Philosophical Concepts And Methods

Front 1

What is an argument?

Back 1

an inference from on e of more starting points (truth claim called premises) to an end point (a truth claim called conclusion)

Front 2

What is an inference?

Back 2

Logic .
a.
the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises

Front 3

Where is reasons place in philosophy?

Back 3

It is one of the conerstones of its methods. Most of philosophy is derived out of the human ability to reason. Although there are some philosophers that do not use strict argumentation methods they are still using their reason to justify their concepts in a subtle. In summary, reason does not strictly refer to argumentation or logic, in the strict sense of the word, but just to making sense with concepts and their relationships.

Front 4

What is a conclusion?

Back 4

The product of result of an inference or a chain of inferences, that which the reasoning justifies and supports

Front 5

What is a premise? What property must it have to be a premise?

Back 5

a claim or set of claims from which conclusion is inferred. In other words, the supporting truth claims for the conclusion.

In order for a statement to be a premise, it must make a claim that is true or false.

Front 6

What are enthymemes?

Back 6

An implicit premise or an unstated or implied or masked premise that is a part of the argument

Front 7

What are P and Q indicators?

Back 7

Phrases or words that indicate that a premise or conclusion is to follow.

Front 8

What justifies the grounds for premises? Basic reasons.

Back 8

1) The premise itself was the conclusion of a sound argument. The problem for this is infinite regress or each premise would have to be justified by a different argument, and that by another argument ... ad infinitum.

2) The premise stands in no need for further justification. These are usually true by definition.

3) Also, there are premises that, though conceivably false, must be taken to be true for there to be any rational dialogue at all. For example, I exist.

Front 9

How do you identify basic premises?

Back 9

It depends on the context and also the philosophers who assume them. For example,

Stoics hold that they are self-evident
Positivist hold that they are rooted in sense data etc.
but, in general you cannot use a basic premise as an assumption of what you are trying to argue for.

Front 10

What are basic premises?

Back 10

There are premises that, though conceivably false, must be taken to be true for there to be any rational dialogue at all.

Front 11

What is important to ask about basic premises?

Back 11

How does the philosopher justify their assumption to being true.

Front 12

What is a deductive argument?

Back 12

An argument where if the premises are true and the argument is valid then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

Front 13

What is an inductive argument? What does it usually involve?

Back 13

an argument whose inference where the conclusion follows from the premises not with necessity but only with probability. Usually involves making a generalization about an entire class based on the observations of a limited individuals within that class. Also, it is reasoning from past and present regularities to future regularities

Front 14

What is the problem with induction?

Back 14

It involves reasoning from 'some' to a generalization about all which is highly problematic because it assumes that the some will be identical to the rest or 'all'.

It posits that nature is uniform and regular in its behavior across space and time and it is not able to justify this because to do so you would have to see all of time or travel to the end of time. The only grounds that can be given about the future are based on the observed events in the present or past.

We cannot beyond observed without assuming that unobserved parts of the world operate in the same was as the parts we observe

Front 15

How is the problem of induction acknowledged? How is this not justified?

Back 15

It does not make absolute claims but instead, conclusions that do not follow with necessity with words like 'it is probable' or 'it is likely that' or 'it is most likely that'

This still does not justify induction because

Front 16

What is validity? (i.e. its relation to an argument)

Back 16

Validity is a property that an argument can have if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. It refers to the arguments logical structure and is irrelevant to the truth-hood of the premises or conclusion. In other words

It is good for arguing, criticizing and thinking well.

Front 17

What is a sound argument?

Back 17

An argument of the highest quality. It is a deductive argument that meets two criteria:

1) Validity
2) True premises

It is not enough to be just one, but must be both in order to be a sound argument. Both components are equally important.

Front 18

What are the two basic methods of attacking an argument?

Back 18

1) attack the truth of the premises that are reasoned from
2) show that the argument is invalid, regardless of whether or not the premises deployed are true.

Front 19

What is invalidity?

Back 19

The logical relation in a deductive argument when the truth of the premises are structured in a way that the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true. Like validity, invalidity is truth-blind. In other words, you can have true premises in an invalid argument and still have a false conclusion.

Front 20

How does soundness relate to philosophy?

Back 20

First, it is what every deductive argument wishes to achieve.

Second, it indicates that philosophers are not necessarily just concerned with truth, but also, being able to argue the truth and what makes truth the truth.

Philosopher is sometimes concerned with demonstrating the truth through argument

Front 21

e·mer·gence 

Back 21

–noun
1.
the act or process of emerging.
2.
an outgrowth, as a prickle, on the surface of a plant.
3.
Evolution . the appearance of new properties or species in the course of development or evolution.

Front 22

e·merge 

Back 22

–verb (used without object), e·merged, e·merg·ing.
1.
to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity: a ghost emerging from the grave; a ship emerging from the fog.
2.
to rise or come forth from or as if from water or other liquid.
3.
to come up or arise, as a question or difficulty.
4.
to come into existence; develop.
5.
to rise, as from an inferior or unfortunate state or condition.

Front 23

prop·er·ty 

Back 23

an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing: the chemical and physical properties of an element.
7.
Logic .
a.
any attribute or characteristic.
b.
(in Aristotelian logic) an attribute not essential to a species but always connected with it and with it alone.

Front 24

dis·tinc·tive 

Back 24

–adjective
1.
serving to distinguish; characteristic; distinguishing: the distinctive stripes of the zebra.
2.
having a special quality, style, attractiveness, etc.; notable.

Front 25

dis·tin·guish 

Back 25

–verb (used with object)
1.
to mark off as different (often fol. by from or by ): He was distinguished from the other boys by his height.
2.
to recognize as distinct or different; recognize the salient or individual features or characteristics of: It is hard to distinguish her from her twin sister.
3.
to perceive clearly by sight or other sense; discern; recognize: He could not distinguish many of the words.
4.
to set apart as different; be a distinctive characteristic of; characterize: It is his Italian accent that distinguishes him.
5.
to make prominent, conspicuous, or eminent: to distinguish oneself in battle.
6.
to divide into classes; classify: Let us distinguish the various types of metaphor.