INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE."

Transcription

1 INDUCTION John Stuart Mill wrote the first comprehensive study of inductive logic. Deduction had been studied extensively since ancient times, but induction had to wait until the 19 th century! The cartoon above illustrates Mill s dedication to using philosophy to improve the lives of people, but it leaves out one of Mill s most passionate causes full political equality for women! In an inductive argument, the relationship claimed to exist between the truth of the premises and the truth of the conclusion is probability, not certainty. Example: Most Greeks drink wine. Socrates is a Greek. Therefore, probably, Socrates drinks wine In this argument, the truth of the premises could make the truth of the conclusion likely, but not certain. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. This principle stipulates that well-established patterns observed in the past will persist in the present and future. Therefore, the past can be used to predict what will happen in the near and remote future. Without this assumption, it would be impossible to learn from experience, and therefore neither science nor common sense would be possible. The conclusion of an inductive argument should normally be modified by such words as probably, or it is likely. But sometimes we treat highly probable conclusions as if they were certain. For example, your conclusion that a speeding bus would kill you if you stepped in front of it, is based on patterns observed in the past, and therefore inductive. But would you normally feel compelled to treat it merely as a probable conclusion?

2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMISES & CONCLUSION The logical form of an inductive argument may help illustrate what the argument is trying to accomplish, but it will not show whether the premises and conclusion are properly connected. If the truth of the premises would succeed in making the truth of the conclusion probable in the manner claimed, the relationship is called STRONG (not valid. ). Remember, induction is an attempt to apply the idea of the Uniformity of Nature. Therefore, the common sense rule of induction is that we want as close a match as possible between the evidence we present in the premises, and what we predict in the conclusion. All other criteria for judging inductive arguments are an elaboration of this rule. Here is a summary of the differences between deductive validity and inductive strength. DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY Relationship of certainty All or nothing Logical form is crucial Content is irrelevant INDUCTIVE STRENGTH Relationship of probability Matter of degree Logical form is not decisive Content is crucial CONTRAST DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Consider this valid, deductive argument. All people are mortal. Socrates is a person. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The diagram illustrates that if everything in the set of all people has the property of being mortal, and Socrates is in that set, then he must have that property. We don t need to ADD anything to the diagram, once the premises have been represented. The conclusion is already logically contained by the premises.

3 This is NEVER the case for an inductive argument. We say the conclusion of an inductive argument runs ahead of the premises. In the premises, we are stating the consistent patterns we have observed. In the conclusion, we are predicting things we have not yet observed. Obviously, we want our prediction to be as good a match as possible the patterns we have observed. The closer the match, the stronger the argument. The more flimsy the match, the weaker the argument. Example ~ When a meteorologist predicts a 30% chance of rain, s/he is saying that in 30% of the times we have observed conditions like those we have today, rain has also occurred. Is rain a certainty? No. Is there a likelihood, based on past experience? Yes. TYPES OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS There are many flavors of inductive arguments, but we will examine only two very basic types. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION moves from an observation of some members of a set (a sample) to a prediction about the entire set (a population). Two Examples ~ All the swans I observed were white. I have heard of no exceptions. Therefore, I conclude that probably all swans are white. Most of the swans I observed were white. I have heard of few exceptions. Therefore, I conclude that probably most swans are white. Logical Form = All (or most) observed X have property Y. No (or few) exceptions are known Therefore, (probably) All (or most) X have property Y.

4 Some definitions ~ Generalization = a conclusion about an entire group. Population = the group about which you are generalizing. Sample = the subset of the population you have actually been able to observe. INDUCTIVE ANALOGY An analogy is a comparison. Inductive analogies move: from an observation that an individual resembles some members of a set in regard to particular properties, to a prediction that the individual will resemble those same members as regards other properties. Example ~ Emily, Adrienne, Iris, Alicia, Tori are all swans, all bug-eaters, all female, all white, all migratory. Jennifer is a swan, eats bugs, is female, is white. Therefore, I predict that Jennifer is probably migratory. Logical Form = A, B, C, D, E, all have properties V, W, X, Y, Z. N has properties V, W, X, Y Therefore (probably) N also has property Z.

5 NOTE: The easiest way to distinguish these two forms is to look at the conclusion. In an inductive generalization, the conclusion will be about an entire population. In an inductive analogy, the conclusion will be about an individual. CHECK YOURSELF 1. Why do we never use the words valid or sound to describe inductive arguments? 2. What is the principle of the uniformity of nature? 3. What do we mean when we say an inductive argument is strong or weak? Answers: 1. Validity is a relationship of certainty between the premises and conclusion. In inductive arguments, we never have certainty. To be sound, an argument must be valid and have all true premises. Since inductive arguments cannot be valid, they cannot be sound. 2. Well-established patterns observed in the past will persist in the present and future. Therefore, we can learn from experience in a way that allows us to make reasonable (not certain) predictions about the present and the future. 3. Strong and weak refer to the relationship between the premises and conclusion in an inductive argument. An inductive argument is strong if we have drawn an appropriate conclusion based on our premises, and there is a consistency between what we observed and what we predict. CONFIDENT? READ ON. NOT CONFIDENT? REVIEW!

6 EVALUATING INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - SIX CRITERIA Clearly, inductive reasoning can go wrong. We need criteria for evaluating inductive arguments. We cannot use the same criteria we use for deduction, since we are looking for a different kind of relationship. This next section provides a checklist for evaluating inductive reasoning. CHECK LIST FOR INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS 1. Are the premises true? We normally do not care what follows from false premises, whether we are reasoning deductively or inductively. We need to check the facts, do the math, and get the premises right to the best of our ability. 2. How broad is the sample? The variety in the sample should be a good match for the variety in the population. How narrow is the sample? A sample may be broad in some ways, but narrow in others. Suppose I was given a research grant to study the plumage of all swans. I do my research, and conclude: All the swans I observed were white. I have heard of no exceptions. Therefore, I conclude that probably all swans are white. Now suppose I realize that ALL the swans I observed (my entire sample) were male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, and vegetarian. Oops. My population all swans may contain female or ungendered swans, many age groups, swans from other continents and other habitats, and who eat different diets. Any of this could potentially affect the

7 color of their plumage. My sample in NOT a good match for the population, and so I do not have a strong argument. Applying the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, I have observed patterns only in a sub-group (male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, and vegetarian.) If I try to draw conclusions about ALL swans, my conclusion is running miles ahead of my evidence! Now suppose I do additional research, and include in my sample both male and female swans, and swans of different ages. Is the argument better than it was before? Yes. Does it still have serious weaknesses? Yes. Remember, inductive strength is a matter of degree, and the same argument may be strong in some ways, but weak in others. 3. How big is the sample? Increasing sample size may help if the added numbers make the variety in the sample a better match for the variety in the population. Suppose I have only observed 100 swans. If I go out and observe 1,000 more swans, that may mean I have a better chance of getting a sample that has the same variety as the population. It is not quite that simple, though. What if observe 1,000 more swans, but the 1,000 additional swans are all male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, and vegetarian? My sample is bigger, but not better! 4. How sweeping and confident is the conclusion? The more sweeping or confident, the better the evidence needs to be. Suppose I am unable to do any more research on swans. Since I cannot add to my observations, I can alter my conclusion to make it a better match, by making it less sweeping or less confident. Sweeping = how big a group do we include? If I restricted my conclusion to the plumage of male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, vegetarian swans (instead of ALL swans,) my sample would be a much better match! Confident = how strong a connection do I claim exists between my evidence and my conclusion. Instead of concluding Probably, all swans are white, I could conclude something like We have some initial evidence to suspect swans may generally be white, but more research is needed. The tentative, less confident wording of the conclusion makes the conclusion a better match for the actual evidence. 5. Have we made a conscientious effort to examine all the relevant evidence? Unless we are omniscient, we cannot be sure we have examined all the relevant evidence. (Of course, if we were omniscient, why would we need induction?) We can, however, make a conscientious effort. If someone making an inductive argument has clearly omitted important sources of evidence, the premises become suspect!

8 For example, did I look at scientific journals, and reputable scientific web sites, to see what others had observed? If not, I may have missed important data! No, actually I have never met Natalie Portman. 6. For an analogy, have looked at the whole pattern, weighing significant similarities against significant differences? Earlier, we used this example of an inductive analogy. Emily, Adrienne, Iris, Alicia, Tori are all swans, all bug-eaters, all female, all white, all migratory. Jennifer is a swan, eats bugs, is female, is white. Therefore, I predict that Jennifer is probably migratory. We saw a pattern of similarity between the individual (Jennifer) and the group described in the first premise. What if we also saw a pattern of differences? For example ~ What if Jennifer is an Australian swan, and the others are North American swans? What if Jennifer is 10 years old, and the others are all 2 years old? What if the others live in a flock, and Jennifer is a solitary swan? If the pattern of difference is as strong, or stronger than the pattern of similarity, then the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature does not support predicting Jennifer is migratory. You must weigh the pattern of similarity against the pattern of differences to draw your conclusion. READY FOR PRACTICE EXERCISES? PART ONE: Answer TRUE or FALSE, and give a FULL EXPLANATION of your answer. Define important terms as part of your explanation. 1. If an inductive argument is strong, it can still have a false conclusion. 2. A good inductive argument must have true premises, and be valid. 3. If an inductive argument has true premises and a true conclusion, then it is strong.

9 ANSWERS ~ 1. True. In induction, the truth of the conclusion is NEVER guaranteed. 2. False. We do want true premises, but if the form is valid, then by definition we are looking at a deductive argument, not an inductive argument. 3. False. Strong refers to the relationship between the premises and conclusion. You may have true premises and a true conclusion, but they may not be properly related to one another. PART TWO: Choose the one best answer, and defend your choice. Most of the Hindus I have known have been vegetarians. Gupta is a Hindu. I d bet he s a vegetarian. 1. This argument is an example of: a. Inductive generalization. b. Inductive analogy. 2. If we conducted our observations only in vegetarian restaurants, that would make our conclusion: a. Weaker, because the sample is more narrow. b. Weaker, because the sample is more broad. c. Stronger, because the sample is more narrow. d. Stronger, because the sample is more broad. 3. If all the Hindus we observed to be vegetarians also came from the same area as Gupta and worshipped at the same temple as Gupta, that would make the argument: a. Weaker, because the sample has more in common with Gupta. b. Weaker, because the sample is more narrow. c. Stronger, because the sample has more in common with Gupta. d. Stronger, because the sample is more broad. ANSWERS ~ 1. b, inductive analogy. The conclusion is about an individual (Gupta,) not a group.

10 2. a, weaker because the sample is too narrow. You are likely to find vegetarians at a vegetarian restaurant, regardless of whether they are Hindu, Catholic, Atheist or whatever. 3. c, stronger because the sample has more in common with Gupta. Remember, in an inductive analogy, the greater the pattern of resemblance, the stronger the argument. CONFIDENT? IF YES, THEN DO THE EXERCISES BELOW. IF NO, THEN REVIEW THE MATERIAL, AND FEEL FREE TO ME WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. Do these exercises, 1-5. For #1 & #2, answer true or false and explain your answer. Be sure to define key terms in your explanation. 1. Making the sample bigger will always make an inductive generalization stronger. 2. A strong inductive argument must have a highly probable conclusion. For # 3 - #5, choose the one best answer, and explain your answer 3. Most of the students, who I know personally, refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Yusif is also a student. Therefore, I d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from partying before exams. This argument above (#3) is an example of: a) invalid deductive reasoning. b) inductive analogy.

11 c) inductive generalization.. 4. Most of the students, who I know personally, refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Yusif is also a student. Therefore, I d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from partying before exams. If most of the students I know were from Chicago, that would make the argument: a) stronger, because the sample is more narrow. b) weaker, because the sample is more narrow. c) stronger, because the sample is more broad. d) weaker, because the sample is more broad. 5. Most of the students I know personally refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Yusif is also a student. Therefore, I d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from partying before exams. Suppose most of the students I know were from Chicago, were Muslims, and were younger than 25 years old. If Yusif is also from Chicago, a Muslim, and younger than 25 years old, that would make the argument: a) weaker because the sample is smaller. b) weaker, because the sample is like Yusif. c) stronger, because the sample is more like Yusif. d) stronger, because the sample is more broad. 6. Most of the students, who I know personally, including Yusif, refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Therefore, I d guess that probably most students refrain from partying before exams. This argument above (#6) is an example of: d) invalid deductive reasoning. e) inductive analogy. f) inductive generalization. DONE? CONGRATULATIONS! NOW, GO ON TO THE INFORMAL LOGIC MATERIAL

12 As Plato said, INFORMAL LOGIC Informal Logic gets its name from the fact that logical form is not usually a crucial factor. Informal In this context does not mean casual or not rigorous. We will look at just a few topics, especially informal fallacies. What is an Informal Fallacy? Fallacy = A consistently misleading type of argument. Informal = logical form alone will not reveal the problem Sophists, political spin doctors, and others may use informal fallacies to fight dirty in an argument. Bad logic can sometimes persuade the unwary! Here are some examples. Circular Reasoning The conclusion is somehow concealed in the premises, often through ambiguity, and the conclusion is merely derived from itself. Examples: Raj: The Book of Gertrude says it is the word of God. Rahul: But why believe that?

13 Raj: Because everything in the book of Gertrude is true! Rahul: How do you know that? Raj: Because it must be true, since it is the word of God. Equivocation Key words or phrases are used in different senses (with different meanings) within the same argument, in order to confuse the issue and make a bad argument look good. Example: Might makes right, since after all, morality dictates that better men should prevail. If the losers had been better men, they would not have lost. When the mighty conquer the weak, it is clearly a case of good men triumphing over men who are not as good. What could be more morally desirable? This was a favorite in Nazi propaganda. The ambiguity is in the normative terms, such as good, better, superior. These can refer to practical skills, such as fighting, rather than moral virtues. As Aristotle said, if I say a man is a good thief, I am not saying he is a good man; I am saying he is good AT something. (Presumably, he may also be a jerk.) Appeals to Emotion Attempts to make bad reasoning seem persuasive through emotional manipulation. Although sentiment may have a proper role in some decisions, it is useless for evaluating factual or logical claims. Some common varieties of this fallacy include: Appeal to fear/force: If you don t buy my product, no one will like you. If you question my faith, you ll burn in hell. If you don t vote for my candidate (fill in the disaster) will happen!

14 Don t eat chemicals! (Reality check: Do you plan to live without H2O?) Appeal to pity: How can you question my word, after all I ve been through? Ad Hominem (attacking the person, instead of refuting the argument): How can you support the economic proposals of an atheist? I can t vote for him; he s ugly and his momma dresses him funny! You disagree with me? You must be a paid shill for the bad guys! Guilt by Association: He s a Muslim? You mean, like those terrorists? He s a Catholic? You mean, like those pedophiles? He s a Baptist? You mean, like those thugs who disrupt funerals? Flattery: I know you ll agree, because you are decent, intelligent people. Guilt-tripping: You are calling me a liar, after all I ve done for you? Speaking of guilt by association, give me a break! I can t help who I resemble! Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Also Known as false cause or classic superstition. This one can be subtle or obvious. It consists of assuming that if one event follows another, the first event caused the second event. Often, this belief is complicated by fear or bias, and hard to dislodge with facts. Examples: 1. Aid workers show up in remote villages around the same time that the villages begin experiencing ebola-related deaths. The villagers conclude the aid workers must be causing the deaths, and in some cases kill the aid workers out of fear. 2. Politicians claim that they have caused events that occurred while they were in office, such as falling crime rates or economic good times. In many cases, these events were the result of many, complex factors, and not the accomplishment of the incumbent. 3. A person catches cold, and takes a miracle remedy that has never been clinically tested. In a week to

15 ten days, the cold is gone. It would have run its course in a week to ten days anyway, but the recovered person insists it was the remedy that brought about the cure. 4. Consider, if you change the definition of tall from 6 and over to 5 5 and over, far more people would be classified as tall. That would not be due to a sudden, collective growth spurt, but to a change in the meaning of the word. Likewise, Autism was originally a rare diagnosis, considered a subset of pediatric schizophrenia. In recent decades, the diagnostic category has been greatly expanded, to include a broad spectrum of neuropsychological challenges, from very mild to severe. Popular media has responded with sensationalized stories about an epidemic of autism, blamed on everything from vaccines, to video games, TV, Rap music, and God s wrath for not persecuting LGBT. Slippery Slope Arguing, without good evidence, that one step in a certain direction will irresistibly lead to extreme consequences. Examples: If you let your daughter start wearing any makeup in middle school, she will become a harlot in no time! If you let your kids play with toy guns, they will be on the evening news one day, massacring people! If you let the government regulate toxic waste disposal, soon the government will take over all industry, and we will all end up in concentration camps. If the government can arrest parents whose children died when the parents refused medical care in favor of faith-healing or naturopathic remedies, then soon the government will control the churches and the family will be abolished. Definist Fallacy Changing the meaning of a term to promote your position. This is not exactly the same as Equivocation, since it does not use the same word in different ways within the same argument. Examples: 1. People sometimes defend selfishness by saying that everyone has a right to pursue one s own selfinterest. The fallacy is that selfishness and self-interest are not synonyms. Self-interest means you care about yourself, which is quite compatible with caring about others. Selfish implies you have no regard for others, and therefore makes you unaccountable for what harm you may do. 2. If your criticism of my religion makes me troubled and afraid, then you are a terrorist. Unless you are advocating or threatening violence, you are not a terrorist. Freedom of thought does not imply immunity from criticism! A Vatican newspaper in 2007 committed this fallacy when it called a comedian a terrorist for making jokes about the Pope. 3. The Naturalistic Fallacy is a variety of the definist fallacy. A very common form of this fallacy consists of treating the word natural as a synonym for good. Smallpox is natural, so is a high rate of infantile mortality, and as well as occasional asteroid impacts. That does not mean they are desirable. Unnatural things, such as emergency surgery, the internet, and anger management, are not necessarily undesirable. Clickbait & Derp Social media is saturated with examples. Typically, a sensationalized headline appears with a link (clickbait) to a site that presents derp (fabricated, misrepresented, over-simplified or otherwise unreliable claims.) Examples: 1. Need an example? Click here, and you won t BELIEVE what happens! (gotcha!)

16 2. Ginger cures cancer better than chemotherapy! (Usually followed by an offer to sell supplements. ) A University of Michigan study suggested that the anti-inflammatory properties of ginger may be useful in slowing the progress of some cancers (there are actually many types) in some organs, but that these results were preliminary and needed further study. Immediately, disreputable sources were crowing that ginger cures cancer. Not even close to what the study suggested, but more dramatic. This is a common pattern scientists make a hypothesis, and social media misrepresents this as a recent study proves Errors of Omission Important information is left out, often deliberately, to promote a particular interpretation or conclusion. Example: A recent article posted via Facebook insisted that quanta (in physics, discrete bundles in which radiation and other forms of energy occur) must be conscious, since they will not transform while being observed. An engineer friend of mine wearily commented that in this context, observed means bombarded with lasers. (And you thought they were just shy?) Bogus Appeal to Authority Citing someone whose credentials are dubious, or someone who is an expert in a non-related topic. Often, the attributed quotations are distorted or fabricated. Examples: 1. Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying that if bees go extinct, humans would go extinct shortly thereafter. Actually, Einstein was an expert in mathematics and astrophysics, and did not pen any warnings about insects or ecology, both of which were not his areas of expertise. 2. So many New Age memes offer fabricated quotations attributed to Buddha, that a Buddhist monk created a web site called, Buddha Never Said That! ( 3. Dunning-Krueger Effect. Wikipedia defines: The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. This often involves echo chamber effects, in which a person communicates primarily or only with like-minded people, strengthening the illusion by avoiding counter-evidence, and cultivating an us vs. them mentality. Cherry Picking/Loading the Case

17 Giving undue weight to supposed evidence that supports a foregone conclusion, while omitting or dismissing contrary evidence. This often means taking unsubstantiated anecdotes as evidence, while dismissing thorough, scientific research. Examples: 1. People who argue that one religious tradition is better/worse than another, usually choose examples of their preferred tradition at its best, and the other tradition at its worst. This is often an excuse for intolerance, or for imperialism/colonialism. 2. Many people want to cherry pick science. They will accept scientific consensus only when it agrees with their politics or biases. Common examples? Global warming, evolution, GMO safety, vaccines. Science is a method of investigating, testing, and mathematically connecting how the physical universe works. What we want to believe is irrelevant. Other Topics in Informal Logic There s more to informal logic than fallacies! Semantic Dispute This is a situation in which there is no real disagreement, but people are misled into thinking there is a problem. They are misled because important terms are unclear. Clarification would make the dispute evaporate. Yank: Brit: Yank: Brit: Yank: Football should be an Olympic event. What are you talking about? It already is! No way! If it were, we d be winning. It s practically our national sport. Go on! You were eliminated early from the World Cup competition. Oh, wait a minute I don t think we re talking about the same sport. What you call football, we call soccer. And what we call football is rarely played in Europe. Sorites Paradox This is a problem that arises when we are trying to make a decision about where to draw the line between two opposites. There may be no clear and natural place to draw the line, but circumstances require we do so anyway. The paradox cannot be resolved by observing physical facts more closely, because it is a conceptual problem. A prudent way to overcome the problem is to ask why we need to draw the line. Usually, we have some specific, secondary purpose we are trying to serve. Our decisions should therefore serve those secondary purposes as well as possible, since there is no other reason for drawing the line in the first place. Think about these examples: Consider when and why we have to draw the line between such opposites as guilty/innocent, normal/abnormal, sane/insane, alive/dead, liable/not liable, person/non-person. How do such distinctions affect our attitudes toward important subjects, such as abortion, passive euthanasia, psychiatric policy, animal rights/welfare, and criminal law? Reductio Ad Absurdum

18 Literally, reduce to absurdity. This is one of the main argumentative strategies used by philosophers. You attempt to show that the logical consequences of some position are contradictory, or otherwise unacceptable. A Classic Example: The Cretan said, Anything a Cretan says, is a lie. Objection: If that were so, his own statement, Anything a Cretan says, is a lie, would be a lie. So, if what he said is true, then what he said is false. But that is self-contradictory, and so it s obviously not true. The Skeptical Loop: Sophist: We don t know anything! (Example loosely based on Aristotle s Sophistic Refutations.) Aristotle: If that statement were true, how could you possibly know it to be true? Sophist: Because all the facts from physics and psychology show we don t know anything! Aristotle: How can there be facts from physics or psychology if we know nothing? Any reasons you give for believing this would be disqualified if you can know nothing. Sophist Okay, then. I don t know that we don t know anything! Aristotle: So you have abandoned the position and have no reasons for accepting it to begin with? If you say anything in reply, I ve got you! You get the picture? Now, let s have some fun with this! Watch the two linked videos the Handouts page, Love is a Fallacy and Political Illogic.

INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. INDUCTION John Stuart Mill wrote the first comprehensive study of inductive logic. Deduction had been studied extensively since ancient times, but induction had to wait until the 19 th century! The cartoon

More information

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one?

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument Vs Persuasion Everything s an argument, really. Argument: appeals strictly by reason and logic Persuasion: logic and emotion The forum of your argument

More information

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S 14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S 1. Demonstrate the importance of ethics as part of the persuasion process. 2. Identify and provide examples of eight common

More information

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me?

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Page 1 of 10 10b Learn how to evaluate verbal and visual arguments. Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Download transcript Three common ways to

More information

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions National Qualifications 06 06 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 06 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only

More information

Fallacies. Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Fallacies. Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. Fallacies 1. Hasty generalization Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes about

More information

1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS I. LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION 1 A. LOGIC 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. 3. It doesn t attempt to determine how people in fact reason. 4.

More information

CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE. What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior.

CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE. What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior. Logos Ethos Pathos Chapter 13 CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior. Persuasive speaking: process of doing so in

More information

Logical (formal) fallacies

Logical (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 information

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those

More information

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

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 information

Lecture 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 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

3.2: FAULTY REASONING AND PROPAGANDA. Ms. Hargen

3.2: FAULTY REASONING AND PROPAGANDA. Ms. Hargen 3.2: FAULTY REASONING AND PROPAGANDA Ms. Hargen PROPAGANDA Persuasion that deliberately discourages people from thinking for themselves. It relies on one-sided or distorted arguments. HASTY GENERALIZATION

More information

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference 1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of

More information

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this.

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which translates as after this, therefore because of this. So what do fallacies look like? For each fallacy listed, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip on how to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments. Hasty generalization Definition:

More information

Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion.

Academic 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 information

Let s explore a controversial topic DHMO. (aka Dihydrogen monoxide)

Let s explore a controversial topic DHMO. (aka Dihydrogen monoxide) Let s explore a controversial topic DHMO (aka Dihydrogen monoxide) DHMO.org Dihydrogen-monoxide (Transtronics site) Coalition to Ban DHMO Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide! DHMO Chemical Danger Alert - The Horror

More information

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7 Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments

More information

Introduction Questions to Ask in Judging Whether A Really Causes B

Introduction 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 information

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING 1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process

More information

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion

More information

Arguments. 1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),

Arguments. 1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand), Doc Holley s Logical Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise

More information

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument ARGUMENT Questions for Critically Reading an Argument What claims does the writer make? What kinds and quality of evidence does the writer provide to support the claim? What assumptions underlie the argument,

More information

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of:

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of: Logical Fallacies Continuing our foray into the world of Argument Courtesy of: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html What is Fallacy? Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. First,

More information

Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics

Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics 2012 Cengage Learning All Rights reserved Learning Outcomes LO 1 Explain how important moral reasoning is and how to apply it. LO 2 Explain the difference between facts

More information

APPENDIX A CRITICAL THINKING MISTAKES

APPENDIX 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 information

Critical Thinking: Present, Past and Future 5 April, 2015

Critical Thinking: Present, Past and Future 5 April, 2015 Critical Thinking: Present, Past and Future 5 April, 2015 V1 1 Critical Thinking: Present, Past & Future Milo Schield Augsburg College April 5, 2015 St. Paul Critical Thinking Club www.statlit.org/pdf/2015-schield-ctc-slides1.pdf

More information

There are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.

There 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 information

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker. Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.

More information

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope Fallacies in logic Hasty Generalization Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes

More information

AN OUTLINE OF CRITICAL THINKING

AN OUTLINE OF CRITICAL THINKING AN OUTLINE OF CRITICAL THINKING LEVELS OF INQUIRY 1. Information: correct understanding of basic information. 2. Understanding basic ideas: correct understanding of the basic meaning of key ideas. 3. Probing:

More information

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies 1 Learning Outcomes In this lesson we will: 1.Define logical fallacy using the SEE-I. 2.Understand and apply the concept of relevance. 3.Define,

More information

Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals

Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals Argument and Persuasion Stating Opinions and Proposals The Method It all starts with an opinion - something that people can agree or disagree with. The Method Move to action Speak your mind Convince someone

More information

Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments

Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous

More information

Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI

Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI Precising definition Theoretical definition Persuasive definition Syntactic definition Operational definition 1. Are questions about defining a phrase

More information

Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

Lecture 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 information

PHI 1700: Global Ethics

PHI 1700: Global Ethics PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 3 February 11th, 2016 Harman, Ethics and Observation 1 (finishing up our All About Arguments discussion) A common theme linking many of the fallacies we covered is that

More information

A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

A 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 information

[JGRChJ 9 (2013) R28-R32] BOOK REVIEW

[JGRChJ 9 (2013) R28-R32] BOOK REVIEW [JGRChJ 9 (2013) R28-R32] BOOK REVIEW Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011). xxxviii + 1172 pp. Hbk. US$59.99. Craig Keener

More information

Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test

Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test In the Introduction, I stated that the basic underlying problem with forensic doctors is so easy to understand that even a twelve-year-old could understand

More information

National Quali cations

National Quali cations H SPECIMEN S85/76/ National Qualications ONLY Philosophy Paper Date Not applicable Duration hour 5 minutes Total marks 50 SECTION ARGUMENTS IN ACTION 30 marks Attempt ALL questions. SECTION KNOWLEDGE AND

More information

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this? What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.

More information

Quick Write # 11. Create a narrative for the following image

Quick 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 information

MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic

MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic Making and Refuting Arguments Steps of an Argument You make a claim The conclusion of your

More information

II Plenary discussion of Expertise and the Global Warming debate.

II Plenary discussion of Expertise and the Global Warming debate. Thinking Straight Critical Reasoning WS 9-1 May 27, 2008 I. A. (Individually ) review and mark the answers for the assignment given on the last pages: (two points each for reconstruction and evaluation,

More information

Fallacies. It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your. The Writing Center

Fallacies. It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your. The Writing Center The Writing Center Fallacies Like 40 people like this. What this handout is about This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The

More information

Reading and Evaluating Arguments

Reading and Evaluating Arguments Reading and Evaluating Arguments Learning Objectives: To recognize the elements of an argument To recognize types of arguments To evaluate arguments To recognize errors in logical reasoning An argument

More information

Logical Fallacies RHETORICAL APPEALS

Logical Fallacies RHETORICAL APPEALS Logical Fallacies RHETORICAL APPEALS Rhetorical Appeals Ethos Appeals to credibility Pathos Appeals to emotion Logos Appeals to logic Structure of an Analysis/Argument Arguments operate under logic Your

More information

Practice Test Three Spring True or False True = A, False = B

Practice Test Three Spring True or False True = A, False = B Practice Test Three Spring 2015 True or False True = A, False = B 1. A sound argument is a valid deductive argument with true premisses. 2. A conclusion is a statement of support. 3. An easy way to determine

More information

A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo

A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo "Education is nothing more nor less than learning to think." Peter Facione In this article I review the historical evolution of principles and

More information

What is rationality? (Paper presented by Tim Harding at Mordi Skeptics meetup, 1 February 2011)

What is rationality? (Paper presented by Tim Harding at Mordi Skeptics meetup, 1 February 2011) 1 What is rationality? (Paper presented by Tim Harding at Mordi Skeptics meetup, 1 February 2011) What do we skeptics mean when we say that a belief is irrational? How do we define rationality and irrationality?

More information

TEACHING ASSISTANTS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING Spring 2015

TEACHING ASSISTANTS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING Spring 2015 TEACHING ASSISTANTS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCHOOL OF SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING Spring 2015 THINKING CRITICALLY Aziza Ellozy, Founding Director, CLT Associate Dean for Learning Technologies Hoda

More information

Philosophy 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 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 information

Presuppositional Apologetics

Presuppositional Apologetics by John M. Frame [, for IVP Dictionary of Apologetics.] 1. Presupposing God in Apologetic Argument Presuppositional apologetics may be understood in the light of a distinction common in epistemology, or

More information

Argument Writing. Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job

Argument Writing. Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job Argument Writing Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job promotion as well as political and personal decision-making

More information

Asking 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 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 information

Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading

Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading Developed by Jamie A. Hughes, South Campus Learning Center, Communications Lab 04-25-05 Permission to copy and use is granted to all FCCJ staff provided this

More information

2017 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

2017 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions National Qualifications 07 07 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 07 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only

More information

This document consists of 10 printed pages.

This document consists of 10 printed pages. Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Level THINKING SKILLS 9694/43 Paper 4 Applied Reasoning MARK SCHEME imum Mark: 50 Published This mark scheme is published as an aid

More information

Full file at

Full file at Chapter 1 What is Philosophy? Summary Chapter 1 introduces students to main issues and branches of philosophy. The chapter begins with a basic definition of philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, and addresses

More information

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers Diagram and evaluate each of the following arguments. Arguments with Definitional Premises Altruism. Altruism is the practice of doing something solely because

More information

Common Logical Fallacies

Common Logical Fallacies Common Logical Fallacies Effective arguments rely on logic and facts for support, yet speakers and authors, whether intentionally or unintentionally, can mislead an audience with a flaw in reasoning. Readers

More information

Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade

Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade by Dr. John R. Edlund, Cal Poly Pomona Over 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that there were three basic ways to persuade an audience

More information

LOGIC. Inductive Reasoning. Wednesday, April 20, 16

LOGIC. Inductive Reasoning. Wednesday, April 20, 16 LOGIC Inductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning Arguments reason from the specific to the general. It is important because this reasoning is based on what we learn from our experiences. Specific observations

More information

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions Handout 1 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions In our day to day lives, we find ourselves arguing with other people. Sometimes we want someone to do or accept something as true

More information

Understanding Truth Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002

Understanding Truth Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002 1 Symposium on Understanding Truth By Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002 2 Precis of Understanding Truth Scott Soames Understanding Truth aims to illuminate

More information

1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments

1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 26 26 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts 19. All ethnic movements are two-edged swords. Beginning benignly, and sometimes necessary to repair injured collective

More information

The Argumentative Essay

The Argumentative Essay The Argumentative Essay but what is the difference between an argument and a quarrel? Academic argumentation is based on logical, structured evidence that attempts the reader to accept an opinion, take

More information

Bias, Humans Perception, and the Internet

Bias, Humans Perception, and the Internet Bias, Humans Perception, and the Internet What are your favorite conspiracy theories? Moon landing hoax Vaccines cause autism Climate change is a hoax Chemtrails are a thing Politicians are all Reptilian

More information

Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"...per fas et nefas :-)

Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument from Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy...per fas et nefas :-) Page 1 of 5 Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"...per fas et nefas :-) (Courtesy of searchlore ~ Back to the trolls lore ~ original german text) 1 Carry

More information

Introduction to Philosophy Crito. Instructor: Jason Sheley

Introduction to Philosophy Crito. Instructor: Jason Sheley Introduction to Philosophy Crito Instructor: Jason Sheley Recall again our steps for doing philosophy 1) What is the question? 2) What is the basic answer to the question? 3) What reasons are given for

More information

CSC290 Communication Skills for Computer Scientists

CSC290 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 information

Human Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race. Course Description

Human Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race. Course Description Human Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race Course Description Human Nature & Human Diversity is listed as both a Philosophy course (PHIL 253) and a Cognitive Science

More information

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of:

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of: Logical Fallacies Continuing our foray into the world of Argument Courtesy of: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html What is an argument? An argument is not the same thing as a contradiction..

More information

Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning

Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning In chapter 1, I mentioned deductive and inductive arguments. This chapter goes into more depth on deductive reasoning in particular, but also provides a contrast with

More information

Corporate Team Training Session # 2 June 8 / 10

Corporate Team Training Session # 2 June 8 / 10 3 rd Annual Great Corporate Debate Corporate Team Training Session # 2 June 8 / 10 Stephen Buchanan Education Consulting Outline of Session # 2 Persuasion topics Great Corporate Debate Review Contest,

More information

Fallacies. What this handout is about. Arguments. What are fallacies?

Fallacies. What this handout is about. Arguments. What are fallacies? The Writing Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb Fallacies What this handout is about This handout is on common logical fallacies that you may encounter in

More information

Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument?

Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? . What is the purpose of argumentation? Argumentation 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? According to Toulmin (964), the checking list can be outlined as follows: () The Claim

More information

The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind

The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind criticalthinking.org http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-critical-mind-is-a-questioning-mind/481 The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind Learning How to Ask Powerful, Probing Questions Introduction

More information

Practice Test Three Fall True or False True = A, False = B

Practice Test Three Fall True or False True = A, False = B Practice Test Three Fall 2015 True or False True = A, False = B 1. The inclusive "or" means "A or B or both A and B." 2. The conclusion contains both the major term and the middle term. 3. "If, then" statements

More information

Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship WESTON. Arguments General Points. Arguments are sets of reasons in support of a conclusion.

Philosophy 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 information

The Qualiafications (or Lack Thereof) of Epiphenomenal Qualia

The Qualiafications (or Lack Thereof) of Epiphenomenal Qualia Francesca Hovagimian Philosophy of Psychology Professor Dinishak 5 March 2016 The Qualiafications (or Lack Thereof) of Epiphenomenal Qualia In his essay Epiphenomenal Qualia, Frank Jackson makes the case

More information

Commentary on Sample Test (May 2005)

Commentary on Sample Test (May 2005) National Admissions Test for Law (LNAT) Commentary on Sample Test (May 2005) General There are two alternative strategies which can be employed when answering questions in a multiple-choice test. Some

More information

Chapter 5: Ways of knowing Reason (p. 111)

Chapter 5: Ways of knowing Reason (p. 111) Chapter 5: Ways of knowing Reason (p. 111) Neils Bohr (1885 1962) to Einstein: You are not thinking. You are merely being logical. Reason is one of the four ways of knowing: Perception Language Emotion

More information

Ethics is subjective.

Ethics is subjective. Introduction Scientific Method and Research Ethics Ethical Theory Greg Bognar Stockholm University September 22, 2017 Ethics is subjective. If ethics is subjective, then moral claims are subjective in

More information

This handout discusses common types of philosophy assignments and strategies and resources that will help you write your philosophy papers.

This handout discusses common types of philosophy assignments and strategies and resources that will help you write your philosophy papers. The Writing Center Philosophy Like 2 people like this. What this handout is about This handout discusses common types of philosophy assignments and strategies and resources that will help you write your

More information

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

More information

How to Write a Philosophy Paper

How to Write a Philosophy Paper How to Write a Philosophy Paper The goal of a philosophy paper is simple: make a compelling argument. This guide aims to teach you how to write philosophy papers, starting from the ground up. To do that,

More information

PHI 1700: Global Ethics

PHI 1700: Global Ethics PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 2 February 4th, 2016 All About Arguments (Philosophy Basics) 1 What is an argument? Arguments are like the currency of philosophy: they are what philosophers exchange to

More information

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

More information

Make sure you are properly registered Course web page : or through Class Notes link from University Page Assignment #1 is due

Make sure you are properly registered Course web page :   or through Class Notes link from University Page Assignment #1 is due 60-207 Make sure you are properly registered Course web page : www.uwindsor.ca/boulos or through Class Notes link from University Page Assignment #1 is due today Next assignment will be posted soon Today:

More information

World-Wide Ethics. Chapter Two. Cultural Relativism

World-Wide Ethics. Chapter Two. Cultural Relativism World-Wide Ethics Chapter Two Cultural Relativism The explanation of correct moral principles that the theory individual subjectivism provides seems unsatisfactory for several reasons. One of these is

More information

Why Creation Science must be taught in schools

Why Creation Science must be taught in schools Why Creation Science must be taught in schools Creation science is a model of how not to do science. It is an insult both to the scientific method and to any sensible understanding of the Christian bible.

More information

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic teaches us to develop a system of methods and principles to use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others to guide us in constructing arguments

More information

THE ESSAY. Some tips for writing good introductions Strategies for writing good introductions

THE ESSAY. Some tips for writing good introductions Strategies for writing good introductions THE ESSAY Thesis statements Introductions The body Conclusions Some tips for writing good introductions Strategies for writing good introductions 1. The funnel method 2. Defining a word or phrase 3. Asking

More information

The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy

The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy Overview Taking an argument-centered approach to preparing for and to writing the SAT Essay may seem like a no-brainer. After all, the prompt, which is always

More information

Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn chapter 36 Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn In 1666 a young scientist was sitting in a garden when an apple fell to the ground. This made him wonder why apples fall straight down, rather

More information

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating

More information

How Thinking Goes Wrong Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things

How Thinking Goes Wrong Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things How Thinking Goes Wrong Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things From Chapter 3 of Why people believe weird things by Michael Shermer 1 Announcement Starting next week, class will meet

More information

PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT

PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT UNDERGRADUATE HANDBOOK 2013 Contents Welcome to the Philosophy Department at Flinders University... 2 PHIL1010 Mind and World... 5 PHIL1060 Critical Reasoning... 6 PHIL2608 Freedom,

More information