Terminology Flashcards Preview

PHIL252v8 - AthabascaU > Terminology > Flashcards

Flashcards in Terminology Deck (80)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Ambiguity

A

A term in a context is ambiguous if it has more than one relatively distinct meaning in that context.

2
Q

Analogical Reasoning

A

Reasoning that justifies the claim that an item has a certain characteristic by appeal to a sufficiently similar (analogous) item, which is known to have the characteristic in question.

3
Q

Appeal to Authority

A

Appealing to someone whose expertise is not relevant to the issue at hand, or appealing to someone who is famous or admired but not an expert on the issue at hand. (fallacious) Appeals to people who are really experts in the appropriate areas. (legitimate)

4
Q

Appeal to Force

A

The arguer tries to get you to agree by indication that you will be harmed if you don’t agree. (“ad baculum”)

5
Q

Appeal to Pity

A

The arguer tries to get you to agree by indication that he or she will be harmed if you don’t agree. (“ad misericordian”)

6
Q

Argument

A

A structured piece of discourse in which a certain statement can be identified as a conclusion and others can be identified as premises that provide reasons for believing the conclusion.

7
Q

Attacking the Person

A

Arguing that a person’s point of view should doubted because the person has bad traits of character or because the person has something to gain by being believed, (Note: there are legitimate as well as fallacious cases of attacking the person.)

8
Q

Begging the Question

A

An argument that rests on a premise that is either a restatement of the conclusion or that would be doubted for the same reasons that the conclusion would be doubted. (“petitio principii”)

9
Q

Casual Reasoning

A

Reasoning that typically moves from the observation that one thing is correlated with another to the claim that the first causes the second. Such reasoning is not always justified and is best supported by controlled experiments.

10
Q

Charitable Interpretation Principle

A

Maxim for interpreting argumentative passages that enjoins you to give the arguer the “benefit of the doubt” if at all plausible. If you have a choice, you should interpret a passage so that the premises provide the best support possible for the conclusion. Sometimes an argument as presented is faulty - for example, invalid or unsound - in which case a charitable reconstruction would leave it faulty in this way.

11
Q

Conceptual Theory

A

A statement of the conditions under which a certain concept applies to an object. These theories are most plausible in domains in which clear boundaries can be drawn at least for some purposes. These theories are typically criticized by finding counterexamples and pointing to the need for a more extensive and illuminating statement of conditions.

12
Q

Conditional

A

A statement of the if-then form, represented by “A -> B” in formal language. The “if” part is called the antecedent or condition; the “then” part is called the consequent.

13
Q

Confound

A

When a casual argument is advanced (A is correlated with B, so it is likely that A caused B) a confound is a third factor, X, that is the true cause of B, but which is also correlated with A, creating the appearance that A causes B. Controlled experiments help rule out confounds.

14
Q

Conjunction

A

A statement of the form “A and B” that links two other statements. “and” is represented by “&” in formal language.

15
Q

Consistency

A

A group of statements is consistent if it is possible for all of them to be true at the same time. If it is impossible for all of them to be true simultaneously, then the statements are inconsistent.

16
Q

Contradiction

A

A statement that cannot (logically) be true. It is inconsistent in all contexts. Often used of statements having the form “A and not A” where “A” stands for a sentence, or the form “m is P1, and m is not P1,” where P1 is a predicate.

17
Q

Controlled Experiment

A

An experiment designed to determine whether one thing causes another that helps rule out the X-factor as an alternative explanation. It involves comparing an experimental group to which the suspected causal agent is applied, to a control group to which it is not, all other conditions being the same. If assignment to the groups is unbiased (random), then any significant difference in the experimental groups can be attributed to the suspected causal agent.

18
Q

Convergent Argument

A

An argument in which independent (non-linked) premises are offered in support of the conclusion and give weight to it.

19
Q

Correlation

A

The association of two or more characteristics or events. That two events are correlated - that is, they typically occur together - does not in itself justify the conclusion that the first cause the second.

20
Q

Counter-Consideration

A

In a convergent argument, considerations weighing against the conclusion.

21
Q

Counterexample

A

As a criticism of a premise that expresses a universal generalization (for example, of the form “All P1’s are P2’s), a clear example of a P1 that is not a P2. In a deductive argument, a counterexample is a clear case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. It can be an argument that shares the same pattern as the one in question, or, for an argument pattern itself, it can be a truth table assignment or a Venn diagram configuration. For a conceptual theory, a counterexample either clearly fits the concept but not the conditions of the theory, or it fits the conditions of the theory but not the concept.

22
Q

Counterinstance

A

In common usage, the term is interchangeable with counterexample.

23
Q

Deductive Argument

A

An argument in which the premises are put forward to guarantee the truth of the conclusion in the strong sense that it is logically impossible for the premises all to be true and the conclusion to be false.

24
Q

Denying the Antecedent

A
Any argument that exhibits the following invalid pattern:
(1) If A, then B.
(2) Not A.
---------------
.: Not B.
25
Q

Disjunction

A

A statement of the form “A or B”. “or” is represented by “v” in a formal language.

26
Q

Distraction Fallacy

A

The general category of fallacies that tend to persuade by taking the audience’s attention away from weak points of an argument.

27
Q

Elucidation

A

A criterion for evaluating conceptual theories. A conceptual theory can be criticized by showing that it uses terms that are no easier to understand than the concept supposedly being clarified. (that is, the theory fails to elucidate.)

28
Q

Emotional Fallacies

A

The general category of fallacies that tend to persuade by making it desirable to believe an argument’s conclusion rather than giving evidence to support it.

29
Q

Empirical Generalization

A

A generalization based on particular observations.

30
Q

Empirical Theory

A

A set of statements of fairly broad scope that explains patterns or regularities established by observation. Empirical theories can be criticized by pointing out that expected regularities, predictions, or patterns do not occur or are questionable; by offering a plausible alternative theory; by pointing out that a defense against damaging evidence is ad hoc; or by showing that crucial concepts in the theory can’t be tested.

31
Q

Epistemology

A

The philosophical study of the nature and conditions of knowledge.

32
Q

Equivocation

A

An argument in which an expression shifts its meaning from one premise to another, making the pattern invalid. Equivocation can exploit either ambiguity (more than one relatively distinct meaning) or vagueness (unclear boundary between objects to which the term applies and objects to which it does not).

33
Q

Expertise

A

Specialized knowledge in a restricted domain. Expertise is difficult to locate and dangerous to blindly pursue. The amateur - the non-expert - needs to be able to reason critically to be able to use expertise when and where it is appropriate.

34
Q

Explanation

A

An attempt to indicate why or how something occurred, rather than to justify a belief that it did.

35
Q

Fallacy

A

An argument that tends to persuade us even though it is faulty and should not do so. Some fallacies tend to persuade by distraction, some by resemblance to a good argument, others by providing a motive for belief in place of evidential support.

36
Q

False Dilemma

A

The arguer claims that there are only two alternatives and one is unacceptable, so we should choose the other. But in fact, there are more alternatives that two.

37
Q

Generalization

A

A statement that applies to some number of individuals rather than to a particular case. (See empirical, statistical, and universal generalizations)

38
Q

General-to-Particular Reasoning

A

See Statistical Premise Argument

39
Q

Hasty Generalization

A

A generalization that is asserted on the basis of an unrepresentative sample, either too small or selected in a biased way.

40
Q

Implicit Premise

A

An unstated premise. We determine that such a premise should be added to the reconstruction of an argument in accordance with the Principle of Charitable Interpretation. Typically, such a premise is needed to render the argument deductively valid.

41
Q

Inconsistency

A

A set of statements is inconsistent if it is impossible for all of them to be true simultaneously.

42
Q

Inductive Argument

A

An argument in which the premises are put forward to make the conclusion likely or probable not logically guaranteed. The term is most commonly applied the sampling arguments, though arguments with statistical premises can also be considered inductive.

43
Q

Linked Argument

A

A deductive argument in contrast to convergent argument. The name suggests the logical links that connect all the premises with the conclusion.

44
Q

Mere Disagreement

A

Mere disagreement takes place when people assert apposing points of view without being open to having their minds changed by reasons. Each seeks to maintain a prior set of beliefs. This contrasts with a dispute subject to critical reasoning.

45
Q

Misleading Definition

A

A case in which an unclear expression is given an “unusual” or technical meaning in the premises of an argument but where that peculiarity is not marked by qualifications or hedges in the conclusion.

46
Q

Modus Ponens (“Mode of Affirming”)

A

A common, valid argument form in which we “affirm the antecedent” of a conditional (that is, if-then) statement. It should be clearly distinguished from the similar but invalid argument form called the “fallacy of denying the antecedent.” Modus Ponens is exhibited by this pattern:

(1) If A, the B.
(2) A.
————
.: B.

47
Q

Modus Tollens (“Mode of Denying”)

A

A common, valid argument form in which we “deny the consequent” of a conditional (that is, if-then) statement. It should be clearly distinguished from the similar but invalid argument form called “affirming the consequent.” Modus Tollens is exhibited by this pattern:

(1) If A, then B.
(2) Not B.
————–
.: Not A.

48
Q

Necessity

A

What must occur; the opposite of which impossible or can’t be. The conclusion of a valid deductive argument follows with necessity, It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. A statement is logically necessary if its denial leads to a contradiction (a contradiction describes an impossible situation). Something is physically necessary in a situation if it is physically impossible for it not to happen.

49
Q

Non-deductive Argument

A

An argument in which the premises are not put forward to logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but to make the conclusion more likely. Inductive arguments are one form of non-deductive arguments.

50
Q

Non Sequitur (“It does not follow”)

A

The conclusion does not follow from premises though it purports to.

51
Q

Operational Definition

A

A definition of an expression which is stated in terms of a detailed procedure or protocol for measuring it, for example using a particular IQ test to measure “intelligence,” or a series of questions to measure “degree of intolerance.”

52
Q

Particular-to General Reasoning

A

See Sampling Argument

53
Q

Petitio Principii (“Petitioning the Premises”)

A

See Begging the Question

54
Q

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”)

A

The fallacious or unjustified move from correlation to cause.

55
Q

Prejudicial Language

A

The arguer uses language that biases you in favor of his or her position without giving evidence for his or her position or against the opponent’s position.

56
Q

Reconstruction

A

Reformulation of arguments, conceptual theories, or empirical theories that make their structure clearer. This can include making explicit elements that are only implicit in the original presentation. Such a reconstruction puts an argument or theory in standard form.

57
Q

Reductio ad Absurdum (“Reducing to the Absurd”)

A

A technique of indirect proof that justifies a statement by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction (more broadly, to an absurdity.)

58
Q

Regularity

A

A pattern to be explained by a broader empirical theory that is described by a less theoretical, more observational statement.

59
Q

Relativism

A

The belief that one opinion is always as good as another, and that when two people disagree, it can never be determined whose position is more reasonable to hold.

60
Q

Representativeness of a Sample

A

A sample is likely to be representative of (similar to) a population from which it is drawn if it is sufficiently large and drawn in an unbiased manner.

61
Q

Requirement of Total Evidence

A

In an inductive argument with statistical premises, the expectation that all available, relevant evidence will be included in picking relevant premises.

62
Q

Resemblance Fallacy

A

The general category of fallacies that tend to persuade by resembling good arguments.

63
Q

Sampling

A

A selection of cases from a population. In particular-to-general inductive reasoning, statements about a sample are used as reasons to justify similar statements about the whole population from which the sample is drawn. If the sample is likely to be unrepresentative, too small, or biased, then the reasoning can be criticized. A random sample of sufficient size improves such inductive reasoning.

64
Q

Sampling Argument

A

A particular-to-general inductive argument.

65
Q

Sampling Frame

A

A listing of a population from which a sample is drawn (e.g., all the students currently registered at a university) or the potential population that could be sampled using a certain sampling method (e.g., those having a “land line” phone number).

66
Q

Slippery Slope

A

The arguer says we shouldn’t do something, because it probably leads to something else, which leads to a third thing, and so forth down the “slippery slope” to a final consequence that is clearly undesirable. But in fact, some of these steps are implausible.

67
Q

Sound Argument

A

A valid deductive argument with only true premises. In such an argument the conclusion follows, all premises are true and hence the conclusion is true as well.

68
Q

Standard Form

A

For a deductive argument, standard form consists of a numbered listing of premises, separated by a line from a statement of the conclusion prefaced by the symbol meaning “therefore” (.:). For inductive arguments, the symbol for “therefore” is replaced by the term “likely”. For conceptual theories, standard form has an underlined designation of the concept to be defined followed by “if and only if,” followed by the condition(s) of the conceptual theory, standard form consists of a list of separate theoretical statements, regularities, or patterns, and any observational support.

69
Q

Statistical Generalization

A

A generalization that applies to some, a few, or a certain percentage of cases.

70
Q

Statistical Premise Argument

A

A general-to-particular inductive argument that includes statistical premises in which some unspecific statistical terms such as many, most, a few, seldom, and so on are used, or some specific percentage is mentioned

71
Q

Statistical Significance

A

If we can infer from a sample, that a property of the sample is likely to be true of the population from which it is drawn, then the result obtained by sampling is statistically significant. We need to note that a difference detected in a sample, between say an experimental group and a control group, can be statistically significant without being scientifically or policy significant. If a sample is large enough,even very small difference could be statistically significant.

72
Q

Statistical Syllogism

A

A version of the argument from statistical premises having the following form:

(1) Most P1’s are P2’s
(2) m is a P1
- ———————–
(likely) m is a P2

or

(1) N% OR P1’s are P2’s
(2) m is a P1
————————
(N% likely) m is a P2

73
Q

Straw Man

A

The arguer makes a position appear strong by making the opposing position appear weaker than it really is. The arguer puts a weak argument in an opponent’s mouth when stronger arguments are available.

74
Q

Subordinate Conclusion

A

In the reconstruction of a complex deductive argument, the conclusion of one argument that serves as a premise in another

75
Q

Successfulness

A

A deductive argument is successful if it is valid (that is, the conclusion follows), has true premises, and is legitimately persuasive. An inductive argument is successful if its premises make the conclusion likely, its premises are true, and it is legitimately persuasive.

76
Q

Truth Table

A

A way to systematically indicate possible assignments of truth values to initial statements and to display the truth value of more complex statements constructed out of them using logical connections. It provides a way to systematically search for counterexamples that might show an argument to be invalid. An argument that can be represented on a truth table is valid just in case there is no line in which the truth value, for all the premises, is true (T) and that for the conclusion is false (F).

77
Q

Universal Generalization

A

A generalization that applies to all cases. A universal positive generalization contains words such as all or every, as for example in “All animals with hearts have kidneys” and “Everybody will be famous for at least fifteen minutes.” A universal negative generalization uses terms such as no or none to indicate that all cases do not have a characteristic. An example is “No one lives forever,” which means “Everyone does not live forever.”

78
Q

Vagueness

A

A term is vague in a context if it is unclear where to draw the boundary between things to which the term does apply and those to which it does not.

79
Q

Validity

A

A deductive argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. There is no counterexample showing that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Truth tables or Venn diagrams can be used to determine validity for some arguments. In causal reasoning, “internal validity” exists when a conclusion is made more likely by employing a research design that eliminates threats to it, by using random assignment to experimental and control groups or other means of ruling out confounds such as maturation, specific historical circumstance or regression towards a mean; in arguments involving sampling, “external validity” exists when the results obtained can be applied outside the specific situation investigated, for example, when properties of a sample can be generalized to the larger population of interest to the research. “External validity” is also applied more generally to situations in which controlled experiments can be justifiably applied to the “real world.” “Construct validity” exists to the extent that the method of measuring or operational definition adequately captures the concept.

80
Q

Venn Diagram

A

A way of representing simple predicate arguments using overlapping circles to designate the sets of objects to which the predicates apply. The technique is useful in assessing validity and finding counterexamples to certain simple arguments that contain quantifiers.