Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
QUANTITY
|
BE AS INFORMATIVE AS REQUIRED
DONT GIVE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE INFO |
|
|
QUALITY
|
DONT LIE
DONT GUESS |
|
|
RELEVANCE
|
DONT CHANGE THE SUBJECT
|
|
|
MANNER
|
A AMBIGUITY
B BREVITY 0 OBSCURITY P POLITE 0 ORDERLY |
|
|
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
|
IS Y REALLY ABSURD?
DOES X REALLY IMPLY Y? CAN X BE MODIFIED IN SOME MINOR WAY SO THAT IT NO LONGER IMPLIES Y? IF 1 OR 2 = NO THEN REDUC. FAILS 3 = YES THEN REDUC. IS SHALLOW |
|
|
ATTACKING STRAW MAN
|
ATTACK A WEAK POSITION THAT YOU HAVE FABRICATED INORDER TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN
ATTACK A CLAIM WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT! |
|
|
REFUTATION BY PARALLEL REASONING
|
INVALID ARG W/
PARALLEL CONCL = F PREMISES ARE TRUE ARGUMENT HAS TO HAVE SAME FORM |
|
|
EXPLANATIONS
|
ANSWER WHYYYY
1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLE 2 - STATEMENT OF ITITIAL CONDITION 3 - CONCL. THEY GIVE YOU |
|
|
VAGUENESS
|
BORDERLINE CASES
IE CELEBRITY? ANIMAL SIZE |
|
|
HEAP
|
WRITE:
1. ONE GRAIN OF SAND IS NOT A HEAP 2. IF ONE GRAIN IS NOT, THEN TWO GRAINS ARE ALSO NOT HEAP 3. IF N GRAINS ARE NOT HEAP, THEN N+1 IS ALSO NOT HEAP. CONCL - ANY NUMBER OF GRAINS DO NOT MAKE A HEAP PREM 3 IS FALSE ADN THIS SHOWS THAT NOONE WILL EVER BE BALD. |
|
|
SLIPPERY SLOPES
|
NO DIGN. DIFERENCE BW BEING BALD AND NOT
|
|
|
CONCEPTUAL
|
WRITE:
THERE IS NO SIGN DIFF. B/W 1 GRAIN AND 2 GRAINS THERE IS NO SIGN DIFF. B/W 2 GRAIN AND 3 GRAINS THERE IS NO SIGN DIFF. B/W 1 GRAIN AND N GRAINS CONCLU- THERE IS NO SIG. DIFF. BW I GRAIN AND HEAP |
|
|
FAIRNESS
|
WHERE TO DRAW LINE?
1. THERE IS NO SIG DIFFERENCE BW A AND B 2. IT IS UNFAIR TO TREAT NOT SIGN. DIFFERENT CASES SIGN. DIFFERENTLY UNLESS PRAC. REQUIRES DRAWING A LINE SOMEWHERE 3A: PRAC. DOES NOT REQUIRE DRAWING LINE 3B: PRAC. DOES REQUIRE LINE BUT LIKE CAN BE DRAWN MORE REASONABLY SOMEWHERE ELSE CONCL - IS IS UNFAIR TO TREAT A AND B SIGN. DIFFERETLY ARG. IS FALLACIOUS IS BOTH 3A AND B ARE FALSE PREM 1 AND 2 ARE ALWASY TRUE |
|
|
CAUSAL ( DOMINO THEORY)
|
ARE CLAIMED EFFECTS REALLY BAD?
ARE ANY OF THE CLAIMED EFFECT REALLY LIKELY? DO THESE DANGERS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS OF WHATIS BEING CRITICIZED? YES TO ALL = STRONG ARG. ANY = NO THEN ARG. IS QUESTIONABLE ON THAT BASIS |
|
|
AMBIGUITY
|
CONFUSION BAOUT SOMETHING MEANING
|
|
|
FALLACY OF EQUIVOVATION - WHAT IS IT?
|
MEANING ONE WORD IS AMBIGIUOUS
|
|
|
FALLACY OF EQUIVOVATION - process
|
DISTINGUSIH POSSUBLE MEANING OF AMBIG. EXPRESSIONS
FOR EACH MEANING, RESTATE ARG. TO THAT EXPRESSION HAS CSAME MEAING IN ALL PREM NAD CLNCLUSION EVALUATE RESULTING ARGUMENTS SEPARATELY IF BOTH SYNTHESIZED ARG. ARE FALLACIOUS THEN EQUIV. EXSISTS IS EITHER IS SOUND THEN THERE IS NO EQUIVOCATION MERELY CONFUSION |
|
|
FALACY OF RELEVANCE
|
STATING THINGS THAT ARE TRUE THEMSELVES BUT HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CONCL
IS IS IMPLIED THAT THERE IS A VCONNECTION BW REASON AND WAHT YOU ARE ARGUING |
|
|
ADHOMINEM ARG
|
ATTACK SPEAKER 3 TYPES
|
|
|
DENIERS
|
DENY TRUTH OF CONCLU NOT BECAUSE OF CONTENT BUT BC OF SPEAKER! ALMOST ALWAYS FALLACIOUS
|
|
|
SILENCERS
|
DO NOT ATTACK CLAIM BUT RAHER ARGUE THAT SPEAKER HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEALK IN CERTAIN CONTENT NOT ALWAYS FALLACIOUS.
|
|
|
DISMISSERS
|
SPEAKER IS UNTRUSTWORTHY/UNRELIABLE QYESTION THAT MOTIVES OF THE CLAIM NOT THE CLAIM ITSELF. NOT ALWAYS FALLACIOUS
|
|
|
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
|
TO DETERMINE THE APPEAL OF AUTHORITY
|
|
|
TO DO APPEAL OF AUTHORITY
|
1 - IS CITED AUTHORITY REALLY AN AUTHORITY IN THE AREA?
2- IS THIS KIND OF ISSUE THAT CAN BE SETTLED BY AN EXPERT OPINION 3- HAS AUTHORITY BEEN CITED CORRECTLY 4- CAN CITED AUTHORITY BE TRUSTED TO TELL THE TRUTH 5 - WHY IS APPEAK TO AUTHORITY BEING MADE AT ALL? IF 1-4 ANSWERS ARE YES - THEN APPEAL IS JUSTIFIED |
|
|
VACUITY
|
ARG. ARE USUAL TRUE (VALID) AND MAY EVEN BE DONDS, BUT ARE FALLACIOUS BECAUSE THEY ARE CIRCULAR
PREM IS CHAIN OF ARG. REPEATS |
|
|
BEGGING THE QUESTION
|
PREMISE PRESUPPOSED CONCL
YOU COULD HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE HTE PREMISE IF YOU DID NOT ALREADY HAVE SAME REASON TO BELIVE CONCLU. |
|
|
SELF SEALERS
|
ARGUMENTS FOR WHICH NO CONTEREXAMPLE CAN BE PROVIDED
SEEM PERFECT BUT ARE VACUOUS |
|
|
3 WAYS AN ARG. CAN BE SELF SEALER
|
CAN INVENT ARBITRATY WAY OF DISMISSING EVERY POSSIBLE CRITICISM
CAN COUNTER CRITICISM BY ATTACKING CRITICS CAN USE WORDS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE POSITION BECOMES TRUE BY DEFINITION CHANGING DEF. TO SELFISH TO MEAN ACTION TO DO WHAT YOU DESIRE TO DO |
|
|
2 RESPONCES TO SELF SEALERS
|
1. ASK FOR A PREDICTION - IF ARG US SELF SEALER THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RULE ANYTHING OUT
CREATE REFUTATION BY PARALLEL REASONING. JEWS AND PANDAS ARE RULING WORLD! |
