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

Transcription

1 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 or term always simple and uncontroversial? 2. How does a theoretical definition differ from other sorts of precising definitions? 3. Is there anything inherently wrong with persuasive definition? 4. What are some of the liabilities of operational definitions? 5. What is the difference between using and mentioning a word?

2 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #5 Ch. 3, Sections I II Deductive (argument) Valid argument Inductive (argument) Fallacy (fallacious argument) Sound argument Truth-preserving Indirect proof 6. What are two general questions to ask of any argument? 7. What broad, three-part classification of arguments can be made? 8. How do deductive arguments preserve the truth of their premises? 9. Why bother about deductive arguments if they provide no new information about the world? 10. What are some words that may indicate that we are dealing with a deductive argument? 11. What question should be asked in order to distinguish deductive from inductive arguments? 12. Is it always perfectly clear whether an incomplete argument is deductive or inductive?

3 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #6 Ch. 3, Sections III V Inductive argument Inductive fallacy Fallacy of appeal to force (ad baculum fallacy) Fallacy of appeal to pity (ad misericordium fallacy) Stereotypes 13. What are the upsides and downsides of deductive versus inductive arguments? 14. What are some important varieties of inductive argumentation? 15. What are some words used in stating an argument s conclusion that tend to indicate the argument is inductive rather than deductive? 16. In terms of the strength of support that they give to their conclusions, what is the crucial difference between inductive and deductive arguments? 17. Can inductive and deductive arguments ever be combined? 18. Again, what is a fallacy? 19. What is the main reason for studying fallacies?

4 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #7 Ch. 4, Sections I II Form of an argument Syllogism Statistical syllogism Rule of total evidence Reference class Attribute class Relevant evidence Fallacy of incomplete evidence Argument from authority Argument against the person (Argumentum ad hominem) Tu quoque argument Argument from consensus (ad populum argument) Quasi-syllogism Categorical syllogism 20. In terms of an argument s conclusion, what is the least we can expect from the premises of an inductive argument? 21. Does an inductive argument depend only on its form for its correctness? 22. In what two ways do we measure the strength of a statistical syllogism? 23. Why is it important to bring out the unstated statistical premises in a syllogism? 24. Why is complete, relevant evidence important? 25. Under what circumstances is it reasonable to accept the word of an authority? 26. What is the form of a correct argument from authority? 27. What is the form of an argumentum ad hominem? 28. Why should we be cautious about ad hominem arguments? 29. Why should we be cautious about arguments from consensus? 30. Are inductive arguments ever valid?

5 31. Does a no answer to question 11 mean that inductive arguments are never correct forms of argument?

6 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #8 Ch. 4, Section III Analogy Argument from analogy Fallacy of false analogy Fallacy of the slippery slope 32. Are all analogies arguments? 33. What is the form of arguments from analogy? 34. What standards does Salmon recommend we use in judging the strength of arguments from analogy? 35. What are some areas of human activity where arguments from analogy are prominently used? 36. What is the form of a slippery slope argument?

7 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #9 Ch. 4, Section IV - VII Inductive generalization (a.k.a., simple induction, induction by enumeration, statistical generalization) Samples random and stratified random Fallacy of insufficient statistics (a.k.a., hasty generalization, leaping to a conclusion) Fallacy of biased statistics Fallacy of misleading vividness Fallacy of circular reasoning 37. What is the general character of inductive generalizations? 38. How do inductive generalizations differ from statistical syllogisms? 39. What is the preliminary form of an argument from inductive generalization? 40. What three tests must be met for a sample to be representative? 41. What is Salmon s second, improved version of the form of an inductive generalization? 42. Are inductive arguments ever combined? 43. Can more than one argument be extracted from a set of data?

8 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #10 Ch. 5, Section I - II Method of agreement Method of difference Joint method of agreement and difference Method of concomitant variation Method of residues 44. In regard to the subject of this class, who was Aristotle? Who was John Stuart Mill? 45. Can the method of agreement be applied mechanically? Why, or why not? 46. What is a limitation (or two) of the method of agreement? 47. What is a limitation (or two) of the method of difference? 5. What is a limitation on the joint method of agreement and difference? 6. How can the method of concomitant variation be used to identify the causes of diseases? 7. What is one limit of the method of residues?

9 Controlled experiment Philosophy 12 Study Guide #11 Ch. 5, Section III - IV Randomized experimental study Prospective study Retrospective study Double blind experiment Proximate cause Necessary condition Sufficient condition Individually necessary and jointly sufficient Probabilistic cause 8. What are some of the moral and practical limits on prospective and retrospective studies? 9. Are questions of causality strictly objective matters, or are human interests implicated with our conception of what the cause of a particular effect is? 10. What are some of the different senses of the word cause?

10 Deterministic cause Determinism Post hoc fallacy Ignoring a common cause Confusing cause and effect Genetic fallacy Philosophy 12 Study Guide #12 Ch. 5, Section V - VII Confusing the good and bad consequences of holding a belief with reasons for thinking that the belief is true 11. How did David Hume analyze the concept of causality? 12. What are some areas of human concern to which Hume s idea of causality is relevant? 13. How can we avoid confusing causes with effects? 14. If someone confuses motives for thinking something with reasons for thinking something, does that mean that the belief in question is false?

11 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #13 Ch. 6, Section I - II Conditional Mutually exclusive sentences (or events) Disjunction Conjunction Independent event(s) 15. What three senses of the word probability are introduced in this chapter? 16. When a probability can be expressed quantitatively, what three ways of stating it are available? 17. What are the four rules that form the basis of probability theory? Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule If the probability of an event is n, what is the probability of its negation? 19. Is calculating probability a simple matter of applying mathematical formulas to known data? Why or why not?

12 Decision theory Decision under risk Decision under certainty Decision under uncertainty Expected utility Dominating action Decision matrix Satisfactory action Philosophy 12 Study Guide #14 Ch. 6, Section III - IV Types of decision-making personalities The gambler s fallacy the gambler the cautious player the calculator 20. Why is probability important? 21. What other factors besides probability guide decision-making? 22. What kind of rule is needed to make rational decisions under risk? 23. How is expected utility calculated? 24. What is the rule for making decisions under certainty? 25. What are some complicating factors of decisions under certainty? 26. On what bases do each of the three personality types mentioned in chapter 6 make decisions?

13 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #15 Ch. 7, Section I - III Hypothesis Confirm/disconfirm The hypothetico-deductive method (first, second, and third versions) Auxiliary hypothesis Proper testing conditions Theoretical background knowledge Alternative hypothesis Prior probability 27. What is the idea behind forming and testing hypotheses? 28. What is the object of hypothetico-deductive arguments? 29. What is deductive about hypothetico-deductive arguments? 30. Are auxiliary hypotheses ever in question? 31. What are the first and second forms of the hypothetico-deductive argument, as stated by Salmon? 32. What is the structure of arguments to confirm hypotheses (third form of the hypothetico-deductive argument)? 33. Besides those factors already discussed, what else affects the strength of the evidence for a hypothesis?

14 Philosophy 12 Study Guide #16 Ch. 7, Section IV, V, and VII Incremental confirmation Absolute confirmation Conditional sentence Antecedent Consequent Denying the consequent Crucial tests Ad hoc reasoning 1. Does a conclusion s being absolutely confirmed mean that it will never be overturned? 2. What are some complications of using successful predictions in theory confirmation? 3. What is an important alternative view to the idea that hypothesis testing aims to confirm hypotheses? 4. What is the appeal of disconfirmation? 5. What are its limits? 6. Are disconfirmed hypotheses often totally rejected in the absence of a plausible alternative? Why or why not?

15 Sentential logic Philosophy 12 Study Guide #17 Ch. 8, Sections I - III Valid argument (yes, I know we ve done this one before) Sound argument (same here) Conditional argument Conditional sentence Antecedent Consequent Truth-functional connective Material conditional 7. What is the key difference between inductive and deductive arguments? 8. Are inductive arguments ever valid? Why, or why not? 9. Can an argument be valid and false? Why, or why not? 10. Is there any practical value to a concern with validity as contrasted with soundness? 11. Are all conditionals stated in if-then form? If not, what are some of the other ways they are stated? 12. Do all conditionals express the same kind of relationship between their antecedent and their consequent? If not, give some examples of the variety of relationships that can exist between antecedents and consequents.