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
|
Convergent Argument |
- reasons stand independently - if one reason falls, the other are still valid - independent reasons "converge" at the argument |
|
|
Linked Argument |
- reasons are linked - if one reasons falls it will take other down with it - only as strong as its weakest link - reasons are a "team" that lead to conclusion together |
|
|
Sub-Argument |
- sub arguments are within a larger argument - argue in favour of a premise of the larger argument - when considering truth of premise, an argument may be within the entire argument eg. "I believe we should do A (because A is better than B and B is bad because X, Y, Z)" |
|
|
Legitimate Assumptions |
eg. When you drive up to a green light you assume the drivers with red lights will stop. Basic assumptions. eg. We should stop animal testing because the animals are in pain. Assumption: Hurting animals is negative. |
|
|
Enthymemes |
A premise within an argument so obvious it need not be stated. eg. "If you eat all that, then I'm the Queen of Sheba." = You're not going to eat all that. Obviously not, I'm literally the Queen of Sheba. |
|
|
Illegitimate Assumptions |
- some assumptions are wrong or controversial - controversial assumptions: false, or require further support |
|
|
Assumptions being misused |
When someone tries to slip in as an assumption a point that is critical to an argument and that is also a point that might be doubted by some parties to the argument, assumptions are being used in a misleading way.
|
|
|
Assumptions being properly used |
Assumptions are used to specify some points of agreement (perhaps tentative or hypothetical or local or conditional agreement) so that attention can be focused on the key issues being contested, assumptions can do valuable work. |
|
|
Burden of Proof |
- the person making the claim must prove it is true - it is not up to other to prove a claim is false - correct manner of reasoning - if one were to appeal to ignorance in order to "prove" their claim, then one could "prove" anything. |
|
|
Fallacy of Ignorance (within BOP) or Appeal to Ignorance |
- the fallacy of ignorance is committed when someone argues that because his claim cannot be proved false it should be accepted as true. - when Person argues X is true because it has not been proved false. - pay attention to the exact conclusion and who is making that claim. Maker of claim bears BOP. eg. "If it's not true, they should deny it, but since they haven't they're basically saying it's true that they are having an affair/murdered my grandmother etc. etc." |
|
|
Presumption of Innocence: Why is it important? |
1) Correct manner of reasoning - the BOP belongs on the party that makes a claim
2) rights and freedoms are fundamental and we should not sacrifice those for the benefit of the state 3) rights and freedoms should not be interfered with 4) BOP on the defendant violates principles of liberty as well as logic |
|
|
When defendants don't testify... |
- it is an important right - jurors interpret not testifying as an admission of guilt - as an obligation BOP is on prosecution, not defendant. Committing Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy |
|
|
Appeal to Authority
|
- appealing to an expert in a matter
- it's testimony so the source must be reliable, as the whole argument may rely on it |
|
|
"Authority"
|
- must really be an expert in whichever subject
- must be sure the subject is one all authorities agree on If the authority cited is not an expert on the subject or there is a disagreement among authorities, then it is a fallacious appeal to authority. |
|
|
Evaluating Appeal to Authority |
Consider...
- is this person an authority in the appropriate field? - is this an issue on which authorities generally agree? - is this authority likely to give his or her truthful, unbiased, unsalted expert opinion? - is the authority tempted to slant or even falsify his or her expert opinion? |
|
|
Appeal to Tradition(al Wisdom) |
- that a view or position has been held for many years is not evidence of its correctness - they may be true, but their longevity is not proof of that eg. Corporal punishment, slavery, circumcision etc. |
|
|
Appeal to Popularity
|
- the fact that a view is popular is no grounds for believing it is correct
|
|
|
Summary of Appeals to P, T, Individual |
When an "authority" - whether popularity, tradition or an individual - is not really an expert on the subject (or when genuine authorities do not agree) then appeal to A is fallacious. And since the Authority is giving testimony (and the strength of testimony depends on the integrity and expertise of the authority) AHA's against such appeals are legit.: they do not commit AHAF
|
|
|
Truth in Eyewitness Testimony
|
Truth...
means honesty (vs lying) means accurate statement (vs error) |
|
|
4 Things to Consider with Eyewitness Testimony |
1) was the witness in a position to make an accurate observation? 2) how were the witnesses observations influenced by their state of mind, beliefs or expectations, mental health, sobriety, etc.? 3) how could their recollection of events been influenced during the time in between making the observations and giving testimony? eg. seeing pictures or a line up and "picking out" the attacker - now that persons image is in their mind when they think of the event. A potential suspect now becomes "the guy" in the witnesses minds and so they are telling the truth - in that they are not lying, they really do believe he did it- but they have been influenced. 4) is the witness lying? |
|
|
Does fear heighten our memory? |
No. Elizabeth Loftus, authority on psychology of eyewitness testimony) says ... people who witness fearful events remember the details of them less accurately that they recall ordinary happenings. Stress or fear disrupts perception and, therefore, memory. |
|
|
Preconceptions in Eyewitness Testimony |
- influence how we see objects and events - a person with strong expectations concerning an event - or someone prejudiced against participants - may believe they are testifying accurately but their memory is hampered by false perception, false memories = false testimony eg. those sentences with a letter missing, you expect the words to be spelled correctly or in the right order, so you don't see the mistake. Your preconception has altered your understanding and therefore memory. |
|
|
Filling-in Memories |
- memory is not a film - some of our memories are created through assumptions, expectations, beliefs, imagination to fill in gaps - we can't tell the difference between actual memory and filled in portions so we may testify the "truth" as we (now) remember it |
|
|
Power of Suggestion |
- many ways
- how you ask a question: smashed vs bumped, stole vs borrowed, attacked vs bumped into - suggestion within line ups: one black man with five white men, one tall person with five short people, suspect is in X clothing items because witnesses reported X clothing item - tone of voice and "take your time", or moving quickly, "good, good" can subtly tamper with witnesses |
|
|
Photo-bias |
Seeing photographs causes unconscious transference in which someone seen in one situation is confused in memory with persons from another situation. - I remember the person in the photo (from the police) and use that memory to fill in the gaps in the face of my attacker. This filling in strengthens my false memory and gives me the confidence to sway a jury. |
|
|
Witness Inaccuracy |
- were they able to accurately observe? (physical or mental barriers) - did preconceptions, bias or some other influence effect their observations? - filling-in/suggestion/passing of time (with false memory)? - lying? |
|
|
"Strong Witness" |
- testimony from higher status witnesses appears more believable but has nothing to do with honesty - we cannot distinguish lies from truths - look at the content of what witness is saying - judge reliability of testimony by looking at source eg. someone with bias, special interest vs no interest |
|
|
Omitting Evidence |
- not telling the whole truth - not lying but leaving information out |
|
|
Suppressed Evidence |
When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument. Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A. |
