Phil 1 Quiz 1

Front 1

5 branches of philosophy

Back 1

1) metaphysics

2) logic

3) epistemology

4) ethics

4) aesthetics/axiology/value

Front 2

philo-sophy means

Back 2

love of wisdom

Front 3

the father of modern philosophy

Back 3

Descartes (1600s)

Front 4

characteristics of modern philosophy

Back 4

1) rational, rule-governed unviverse

2) rational mind

3) human autonomy

Front 5

rationalism vs empiricism

Back 5

rationalism: all knowledge comes from reason

empiricism: knowledge comes from experience

Front 6

a priori

Back 6

in-born knowledge (a rationalist concept)

Front 7

Descartes' method of doubt

Back 7

doubt everything in order to solve the problem of infinite regress and find the starting point of knowledge

Front 8

cogito ergo sum

Back 8

"i think therefore i am"

Front 9

definition of logic

Back 9

the study of argument form,

or the study of inference

NOT about the truth of premises

Front 10

definition of inference

Back 10

how you get from premises to conclusion

Front 11

definition of argument

Back 11

set of statements with one conclusion and one or more premises

Front 12

definition of statement (same as claim)

Back 12

an assertion that something is or is not the case

Front 13

definition of premises

Back 13

statement that supports another statement

Front 14

definition of conclusion

Back 14

a statement that is supported by premises

Front 15

deductive vs inductive arguments

Back 15

deductive arguments: intended to provide conclusive support for conclusion

inductive arguments: intended to provide probable support for conclusion

Front 16

valid vs strong

Back 16

valid: a deductive argument that provides conclusive support for its conclusion

strong: an inductive argument that provides probable support for conclusion

Front 17

sound vs cogent

Back 17

sound: a valid deductive argument with true premises

cogent: a strong inductive argument with true premises

Front 18

deductive syllogism consists of

Back 18

1) major premise

2) minor premise

3) conclusion

Front 19

major premise vs minor premise

Back 19

major premise: establishes something foundational by definition

minor premise: depends on major premise

Front 20

example of a deductive syllogism with letters

Back 20

all As are Bs

C is an A

so C is a B

(A and B; C and A; C and B)

Front 21

definition of argument by analogy

Back 21

asserts similarity between 2 things based on other similarities

Front 22

give a generic example of an argument by analogy

Back 22

object 1 and object 2 both have properties blah blah blah

object 1 has property P

so object 2 also has property P

Front 23

what are the two things being compared in argument by analogy?

Back 23

1) analogue

2) primary subject

Front 24

define analogue and primary subject

Back 24

primary subject: central topic dealt with in conclusion

analogue: the thing the primary subject is compared to

Front 25

basis for the argument by analogy is

Back 25

the principle of consistency - similar things should be treated similarly

Front 26

what makes a good argument by analogy? (3 parts)

Back 26

1) are they similar?

2) are the similarities relevant to the argument?

3) are there any dissimilarities that weaken the argument?

Front 27

what are the 2 main categories of fallacies?

Back 27

fallacies with:

1) irrelevant premises

2) unacceptable premises

Front 28

irrelevant premises vs unacceptable premises

Back 28

irrelevant premises: premises not relevant to conclusion

unacceptable premises: premises are relevant to conclusion but don't provide enough support for it

Front 29

define genetic fallacy

Back 29

argument from origin, or where a thing comes from

e.g. proposal comes from republican party

Front 30

define composition fallacy

Back 30

argument that from parts to whole

e.g. the parts of the machine are light, so the machine will be light

Front 31

define division fallacy

Back 31

argument from whole to parts

e.g. a rich country means everyone in the country is rich

Front 32

define appeal to the person fallacy

Back 32

argument from attacking the person, or ad hominem

e.g. he dabbles in the paranormal

Front 33

define equivocation fallacy

Back 33

argument from using different senses of words

e.g. man is rational and women are not men so women are not rational

Front 34

define appeal to the masses fallacy

Back 34

argument from everyone else doing or believing it

e.g. everyone drives

Front 35

define appeal to tradition fallacy

Back 35

argument from the past

e.g. marriage has been defined this way for all of time

Front 36

define appeal to ignorance fallacy

Back 36

argument from lack of evidence (doesn't prove anything, just means you don't know)

e.g. since there is no proof that ghosts don't exist, there are ghosts

Front 37

define red herring fallacy

Back 37

argument from intentionally bringing up an irrelevant point

e.g. abortion is a right. anti-abortion activists bomb clinics.

Front 38

define appeal to emotion fallacy

Back 38

argument from emotion

e.g. you should hire me or i won't have many to pay for cancer treatment.

Front 39

define straw man fallacy

Back 39

argument from distorting or oversimplifying an argument

Front 40

define begging the question fallacy

Back 40

argument by using conclusion as premises (circular argument)

e.g. god exists bc the bible says so and the bible is true bc god wrote it

Front 41

define false dilemma fallacy

Back 41

argument from saying there are only 2 choices

e.g. either you support the war or you're a traitor

Front 42

define slippery slope fallacy

Back 42

argument from saying one step will lead to another step will lead to another step without giving any reasons

e.g. gay marriage will lead to marrying multiple people or animals

Front 43

define 2 wrongs make a right fallacy

Back 43

argument from saying someone else did it so that makes my wrongdoing morally okay

e.g. i stole his laptop bc he stole mine

Front 44

define decision-point fallacy

Back 44

argument from saying there is no clear definite place where a line can be drawn, therefore there is no difference btwn any gradations in btwn

e.g. we can't ever say for sure the exact point when he is definitely bald, so he's not going bald

Front 45

define hasty generalization fallacy

Back 45

argument from making a conclusion about a group based on an inadequate sample of a group

e.g. stereotypes

Front 46

define faulty analogy fallacy

Back 46

argument from an analogy in which the things compared are not sufficiently similar