Critical Thinking

Front 1

Statement/Claim

Back 1

An assertion that something is or is not the case

Front 2

Proposition

Back 2

The specific thought or idea that the statement expresses

Different stamemts can express the same proposition

Same statement can express different propositions

Front 3

Premise

Back 3

A premise is a statement that is offered in support of a conclusion

Front 4

Conclusion

Back 4

A conclusion is a statement that is held to be supported by one or more premises

Front 5

Argument

Back 5

An argument is a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion) is taken to be supported by the remaining statements (premise)

An argument is a group of statements in which some (the premises) are intended to support another (conclusion)

Front 6

Inference

Back 6

An inference is process of reasoning from a premise or premises to a conclusion, based on those premises

Front 7

The steps of Argument Analysis

Back 7

0. Figure out if it really is an argument

1. Reconstruct the argument

2. Evaluate the argument

Front 8

The key ingredients in propositional knowledge

Back 8

Belief

Truth

Justification

Front 9

Truth: Realism

Back 9

Two Claims:

1.There are truths in that subject area

2. What these truths are does not depend upon anyone's beliefs about them ( objective)

Front 10

Truth:Nihilism

Back 10

Claims:

There are no truths whatsoever in that subject area

Ex. Moral Nihilism; the view that moral statements have no truth value ( they are neither true nor false)

Front 11

Drawbacks of Nihilism

Back 11

Extremely implausible in many subject areas

Nihilism about everything is seldom defeating ( the statement itself claims to be a fact)

Front 12

Truth: Relativism

Back 12

Claims:

There are truths in that subject area; but

What the truths are depends upon what we believe them to be

Front 13

Drawbacks of Relativism

Back 13

Counter examples

Sounds tolerant but isn't

It suggests we are infallible

The view is self defeating

Front 14

Philosophical Skepticism

Back 14

Statements have truth values but we don't know what most or all of them are

Front 15

Drawbacks of Skepticism

Back 15

Requiring absolute certainty for a belief to count as knowledge seems to be asking too much

Skepticism about everything is self-defeating

Front 16

Each of these views deny something about truth or knowledge

Back 16

They deny something

Nihilism - no truth, and be relation no knowledge

Relativism- no objective truth

Philosophical Skepticism - no justification

Front 17

Two Realist Models of what makes a statement/proposition true

Back 17

The coherence model of truth

The correspondce model of truth

Front 18

The Correspondence Model of Truth

Back 18

A proposition is true just in case it describes things as they actually are. A true proposition corresponds to facts.

A proposition is false just in case it fails to describe things as they actually are. A false proposition does not correspond to the facts.

As a result ~ Every proposition has exactly one truth value ( at a given time) it is either false or true.

Advantages... Simple & intuitive.... Avoids the drawbacks of the coherence model

Front 19

Drawbacks of Correspondence Model of Truth

Back 19

Certain propositions don't seem to fit this model, even though we tend to think they are true or false

"You should keep your promises"

"You will have a hamburger for dinner tonight"

Front 20

Advantages of Standard Form

Back 20

Excludes logically irrelevant material

Allows us to make assumptions explicit

Provides clarity and case of reference

*It provides a clear reconstruction of the argument and that is essential to properly evaluate the argument*

Front 21

Deductive Argument

Back 21

Intends to provide logically conclusive support for the conclusion

Front 22

Deductive Validity

Back 22

In a world where the premises are all true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well

Front 23

The Validity Test

Back 23

Imagine that the premises are true. Assuming this, would the conclusion have to be true as well?

If yes, valid

If no, invalid

Front 24

Five Sentential Connectives

Back 24

Conjunction

Disjunction

Negation

Conditional

Biconditional

Front 25

Five Sentential Connectives: Conditional

Back 25

The antecedent - what follows the word "if"

The consequent- what follows the word "then"

Front 26

If vs Only if

Back 26

Only if introduces the consequent

Front 27

Argument by Elimination

Back 27

P or Q

~Q

Therefore P

1.Either the Maid or the Butler Killed her

2. Maid did not kill her

3. Butler did it

Front 28

Argument by Conjunction

Back 28

Always Valid

1. Wearing shoe on right foot

2. Wearing shoe on left foot

3. Wearing shoe on left and right foot

Front 29

Argument by Simplification

Back 29

1. Wearing shoe on left and right foot

2. Wearing shoe on right foot

Front 30

Argument by Affirming the Antecedent ( Modus Ponens)

Back 30

This pattern is valid

1. If Ryerson is great, then many students apply here

2. Ryerson is a great university

Therefore,

3. Many students apply there

Front 31

Argument by Denying the Consequent

(Modus Tollens)

Back 31

1. If you get A+, you pass

2. Didn't pass the class

3. Didn't get A+

Front 32

Argument by Denying the Antecedents

Back 32

1. If you get A then you pass

2. You didn't get an A

3. You didn't Pass

Invalid argument pattern

Front 33

Affirming the Consequent

Back 33

1. If you get A you pass

2. You pass the class

3. You got an A

Invalid

Front 34

Argument by Hypothetical Syllogism

Back 34

1. If P, then Q

2. If Q then R

3. If P then R

Valid format

Front 35

Argument by Universal Modus Ponens

Back 35

1. All students are hardworking ( All A's are B's)

2 . Omar is a student ( x is an A)

Therefore,

3. Omar is hard working ( x is B)

Front 36

Argument by Universal Modus Tollens

Back 36

1. All students are hardworking

2.Omar is not hardworking

Therefore,

3. Omar is not a student.

Valid Argument Pattern

Front 37

Argument by Universal Hypothetical Syllogism

Back 37

1. All whales are mammals ( All A's are B's)

2. All mammals are animals ( All B's are C's)

Therefore,

3. All whales are animals ( All A's are C's)

Front 38

Argument by Ruling Out

Back 38

1.No children are perfectly behaved (No A's are B's )

2. Jacob is a child (X is an A)

Therefore,

3. Jacob is not perfectly behaved at all times (X is not a B)

Front 39

The Cogency Test

Back 39

Imagine/suppose that the premises are all true. Assuming this, is the conclusion likely to be true as well?

If yes the argument is cogent

If no the argument is non-cogent

Front 40

ill-formed

Back 40

Arguments that are invalid and not cogent are called ill-formed, since the premises do not guarantee that the conclusion is true or even probable

Front 41

Contrast between Valid and Cogency

Back 41

Validity does not come in degrees

Cogency comes in degrees: on argument can be more or less cogent than another ( depending on probability of conclusion given the premises)

Front 42

Deductive Strength

Back 42

An argument is deductively strong ( for a person at a time) if and only if it is

A. Valid, and

B. Rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe that all of the arguments premises are true, based on the available evidence

Front 43

Weak Deductive Argument

Back 43

A. Invalid

B. Not rational for the person to believe one or more of the arguments premises based on the available evidence

C. Both A and B

Front 44

Principal of Proportional Belief

Back 44

The stronger the available evidence for the premises, the more rational it is to believe them

Front 45

Inductive Strength

Back 45

A. Cogent

B. Reasonable for the person to believe that all the premises are true based on the available evidence

C. The argument is not defeated by the person's total evidence

Front 46

Weak Inductive Argument

Back 46

A. Not cogent

B. Not rational for the person to believe that all the premises are true based on the available evidence

C. Argument is defeated by another piece of evidence

D. Any combination of above

Front 47

Justification

Back 47

Rational belief/ justified belief

A. Over evidence gives overall reason to think something is true you should believe it

B. Overall evidence goes against the proposition the person should disbelieve it

C. If eveidence doesn't support the idea being true or false than the rational thing to do is be neutral

Front 48

A Disjunction Statement

Back 48

Either P or Q

Front 49

A Conditional Statement

Back 49

If P, then Q

If it rains the picnic will be cancelled

Front 50

How do you recognize arguments?

Back 50

Is the author trying to get me to believe something by giving me reasons in support of it?

If yes, it is probably an argument

Some contrasts:

1. Descriptive writing

2. Rhetorical writing, asserts conclusion without offering reasons

Front 51

Cheap Validity

Back 51

You will make an argument valid, but the premise you add will not be reasonable. So, the argument will still not be a good one. It will be weak, even if it's well formed.

Front 52

Rules governing the addition of Implicit Premises

Back 52

Add implicit premises that are consistent with the intention s of the author of the argument

Add implicit premises that are reAsonable to accept rather than ones that are obviously false

When adding a generalization as an implicit premises in an argument ....add a true wide generalization rather than a true narrow one, and add a true narrow generalization rather than a false wise one

Front 53

Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation: Denying its conclusion

Back 53

1. Don't criticize an argument by (merely) denying its conclusion

A. If the argument is ill-formed

B. If the argument is valid

C. If the argument is cogent

Front 54

Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation: Don't accept because you believe the conclusion

Back 54

2. Don't accept because you believe the conclusion

A. Watch out for confirmation bias

B. A conclusion can v reasonable to believe based on just one good argument

Front 55

Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation: Criticize Individual Premises

Back 55

A. Individual Premises

Good reasons to think premise is false or suspend judgement

B. Individual inferences

As either invalid or not cogent

Front 56

Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation: Make your criticisms of premises substantial

Back 56

Substantial

A. Good reason to think premise is false or suspend judgement

Insubstantial

A. " Maybe the premise is false"

B. Using argument stoppers

- Take argument seriously

Front 57

Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation: Don't accept the conclusions of two competing arguments

Back 57

Can't reasonably believe a contradiction

Can't rationally think both arguments are equally strong

Front 58

Basic Rules of Argument Evaluation: Don't merely object to intermediate conclusions of compound arguments

Back 58

Critize premise leading to conclusion of sub-argument

* legitimate to object to an intermediate conclusion when you think the sub-argument is inductive and is defeated*

Front 59

Fallacy of False Dichotomy

Back 59

When the premises claim or assume that a choice between two alterni is exhaustive or exclusive or both when the choice is not

Not reasonable to believe

Front 60

Intermediate Conclusions

Back 60

Intermediate Conclusions of Compound Arguments

Front 61

Fallacy of Equivocation

Back 61

When an ambiguous word or expression is used in two different senses in an argument....But the argument appears to suggest otherwise

Front 62

Slipper Slope Fallacy

Back 62

A particular step will lead to further undesirable step or steps.

Sometimes even if a phrase is reasonable to believe it can still be illegitimate to use in an argument

Front 63

The fallacy of Hasty Generalizations

Back 63

" All the cafeteria foods is terrible. I had a burger there once, and it made me queasy."

Front 64

The Fallacy of Begging the Question

Back 64

Attempting to prove a conclusion by using the same conclusion as premise.

Front 65

The fallacy of composition

Back 65

Arguing or assuming that what is true of the parts is true of the whole

Front 66

The Fallacy of Division

Back 66

Arguing or assuming that what is true of the whole is equally true of the part

Front 67

Appeal to popularity

Back 67

Arguing that a claim must be true if it is a popular belief

Front 68

Appeal to common practice

Back 68

Arguing that something should be done a certain way if it is commonly done that way

Front 69

Appeal to tradition

Back 69

Arguing that a claim must be true if it is part of a tradition

Front 70

Appeal to Ignorance

Back 70

We don't know that P is true/false

God must exist since science hasn't shown otherwise

Front 71

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Back 71

Rejecting a claim by criticizing the

character or circumstance

of person making the claim

Tu Quoque

Points out hypocrisy

Front 72

Two ways that a belief can be unjustified

Back 72

Motivational errors - Confirmation Bias

Failing to weigh evidence properly ( four versions of this)

- ignoring some evidence

- undervaluing contrary evidence

- overvaluing confirming evidence

- overvaluing psychologically available evidence......weight to memorable..vivid or striking evidence

......weight to memorable..vivid or striking evidence

Front 73

Argument Stoppers

Back 73

Who's to say the truth is about that

That's a subjective judgement

I would prefer not to think about it

* not thinking about argument