Philo Final Review

Front 1

Questionable Cause Fallacy

Back 1

The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis.

Front 2

Placebo

Back 2

a substance or methos that is ineffective in itself which is given to some subjects so we can compare the relative effects of another subject or method.

Front 3

Double Blind Study

Back 3

neither the subjects nor the experiment administrator knows whether the placebo is being used

Front 4

Fault Analogy

Back 4

assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect.

Front 5

Ad Hominem

Back 5

A criticism of the source of a claim, that is, the person who makes the claim

Front 6

Inverse Ad Hominem

Back 6

Praise the person, give support for their position

Front 7

Appeal to Authority

Back 7

Any attempt to establish a claim by appealing to an expert or to someone who supposedly has special expertise

Front 8

Slippery Slope Argument

Back 8

claims that if a certain thing is done (a certain policy adopted) then it will lead to bad results

Front 9

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Back 9

is when no reasons are given for thinking the action in question will lead to the bad result.

Front 10

Dilemma

Back 10

an argument with and exclusive disjunction as one of the premises.
False when the disjunction is false

Front 11

Begging the Question

Back 11

An argument that assumes the conclusion it is meant to establish. (Using the conclusion f an argument as a premise)

Front 12

Omission

Back 12

a statement that is misleading because of an important truth it leaves out

Front 13

Fallacy of Ambiguity

Back 13

One meaning if a word or phrase is used in the premises, but a different meaning is used in the conclusion

Front 14

Strawman Fallacy

Back 14

misrepresentation of a view or argument that makes it less plausible.

Front 15

Deductive argument

Back 15

an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In this type of argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Front 16

Strong (Inductive Argument)

Back 16

saying nothing at all about the truth of the premises - and if they are (not that they are) then the premises provide strong support for the truth of your conclusion

Front 17

Cogent (Inductive argument)

Back 17

it must be strong and all its premises must be true

Front 18

Inductive Argument

Back 18

argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In this argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

Front 19

Valid (Deductive Argument)

Back 19

If all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true.
If the truth of the premises in inconsistent then it plays with the falsity of the conclusion

Front 20

Sound (Deductive Argument)

Back 20

It must be valid and all its premises must actually be true.