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;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Criteria |
Standards applied in an evaluation |
|
|
Evaluation |
Judgment or analysis |
|
|
Objective |
Unbiased, standards decided by expert community, focus is on object being evaluated, agreement among evaluators |
|
|
Subjective |
Biased, focus on subject, standards based on individual criteria |
|
|
Explanation |
How or why something happened in a way that is relevant to the concerns of a particular context |
|
|
Justification |
To persuade or convince someone that they should believe a specific conclusion |
|
|
Aristotle's three species of public speech |
1. Deliberative speech (asking the audience to consider future possibilities) 2. Judicial speech (accuse or defend someone of wrongdoing) 3. Epidiectic speech (to praise or celebrate) |
|
|
Aristotle's three modes of persuasion |
1. Ethos (persuasion through characteristics of the speaker) 2. Pathos (persuasion through emotional state of the audience) 3. Logos (persuasion through structure of the argument) |
|
|
Normative impersonal justifications |
The goal is to find a good reason that would be accepted by anyone who follows the argument |
|
|
Personal justifications |
Appeals to a specific person or group's personal experience |
|
|
"Language as convention" |
Language has the meaning that we give it and means different things at different times |
|
|
End of justification |
-Repetition -Stammering -Prolonged pauses -Monopolizing the discourse |
|
|
Semantic rules |
Govern meaning and reference |
|
|
Syntactic rules |
Govern how terms fit together |
|
|
Grice's conversational rules |
-Quantity: only information needed -Quality: don't provide false or insufficient information -Relevance: stay on point -Manner: avoid obscurity or vagueness |
|
|
Validity |
Iff it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false |
|
|
Invalidity |
Conclusion could be false even with true premises |
|
|
Conditionals |
"If X, then Y..." statements where X is the antecedent and Y is the consequent |
|
|
Assuring terms |
"Assure speakers position as supposedly correct" -Appealing to authority -Strengthening one's position -Abusing the audience |
|
|
Guarding terms |
"Guard someone's argument" -Weakening extent -Introducing probability -Reducing commitment |
|
|
Discounting terms |
"Discount someone's argument" Citing criticism to reject or counter -"The ring is beautiful, but it's expensive." |
|
|
Fallacies of vagueness |
"Error in reasoning" -Arguments from the heap *Draws on borderline cases -Slippery slope arguments *Conceptual slippery slope (when the difference between two extremes is not enough to justify a robust distinction) *Fairness slippery slope (suggests we shouldn't treat similar cases differently) *Casual slippery slope (an event or phenomenon will lead to something drastically positive or negative) |
|
|
Fallacies of ambiguity |
"Misleading in it's intended meaning" When someone uses a term in different ways at various points in an argument |
|
|
Fallacies of relevance |
"A premises is presented that is irreverent to the conclusion" -Ad hominem *Deniers (legitimacy denied based on irrelevant things) *Silencers (not allowing someone to speak who has the right to) *Dissmissers (attacks persons integrity or motivations) -Appeals to authority |
|
|
Fallacies of vacuity |
"Lacks new information" -Circularity -Begging the question -Self-sealers |
|
|
Forms of refutation |
-Counter examples -Straw men -False dichotomies -Parallel reasoning |
|
|
How do you avoid fallacies of ambiguity? |
-Dictionary definitions (list of possible definitions)
-Disambiguative definitions (which of the possible defonitions is intended) -Stipulative definitions (assign new or special meaning) -Precising definitions (resolve vagueness) -Systematic definitions (give order or structure) |
