Fys

Front 1

Logic Deduction

Back 1

if premises are true, conclusion has to be true

Front 2

Logic induction

Back 2

if premises are true, conclusion may be true

Front 3

validity

Back 3

well-grounded or justifiable(structure)

Front 4

soundness

Back 4

valid and true

Front 5

inductive strength

Back 5

how likely the conclusion is to happen

Front 6

Ad Hominem

Back 6

someone comments against position to discredit person holding that position

Front 7

appeal to emotion

Back 7

irrelevant emotion to get others to accept conclusion

Front 8

appeal to majority

Back 8

accept truth of position because many others believe it

Front 9

appeal to force

Back 9

person is persuaded to believe something due to a threat

Front 10

straw man

Back 10

person simply ignores a persons actual position and substitutes it with exaggerated version of that position

Front 11

hasty generalization

Back 11

person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough

Front 12

slippery slope

Back 12

some event must follow from another without any argument.

Front 13

begging the question

Back 13

truth of the premise is assumed as obvious when it needs an argument to support it

Front 14

circular reasoning

Back 14

the person reasoning begins with what they are trying to end with

Front 15

red herring

Back 15

irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue

Front 16

composition fallacy

Back 16

cant take a property of a pert and apply it to the whole

Front 17

division fallacy

Back 17

cant take a property of the whole and apply it to a part

Front 18

logical positivism

Back 18

science is the surest way to truth (highest regards)

Front 19

metaphysics

Back 19

beneath physics

Front 20

epistemology

Back 20

theory of knowledge

Front 21

context of discovery

Back 21

who, when, how?

Front 22

context of justification

Back 22

why?

Front 23

Kuhn on the history of science

Back 23

looking at the history of science undermines concepts of science and its success

Front 24

paradigm

Back 24

a set of distinct concepts that form the common beliefs of a scientific field

Front 25

normal science

Back 25

regular work of scientists experimenting within a settled paradigm or explanatory framework

Front 26

critique of normal science

Back 26

normal science is basic and considered the mop up work of science

Front 27

puzzle solving

Back 27

the way that Kuhn describes normal science, saying that there is no joy in figuring out new things

Front 28

the advantages of normal science

Back 28

very few (heroic views of what it can do, fix the world, help a bunch of people, be smart) but as you get closer to the paradigm, everything gets confusing

Front 29

scientific hack work

Back 29

doing the mop up work of paradigms and the people who do this kind of work are known as technicians

Front 30

incommensurability

Back 30

cant argue between true and falsities (two paradigms)

Front 31

internal questions

Back 31

comes from inside the field

Front 32

external questions

Back 32

comes from outside the field and tend to be more basic

Front 33

comparing paradigms

Back 33

cant compare two paradigms because it is unfair because two paradigms are two distinctly different beliefs

Front 34

moral relativism

Back 34

peoples morals in science are only relative at the time

Front 35

epistemic relativism

Back 35

rejects the idea that claims can be assumed from a universally applicable, objective standpoint

Front 36

Kuhn on scientific progress

Back 36

no scientific progress based on the theory that science is all relative to its time period, thus discrediting any advancements made in that time period