EVALUATING ARGUMENTS. Dona Warren UW Stevens Point
|
|
|
- Elisabeth Montgomery
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS Dona Warren UW Stevens Point
2 The Pedagogical Challenge Arguments can be difficult for students to evaluate because evaluating an argument involves asking targeted questions of different parts of the argument and because it can be difficult to correctly identify an argument s parts. As a result, students naturally fall back upon vague and general assessments of an argument, speak to irrelevant parts of the argument, or focus on relevant parts of the argument incorrectly. Graphically representing an argument (i.e. argument mapping) is an excellent way to help students correctly identify an argument s parts and ask the appropriate questions. It s unrealistic to expect students to master argument mapping in a class not devoted to mapping. Fortunately, the skills related to and developed by mapping are much more important than mapping itself. We can use mapping in class to help students develop these mapping-related skills without expecting students to map entire arguments on their own :. We can present mapped arguments, or parts of arguments, for class discussion, asking the appropriate questions of each part. 2. We can map arguments, or parts or arguments, with students, asking the appropriate questions of each part. 3. We can teach students to evaluate arguments by internalizing a series of questions that help students to identify and evaluate the parts of an argument.
3 Evaluating an Argument as You Encounter It If there is a claim you disagree with, ask:. Is that claim part of the argument? If not, ignore it. 2. Is that claim taken for granted or is it supported by other claims? 3. If the claim is taken for granted, ask 3.. Is it true? Note: Be open to changing your mind about the claim by deciding, after reflection or investigation, that it s true Is it acceptable to the audience? 4. If the claim is supported by other claims, ask 4. What reasons support the claim I disagree with? 4.2. Do I agree with these reasons? If not, return to 2. If so, there might be an inference problem. Identify the missing assumption and return to 3. General Principle: We should address claims in the spirit that they re offered. If the claim is taken for granted, the argument is saying Accept this, which means we can say, I don t, and here s why. If the claim is supported by other claims, the argument is saying I have convinced you of this, which we means we can say, You haven t, and here s why. This will result in tracing all objections to a premise or an inference. If there isn t a claim that you disagree with, ask:. What claims are being taken for granted by this argument? Are they true? Are they acceptable to the audience? 2. What claims are taken to follow from those assumptions? Do they really follow?
4 Evaluating an Argument as You Encounter It If there is a claim you disagree with, ask:. Is that claim part of the argument? If not, ignore it. 2. Is that claim taken for granted or is it supported by other claims? 3. If the claim is taken for granted, ask 3.. Is it true? Note: Be open to changing your mind about the claim by deciding, after reflection or investigation, that it s true Is it acceptable to the audience? 4. If the claim is supported by other claims, ask 4. What reasons support the claim I disagree with? 4.2. Do I agree with these reasons? If not, return to 2. If so, there might be an inference problem. Identify the missing assumption and return to 3. If there isn t a claim that you disagree with, ask:. What claims are being taken for granted by this argument? Are they true? Are they acceptable to the audience? 2. What claims are taken to follow from those assumptions? Do they really follow? is the case. For one thing, 2 because 3 and because 4. Additionally 5 because 6. Finally, 7 because
5 Communicating the Evaluation of an Argument Premise Problem (where P is the premise) If P is untrue, say something like P is false because [evidence for P s falsity]. If P is unacceptable to the audience, say something like People encountering this argument probably won t accept P because [explain why P would be rejected by the audience]. Inference Problem between R and C (where R is the reason and C is the conclusion) If you do believe R, say something like: Just because R it doesn t follow that C because [explain how R can be true and C false at the same time or explain why the missing assumption is false]. General Principle: Knowing what s wrong with an argument and communicating that evaluation are two distinct skills. If you don t believe R, say something like: Even if R were true, it wouldn t follow that C because [explain how R can be true and C false at the same time or explain why the missing assumption is false].
6 Evaluating an Argument as You Encounter It If there is a claim you disagree with, ask:. Is that claim part of the argument? If not, ignore it. 2. Is that claim taken for granted or is it supported by other claims? 3. If the claim is taken for granted, ask 3.. Is it true? Note: Be open to changing your mind about the claim by deciding, after reflection or investigation, that it s true Is it acceptable to the audience? 4. If the claim is supported by other claims, ask 4. What reasons support the claim I disagree with? 4.2. Do I agree with these reasons? If not, return to 2. If so, there might be an inference problem. Identify the missing assumption and return to 3. If there isn t a claim that you disagree with, ask:. What claims are being taken for granted by this argument? Are they true? Are they acceptable to the audience? 2. What claims are taken to follow from those assumptions? Do they really follow? ) 2. Philosophy is a waste of time. Therefore,. philosophy has no place in a university curriculum. 2). Anyone with a Ph.D. works in a philosophy department because 2. Ph.D. means Doctor of Philosophy. 3). I m not hallucinating all the time. I know this because 2. other people usually indicate that they see and hear the same things that I do, which means that 3. the things that I seem to see and hear are really there False Weak Unacceptable
7 Evaluating an Argument as You Encounter It If there is a claim you disagree with, ask:. Is that claim part of the argument? If not, ignore it. 2. Is that claim taken for granted or is it supported by other claims? 3. If the claim is taken for granted, ask 3.. Is it true? Note: Be open to changing your mind about the claim by deciding, after reflection or investigation, that it s true Is it acceptable to the audience? 4. If the claim is supported by other claims, ask 4. What reasons support the claim I disagree with? 4.2. Do I agree with these reasons? If not, return to 2. If so, there might be an inference problem. Identify the missing assumption and return to 3. If there isn t a claim that you disagree with, ask:. What claims are being taken for granted by this argument? Are they true? Are they acceptable to the audience? 2. What claims are taken to follow from those assumptions? Do they really follow? 4) 2. Eyes are composed of many individual parts working together. 3. Things composed of many individual parts working together were created by an intelligent a designer. Therefore. eyes were created by an intelligent designer. 5). God doesn t exist. After all, 2. God is supposed to be allknowing, all-powerful, and allgood so 3. if God exists then there would be no suffering. Clearly, however, 4. there is suffering
8 Evaluating an Argument as You Encounter It If there is a claim you disagree with, ask:. Is that claim part of the argument? If not, ignore it. 2. Is that claim taken for granted or is it supported by other claims? 3. If the claim is taken for granted, ask 3.. Is it true? Note: Be open to changing your mind about the claim by deciding, after reflection or investigation, that it s true Is it acceptable to the audience? 4. If the claim is supported by other claims, ask 4. What reasons support the claim I disagree with? 4.2. Do I agree with these reasons? If not, return to 2. If so, there might be an inference problem. Identify the missing assumption and return to 3. If there isn t a claim that you disagree with, ask:. What claims are being taken for granted by this argument? Are they true? Are they acceptable to the audience? 2. What claims are taken to follow from those assumptions? Do they really follow? 6) 2 Miracles are violations of the laws of nature. 3 We are never justified in believing that laws of nature are violated. And 4 belief in miracles is the only justification for belief in God. Consequently, we aren t justified in believing in God. 7) 2 Belief in God will make us happier and healthier. Therefore, we should believe in God a + 4 a = We are never justified in believe in miracles. 2 + a a = If (makes us happier and healthier) then (we should). = We should hold beliefs that make us happier and healthier.
9 8). Stealing is morally wrong. For one thing, 2. we have laws on the books against stealing which means that 3. our culture thinks that stealing is morally wrong. For another thing, 4. stealing tends to produce unhappiness because 5. it involves taking people s property without their permission and because 6. people don t like to have their property taken away
10 8). Stealing is morally wrong. For one thing, 2. we have laws on the books against stealing which means that 3. our culture thinks that stealing is morally wrong. For another thing, 4. stealing tends to produce unhappiness because 5. it involves taking people s property without their permission and because 6. people don t like to have their property taken away. 2 + a b 4 + c a = If (law on books against) then (culture thinks morally wrong). a = If we have a law on the books something then our culture thinks that it s morally wrong. a = We have laws against things that we think are morally wrong. b = If (culture thinks morally wrong) then (is morally wrong). b = If our culture thinks that something is morally wrong then it is. b = Our culture is the final arbiter of morality. c = If (produces unhappines) then (morally wrong). c = If something produces unhappiness then it s morally wrong. c = Whatever produces unhappiness is morally wrong.
11 Evaluating an Argument as You Encounter It Evaluating Arguments If there is a claim you disagree with, ask:. Is that claim part of the argument? If not, ignore it. 2. Is that claim taken for granted or is it supported by other claims? 3. If the claim is taken for granted, ask 3.. Is it true? Note: Be open to changing your mind about the claim by deciding, after reflection or investigation, that it s true Is it acceptable to the audience? 4. If the claim is supported by other claims, ask 4.. What reasons support the claim I disagree with? 4.2. Do I agree with these reasons? If not, return to 2. If so, there might be an inference problem. Identify the missing assumption and return to 3. If there isn t a claim that you disagree with, ask:. What claims are being taken for granted by this argument? Are they true? Are they acceptable to the audience? 2. What claims are taken to follow from those assumptions? Do they really follow? Communicating the Evaluation of an Argument Premise Problem (where P is the premise) If P is untrue, say something like P is false because [evidence for P s falsity]. If P is unacceptable to the audience, say something like People encountering this argument probably won t accept P because [explain why P would be rejected by the audience]. Inference Problem between R and C (where R is the reason and C is the conclusion) If you do believe R, say something like: Just because R it doesn t follow that C because [explain how R can be true and C false at the same time or explain why the missing assumption is false]. If you don t believe R, say something like: Even if R were true, it wouldn t follow that C because [explain how R can be true and C false at the same time or explain why the missing assumption is false].
12 2 ) 2. Philosophy is a waste of time. Therefore,. philosophy has no place in a university curriculum. 2). Anyone with a Ph.D. works in a philosophy department because 2. Ph.D. means Doctor of Philosophy. 3). I m not hallucinating all the time. I know this because 2. other people usually indicate that they see and hear the same things that I do, which means that 3. the things that I seem to see and hear are really there. 4) 2. Eyes are composed of many individual parts working together. 3. Things composed of many individual parts working together were created by an intelligent a designer. Therefore. eyes were created by an intelligent designer. 5). God doesn t exist. After all, 2. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good so 3. if God exists then there would be no suffering. Clearly, however, 4. there is suffering. 6) 2 Miracles are violations of the laws of nature. 3 We are never justified in believing that laws of nature are violated. And 4 belief in miracles is the only justification for belief in God. Consequently, we aren t justified in believing in God. 7) 2 Belief in God will make us happier and healthier. Therefore, we should believe in God. 8). Stealing is morally wrong. For one thing, 2. we have laws on the books against stealing which means that 3. our culture thinks that stealing is morally wrong. For another thing, 4. stealing tends to produce unhappiness because 5. it involves taking people s property without their permission and because 6. people don t like to have their property taken away.
13 Participants of Critical Thinking Faculty Exploration Group Meeting on 4/7/ # First Name: Last Name: Department: Sarah Jane Alger Biology 2 Elia Armacanqui-Tipacti World languages and literatures 3 Tobias Barske World Languages & Literatures 4 Valerie Barske History and International Studies 5 Lindsay Bernhagen CITL 6 Agnes Bolinska Philosophy 7 Kym Buchanan Education 8 Chris Cirmo COLS 9 Dave Dettman Library 0 Jonah Elrod Music Cary Elza Communication 2 Todd Huspeni Academic Affairs 3 Kathe Julin Interior Architecture 4 Mindy King Library 5 Mary Jae Kleckner Business & Economics 6 Cuiting Li HPHD 7 Nancy LoPatin-Lummis University College/History 8 Wade Mahon English 9 Elizabeth Martin Bus-Econ 20 Ismaila Odogba Geography & Geology 2 Jodi Olmsted SHCP 22 Justin Rueb Psychology 23 Thomas Salek Communication 24 Krista Slemmons Biology 25 Robin Tanke Chemistry 26 Pam Terrell CSD 27 Dona Warren Philosophy 28 Trish Zdroik Communication (as of 4/6/7)
EXTRACTING (I.E. ANALYZING) ARGUMENTS. Dona Warren UW Stevens Point
EXTRACTING (I.E. ANALYZING) ARGUMENTS Dona Warren UW Stevens Point The Pedagogical Challenge Arguments can be difficult for students to follow because following an argument requires students track the
A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice
A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice Logic is a skill and, like any skill, it s improved with practice. I) Analyzing Arguments Sometimes it can be difficult to identify the ultimate conclusion of
CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK
1 CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK Dona Warren, Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point I. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to
Critical 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
A 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
Overview: Application: What to Avoid:
UNIT 3: BUILDING A BASIC ARGUMENT While "argument" has a number of different meanings, college-level arguments typically involve a few fundamental pieces that work together to construct an intelligent,
HANDBOOK (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
CHAPTER 9 DIAGRAMMING DEBATES. What You ll Learn in this Chapter
1 CHAPTER 9 DIAGRAMMING DEBATES What You ll Learn in this Chapter So far, we ve learned how to analyze and evaluate arguments as they stand alone. Frequently, however, arguments are interrelated, with
Critical Thinking. Separating Fact From Fiction
Critical Thinking Separating Fact From Fiction What will be covered today? Part 1: What is critical thinking and why do we need to do it? Part 2: How to assess an argument. Part 3: How to write a critical
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
Religious belief, hypothesis and attitudes
Michael Lacewing Religious belief, hypothesis and attitudes THE STATUS OF THE RELIGIOUS HYPOTHESIS A hypothesis is a proposal that needs to be tested (and confirmed or rejected) by experience. We use experience
From last lecture. Then W argues that this same series of events could not occur for a private language.
From last lecture In The Private Language Argument, Wittgenstein is arguing against the privacy, in principle, of the Cartesian mind. ( Only you can know, with certainty, the contents of your own thoughts.
EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES
1 EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES Exercises From the Text 1) In the text, we diagrammed Example 7 as follows: Whatever you do, don t vote for Joan! An action is ethical only if it stems from the right
HANDBOOK (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
DEVELOPING & SUSTAINING YOUR ARGUMENT. GRS Academic Writing Workshop, 12 th March Dr Michael Azariadis
DEVELOPING & SUSTAINING YOUR ARGUMENT GRS Academic Writing Workshop, 12 th March 2018 Dr Michael Azariadis P a g e 1 DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING YOUR ARGUMENT Introduction: knowledge & truth Most people
National Institute for Christian Education Research
National Institute for Christian Education Research An Introduction Faculty of Education A message from the Dean The Faculty of Education is delighted to welcome the National Institute for Christian Education
Critical Thinking is:
Logic: Day 1 Critical Thinking is: Thinking clearly and following rules of logic and rationality It s not being argumentative just for the sake of arguing Academics disagree about which departments do
October 21, Lonely Ed Sutter
October 21, 2018 Lonely Ed Sutter Lonely Ed Sutter 2018 by Ed Sutter and Westminster Presbyterian Church. All rights reserved. No part of this sermon may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic
How persuasive is this argument? 1 (not at all). 7 (very)
How persuasive is this argument? 1 (not at all). 7 (very) NIU should require all students to pass a comprehensive exam in order to graduate because such exams have been shown to be effective for improving
PHI 1700: Global Ethics
PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 12 March 17 th, 2016 Nozick, The Experience Machine ; Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality Last class we learned that utilitarians think we should determine what to do
Syllabus for THE 314 Systematic Theology II 3.0 Credit Hours Spring 2015
I. COURSE DESCRIPTION Syllabus for THE 314 Systematic Theology II 3.0 Credit Hours Spring 2015 A study of the Holy Spirit, theological anthropology, and the doctrine of salvation. Prerequisite: None II.
Critical Thinking - Section 1
Critical Thinking - Section 1 BMAT Course Book Critical Reasoning Tips Mock Questions Step-by-Step Guides Detailed Explanations Page 57 Table of Contents Lesson Page Lesson 1: Introduction to BMAT Section
The Power of Critical Thinking Why it matters How it works
Page 1 of 60 The Power of Critical Thinking Chapter Objectives Understand the definition of critical thinking and the importance of the definition terms systematic, evaluation, formulation, and rational
Argument vs Persuasion vs Propaganda. So many terms...what do they all mean??
Argument vs Persuasion vs Propaganda So many terms...what do they all mean?? Learning Targets Argumentative Reading Unit LT 1: I can cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports what the text
Evaluating 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
(i) Morality is a system; and (ii) It is a system comprised of moral rules and principles.
Ethics and Morality Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms having to do with custom, habit, and behavior. Ethics is the study of morality. This definition raises two questions: (a) What is morality?
Thesis Statements Write Site handout
Thesis Statements Write Site handout What is a thesis statement? A thesis statement is a sentence or two that introduces your argument or analysis. Why should your essay contain a thesis statement? To
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
WRITING IN THE DISCPLINES: PHILOSOPHY WAYS OF READING
WRITING IN THE DISCPLINES: PHILOSOPHY Created in collaboration with CTL Writing Fellows and HWS Faculty members, this resource is intended to assist you in understanding ways of reading and writing for
Words and their Meaning
LESSON 2 OF 23 James M. Grier, Th.D. Distinguished Professor of Philosophical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan WE503 Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theology of Morality
Philosophy 1100 Introduction to Ethics
Philosophy 1100 Introduction to Ethics Ethics, Philosophy, Religion, and Critical Thinking An Overview of the Introductory Material: The Main Topics 1. The Origin of Philosophy 2. Ethics as a Branch of
Claim Types C L A S S L E C T U R E N O T E S Identifying Types of Claims in Your Papers
Claim Types C L A S S L E C T U R E N O T E S Identifying Types of in Your Papers Background: Models of Argument Most textbooks for College Composition devote a chapter to the Classical Model of argument
1. speak about comparative theology as a method for learning about religious traditions;
ST. NORBERT COLLEGE DE PERE, WI SPRING 2019 THEO 589: ENGAGING WORLD RELIGIONS COMPARATIVELY Meeting Time: Thursdays, 4:30pm 7:30pm MST/5:30pm 8:30pm CST/6:30pm 9:30pm EST (NB: We are running this class
Philosophy 1100 Introduction to Ethics. Lecture 3 Survival of Death?
Question 1 Philosophy 1100 Introduction to Ethics Lecture 3 Survival of Death? How important is it to you whether humans survive death? Do you agree or disagree with the following view? Given a choice
This handout follows the handout on The nature of the sceptic s challenge. You should read that handout first.
Michael Lacewing Three responses to scepticism This handout follows the handout on The nature of the sceptic s challenge. You should read that handout first. MITIGATED SCEPTICISM The term mitigated scepticism
A Review of Neil Feit s Belief about the Self
A Review of Neil Feit s Belief about the Self Stephan Torre 1 Neil Feit. Belief about the Self. Oxford GB: Oxford University Press 2008. 216 pages. Belief about the Self is a clearly written, engaging
THE SEMANTIC REALISM OF STROUD S RESPONSE TO AUSTIN S ARGUMENT AGAINST SCEPTICISM
SKÉPSIS, ISSN 1981-4194, ANO VII, Nº 14, 2016, p. 33-39. THE SEMANTIC REALISM OF STROUD S RESPONSE TO AUSTIN S ARGUMENT AGAINST SCEPTICISM ALEXANDRE N. MACHADO Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) Email:
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
Hume. Hume the Empiricist. Judgments about the World. Impressions as Content of the Mind. The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World
Hume Hume the Empiricist The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World As an empiricist, Hume thinks that all knowledge of the world comes from sense experience If all we can know comes from
Philosophy 1100 Honors Introduction to Ethics
Philosophy 1100 Honors Introduction to Ethics Lecture 2 Introductory Discussion Part 2 Critical Thinking, Meta-Ethics, Philosophy, and Religion An Overview of the Introductory Material: The Main Topics
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, Pp $90.00 (cloth); $28.99
Luper, Steven. The Philosophy of Death. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Pp. 253. $90.00 (cloth); $28.99 (paper). The Philosophy of Death is a comprehensive examination of important deathrelated
PHILOSOPHY (PHIL) Philosophy (PHIL) 1
Philosophy (PHIL) 1 PHILOSOPHY (PHIL) PHIL 101 Introduction to Philosophy (3 crs) An introduction to philosophy through exploration of philosophical problems (e.g., the nature of knowledge, the nature
Can A Priori Justified Belief Be Extended Through Deduction? It is often assumed that if one deduces some proposition p from some premises
Can A Priori Justified Belief Be Extended Through Deduction? Introduction It is often assumed that if one deduces some proposition p from some premises which one knows a priori, in a series of individually
Relativism and Objectivism about Truth
Relativism and Objectivism about Truth Mark Douglas Warren Truth, some say, is relative. Sharon believes in God; Todd s an atheist. Monique believes the official story about 9/11; Dan thinks it was an
HANDBOOK. 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
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
Review of Nathan M. Nobis s Truth in Ethics and Epistemology
Review of Nathan M. Nobis s Truth in Ethics and Epistemology by James W. Gray November 19, 2010 (This is available on my website Ethical Realism.) Abstract Moral realism is the view that moral facts exist
Keeping Your Kids On God s Side - Natasha Crain
XXXIII. Why do Christians have varying views on how and when God created the world? 355. YEC s (young earth creationists) and OEC s (old earth creationists) about the age of the earth but they that God
OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Commentary on Schwed Lawrence Powers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive
Science, Inquiry, and Truth Phil 209A
Science, Inquiry, and Truth Phil 209A Prof. Jeffrey Dunn Fall 2010 Tu,Th 7:00-8:30 JSC 111 DePauw University Description Office: Office Hours: Email: Homepage: 210 Asbury M 2-3pm, W 3-4pm, Th 9-11am, and
Rationality and Truth. What is objectivity?
Rationality and Truth What is objectivity? Reality vs. Appearance Claim vs. Argument A claim, view, opinion, or thesis, is just what you believe to be true. An argument is an attempt to persuade someone
1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis
Analysis Breaking down an idea, concept, theory, etc. into its most basic parts in order to get a better understanding of its structure. This is necessary to evaluate the merits of the claim properly (is
Logical behaviourism
Michael Lacewing Logical behaviourism THE THEORY Logical behaviourism is a form of physicalism, but it does not attempt to reduce mental properties states, events and so on to physical properties directly.
family, troubled childhood, growing up, sports. I am a part of a family of 6. I am the only boy out of 4 kids. When growing up
Topic: Abstract: How my life turned out to be. I grew up being a kid with many problems. I not only dealt with rejections from other kids but also was a target of constant abuse. I was a troubled kid but
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
Reflection Please stand behind your chairs. Lesson Reflection
Lesson Reflection Reflection Please stand behind your chairs Please give me the faith so that throughout this lesson and in every lesson I can persevere with my learning, have respect for others so that
Sermon by Bob Bradley
Sermon by Bob Bradley COPYRIGHT 2017 CAMPBELL CHAPEL FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH 1709 Campbell Drive * Ironton, OH 45638 Seek Those Things Which are Above Wednesday, February 1, 2017 Bob Bradley Colossians
If the Identity of a soul alone makes the same man, and there be nothing in the nature of matter why the same individual spirit may not be united to
If the Identity of a soul alone makes the same man, and there be nothing in the nature of matter why the same individual spirit may not be united to different bodies, it will be possible that those men,
Well, 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,
Criticizing 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
Petitionary Prayer page 2
PETITIONARY PRAYER (A harbour-side café somewhere in the Peloponnese; Anna Kalypsas, Mel Etitis, and Kathy Merinos are strolling in the sunshine when they see Theo Sevvis sitting at a table with a coffee
Noncognitivism in Ethics, by Mark Schroeder. London: Routledge, 251 pp.
Noncognitivism in Ethics, by Mark Schroeder. London: Routledge, 251 pp. Noncognitivism in Ethics is Mark Schroeder s third book in four years. That is very impressive. What is even more impressive is that
Paley s Inductive Inference to Design
PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI VOL. 7, NO. 2 COPYRIGHT 2005 Paley s Inductive Inference to Design A Response to Graham Oppy JONAH N. SCHUPBACH Department of Philosophy Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan
The Future of Practical Philosophy: a Reply to Taylor
The Future of Practical Philosophy: a Reply to Taylor Samuel Zinaich, Jr. ABSTRACT: This response to Taylor s paper, The Future of Applied Philosophy (also included in this issue) describes Taylor s understanding
EPISTEMOLOGY for DUMMIES
EPISTEMOLOGY for DUMMIES Cary Cook 2008 Epistemology doesn t help us know much more than we would have known if we had never heard of it. But it does force us to admit that we don t know some of the things
Ten questions about teaching evolution in the classroom
Ten questions about teaching evolution in the classroom Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Teaching evolution in the classroom can pose pitfalls for a teacher. What follows
1. LEADER PREPARATION
apologetics: RESPONDING TO SPECIFIC WORLDVIEWS Lesson 4: Agnosticism This includes: 1. Leader Preparation 2. Lesson Guide 1. LEADER PREPARATION LESSON OVERVIEW Agnosticism is the worldview that states
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
Chance, Chaos and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
Chance, Chaos and the Principle of Sufficient Reason Alexander R. Pruss Department of Philosophy Baylor University October 8, 2015 Contents The Principle of Sufficient Reason Against the PSR Chance Fundamental
Pearson Edexcel International GCSE in Religious Studies (9-1) Paper 1: Islam Questions 1-3. Exemplar student answers with examiner comments
Pearson Edexcel International GCSE in Religious Studies (9-1) Paper 1: Islam Questions 1-3 Exemplar student answers with examiner comments Contents About this booklet 2 How to use this booklet 2 Paper
IA Metaphysics & Mind S. Siriwardena (ss2032) 1 Personal Identity. Lecture 4 Animalism
IA Metaphysics & Mind S. Siriwardena (ss2032) 1 Lecture 4 Animalism 1. Introduction In last two lectures we discussed different versions of the psychological continuity view of personal identity. On this
Response to Earl Wunderli's critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Physics Faculty Publications Physics Fall 2006 Response to Earl Wunderli's critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm Boyd F. Edwards Utah State University W.
Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy Jeff Speaks What is philosophy?
Philosophy 10100 Introduction to Philosophy Jeff Speaks jspeaks@nd.edu What is philosophy? What is philosophy? Philosophy comes from the ancient Greek φιλοσοφία philosophia. philosophia = philo + sophia
Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe
SHBC Sunday Night Week 1, DTSCB September 8, 2013 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe Introduction Osborne: It is no news flash that smart people can do some pretty dumb things. But lots of times we forget
Syllabus for PRM 660- Practical Theology for Charismatic Ministry 3 Credit Hours July 8-12, 2013
I. COURSE DESCRIPTION Syllabus for PRM 660- Practical Theology for Charismatic Ministry 3 Credit Hours July 8-12, 2013 A course designed to help implement the promises of God and to build the Kingdom of
Task 1: Philosophical Questions. Question 1: To what extent do you shape your own destiny, and how much is down to fate?
How to philosophise? Question everything and assume nothing! Task 1: Philosophical Questions A key skill in Philosophy is having the ability to think. When answering these questions, please give yourself
TWO APPROACHES TO INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY
TWO APPROACHES TO INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY AND BELIEF CONSISTENCY BY JOHN BRUNERO JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. 1, NO. 1 APRIL 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JOHN BRUNERO 2005 I N SPEAKING
The Philosophy of Education. An Introduction By: VV.AA., Richard BALEY (Ed.) London: Continuum
John TILLSON The Philosophy of Education. An Introduction By: VV.AA., Richard BALEY (Ed.) London: Continuum John TILLSON II Época, Nº 6 (2011):185-190 185 The Philosophy of Education. An Introduction 1.
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.
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
How To Recognize and Avoid Them. Joseph M Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA
How To Recognize and Avoid Them Joseph M Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA Fallacies are logical errors that weaken arguments Commonplace Can be persuasive to the uninformed Can be driven by agendas or strong
PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS UNDERSTANDING OF PROOF: WHAT IF THE TRUTH SET OF AN OPEN SENTENCE IS BROADER THAN THAT COVERED BY THE PROOF?
PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS UNDERSTANDING OF PROOF: WHAT IF THE TRUTH SET OF AN OPEN SENTENCE IS BROADER THAN THAT COVERED BY THE PROOF? Andreas J. Stylianides*, Gabriel J. Stylianides*, & George N. Philippou**
Section 4. Attainment Targets. About the attainment targets
Section 4 Attainment Targets About the attainment targets The attainment targets for religious education set out the knowledge, skills and understanding that pupils of different abilities and maturities
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
Free Critical Thinking Test Arguments
Free Critical Thinking Test Arguments Solutions Booklet Instructions This practice critical thinking test will assess your ability to make inferences and logical assumptions and to reason with supported
The statistics used in this report have been compiled before the completion of any Post Results Services.
Course Report 2016 Subject Level RMPS Advanced Higher The statistics used in this report have been compiled before the completion of any Post Results Services. This report provides information on the performance
Phil 3121: Modern Philosophy Fall 2016 T, Th 3:40 5:20 pm
Prof. Justin Steinberg Office: Boylan Hall 3315 Office Hours: Tues 5:20 6:00pm, Thurs 12:15 1:15pm E-mail: jsteinberg@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phil 3121: Modern Philosophy Fall 2016 T, Th 3:40 5:20 pm Course
Syllabus for MUS 309 Biblical Foundations of Worship 3 Credit Hours Spring 2016
I. COURSE DESCRIPTION Syllabus for MUS 309 Biblical Foundations of Worship 3 Credit Hours Spring 2016 Provides a Biblical, theological, and practical examination of worship and prophetic leadership in
Establishing premises
Establishing premises This is hard, subtle, and crucial to good arguments. Various kinds of considerations are used to establish the truth (high justification) of premises Deduction Done Analogy Induction
Inductive 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
Syllabus Fall 2014 PHIL 2010: Introduction to Philosophy 11:30-12:45 TR, Allgood Hall 257
Syllabus Fall 2014 PHIL 2010: Introduction to Philosophy 11:30-12:45 TR, Allgood Hall 257 Professor: Steven D. Weiss, Ph.D., Dept. of History, Anthropology and Philosophy Office: Allgood Hall, E215. Office
RAPIDITY IN ARITHMETIC
RAPIDITY IN ARITHMETIC G. W. MYERS The University of Chicago, The School ef Education In the Elementary School Teacher for January 1905 the nature and office of accuracy in arithmetic were discussed. An
10. Evaluation Evaluating individual reasons and objections
10. Evaluation The ability to evaluate arguments is probably the most important part of critical thinking. We have already looked at various aspects of the evaluation of arguments. But it will be useful
SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY. Contents
UNIT 1 SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY Contents 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research in Philosophy 1.3 Philosophical Method 1.4 Tools of Research 1.5 Choosing a Topic 1.1 INTRODUCTION Everyone who seeks knowledge
On the Origins and Normative Status of the Impartial Spectator
Discuss this article at Journaltalk: http://journaltalk.net/articles/5916 ECON JOURNAL WATCH 13(2) May 2016: 306 311 On the Origins and Normative Status of the Impartial Spectator John McHugh 1 LINK TO
Religion Curriculum Inquiry Unit
Religion Curriculum Inquiry Unit School: YEAR LEVEL: 4 Term: 2 Year: Inquiry / Wondering Question: I Wonder about the Bible and in particular the parables. Strands: Cross-curricular priorities: Beliefs
In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006
In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
What s the Big Deal About Sin?
What s the Big Deal About Sin? Am I Really a Sinner? Key Faith Foundation: All Have Sinned Key Scriptures: Luke 1:5-6, 18-20; Romans 3:10-13, 23; 5:6-11; 6:1-4; Hebrews 4:14-16 1. Am I Really a Sinner?
Has Nagel uncovered a form of idealism?
Has Nagel uncovered a form of idealism? Author: Terence Rajivan Edward, University of Manchester. Abstract. In the sixth chapter of The View from Nowhere, Thomas Nagel attempts to identify a form of idealism.
Syllabus for GTHE 551 Systematic Theology I - ONLINE 3 Credit Hours Fall 2014
I. COURSE DESCRIPTION Syllabus for GTHE 551 Systematic Theology I - ONLINE 3 Credit Hours Fall 2014 An introduction to Christian theology and an examination of the doctrines of revelation, God, creation,