Name True or False 1. Implying is said to be analogous to hearing. 2. Opinions can be mistaken, but knowledge cannot. 3. According to the book, whatever a person thinks is true is
More informationINTRODUCTION. This week: Moore's response, Nozick's response, Reliablism's response, Externalism v. Internalism.
GENERAL PHILOSOPHY WEEK 2: KNOWLEDGE JONNY MCINTOSH INTRODUCTION Sceptical scenario arguments: 1. You cannot know that SCENARIO doesn't obtain. 2. If you cannot know that SCENARIO doesn't obtain, you cannot
More informationPerceptual Normativity and Accuracy. Richard Kenneth Atkins Presented at Central APA, 2011
Perceptual Normativity and Accuracy Richard Kenneth Atkins Presented at Central APA, 2011 ABSTRACT: The accuracy intuition that a perception is good if, and only if, it is accurate may be cashed out either
More informationPhilosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship WESTON. Arguments General Points. Arguments are sets of reasons in support of a conclusion.
WESTON 1 Arguments General Points Arguments are sets of reasons in support of a conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to support one's view, to seek the meaning or justification for a position or belief,
More informationEpistemic Akrasia. SOPHIE HOROWITZ Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NOÛS 00:0 (2013) 1 27 Epistemic Akrasia SOPHIE HOROWITZ Massachusetts Institute of Technology Many views rely on the idea that it can never be rational to have high confidence in something like, P, but
More informationShould We Assess the Basic Premises of an Argument for Truth or Acceptability?
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 2 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Should We Assess the Basic Premises of an Argument for Truth or Acceptability? Derek Allen
More informationA rule that guarantees the right solution to a problem. Usually by using a formula. They work but are sometimes impractical.
Trial and Error Characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success, or until the agent stops trying. Typically good for problems where you have multiple chances to get the correct
More informationRESPECTING THE EVIDENCE. Richard Feldman University of Rochester
Philosophical Perspectives, 19, Epistemology, 2005 RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE Richard Feldman University of Rochester It is widely thought that people do not in general need evidence about the reliability
More informationThe Concept of Testimony
Published in: Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement, Papers of the 34 th International Wittgenstein Symposium, ed. by Christoph Jäger and Winfried Löffler, Kirchberg am Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig
More informationKANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS. John Watling
KANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS John Watling Kant was an idealist. His idealism was in some ways, it is true, less extreme than that of Berkeley. He distinguished his own by calling
More informationReviewed by Joseph Williams, University of Chicago
Reviews The Art of Reasoning, David Kelley (New York: Norton, 1988,412 pages). Reviewed by Joseph Williams, University of Chicago Nothing is more useful than a well-written textbook that seems to layout
More informationLecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments
Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments 1 Agenda 1. Reductio Ad Absurdum 2. Burden of Proof 3. Argument by Analogy 4. Bad Forms of Arguments 1. Begging the Question
More information! Prep Writing Persuasive Essay
Prep Writing Persuasive Essay Purpose: The writer will learn how to effectively plan, draft, and compose a persuasive essay using the writing process. Objectives: The learner will: Demonstrate an understanding
More informationTHE TWO-DIMENSIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST MATERIALISM AND ITS SEMANTIC PREMISE
Diametros nr 29 (wrzesień 2011): 80-92 THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST MATERIALISM AND ITS SEMANTIC PREMISE Karol Polcyn 1. PRELIMINARIES Chalmers articulates his argument in terms of two-dimensional
More informationKNOWING AGAINST THE ODDS
KNOWING AGAINST THE ODDS Cian Dorr, Jeremy Goodman, and John Hawthorne 1 Here is a compelling principle concerning our knowledge of coin flips: FAIR COINS: If you know that a coin is fair, and for all
More informationNEGATIVE POSITION: Debate AICE: GP/Pavich
NEGATIVE POSITION: Debate AICE: GP/Pavich The FIRST STEP in your position as the Negative Team is to analyze the PROPOSITION proposed by the Affirmative Team, since this statement is open to interpretation
More informationEPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CRITICAL THINKING ANAND JAYPRAKASH VAIDYA
bs_bs_banner METAPHILOSOPHY Vol. 44, No. 4, July 2013 0026-1068 EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CRITICAL THINKING ANAND JAYPRAKASH VAIDYA Abstract: Should we always engage in critical thinking about issues
More informationAgainst "Sensible" Naturalism (2007)
Against "Sensible" Naturalism (2007) by Alvin Plantinga In the present work, Alvin Plantinga responds to the worry that P(R/N&E), or the probability that our belief-forming mechanism is reliable given
More informationTruth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Truth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011. According to Luis de Molina, God knows what each and every possible human would
More informationFinal Paper. May 13, 2015
24.221 Final Paper May 13, 2015 Determinism states the following: given the state of the universe at time t 0, denoted S 0, and the conjunction of the laws of nature, L, the state of the universe S at
More informationInductive Inference and Paradigms. What are the assumptions?
Inductive Inference and Paradigms What are the assumptions? What is inference? The process of forming a belief (conclusion), on the basis of evidence (or data, or premises) is called an inference. Some
More informationHANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
More informationSmoking. NWO Symposium Saturday, November 19, 2016 BGSU. Zalman Usiskin. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project
NWO Symposium Saturday, November 19, 2016 BGSU TITLE: How does one decide what to believe when one is not an expert? ABSTRACT: We will present studies about how people judge authority to make decisions
More informationWhat Makes Someone s Life Go Best from Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit (1984)
What Makes Someone s Life Go Best from Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit (1984) What would be best for someone, or would be most in this person's interests, or would make this person's life go, for him,
More informationRussellianism and Explanation. David Braun. University of Rochester
Forthcoming in Philosophical Perspectives 15 (2001) Russellianism and Explanation David Braun University of Rochester Russellianism is a semantic theory that entails that sentences (1) and (2) express
More informationIn defence of an argument for Evans s principle: a rejoinder to Vahid
In defence of an argument for Evans s principle: a rejoinder to Vahid JOHN N. WILLIAMS In (2004) I gave an argument for Evans s principle: namely: Whatever justifies me in believing that p also justifies
More informationComing to Believe. Nicholas Koziolek August 26, 2016
Coming to Believe Nicholas Koziolek August 26, 2016 Abstract This essay develops and defends a view of belief on which the rationality of a belief is generally to be explained, at least in part, by a past
More informationPhilosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity
Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider
More informationCommentary on Descartes' Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy *
OpenStax-CNX module: m18416 1 Commentary on Descartes' Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy * Mark Xiornik Rozen Pettinelli This work is produced by OpenStax-CNX and licensed under the
More informationFoundationalism Vs. Skepticism: The Greater Philosophical Ideology
1. Introduction Ryan C. Smith Philosophy 125W- Final Paper April 24, 2010 Foundationalism Vs. Skepticism: The Greater Philosophical Ideology Throughout this paper, the goal will be to accomplish three
More informationA Priori Bootstrapping
A Priori Bootstrapping Ralph Wedgwood In this essay, I shall explore the problems that are raised by a certain traditional sceptical paradox. My conclusion, at the end of this essay, will be that the most
More informationHANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
More informationThere are a number of writing problems that occur frequently enough to deserve special mention here:
1. Overview: A. What is an essay? The primary focus of an essay is to explain and clarify your understanding of and opinion about a particular topic, much like an editorial or essay article in a newspaper
More informationCriticizing Arguments
Kareem Khalifa Criticizing Arguments 1 Criticizing Arguments Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College Written August, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Step 1: Initial Evaluation
More information