Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

63 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
genetic fallacy
claim is true or false based on the source of the argument or statement
what is true of the parts must be true of the whole
Going from a distributive use of a term to a collective use of a turn
what is true of the whole must be true of the parts moving from a collective use to a distributive use
appeal to the person (ad hominem
rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes the claim rather than the claim itself
using a word in two different senses in an argument
appeal to ignorance
Assert something as true b/c it has not been shown to be false, or assert something is false b/c it has not been proven true.
A. there are times when the absence of evidence does allow us to assert there is evidence of absence
B On whom does the burden of proof fall?, the person asserting the positive claim
appeal to emotion
the use of emotions as premises in an argument
straw man
the distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone's position so that it can be more easily attacked or refuted
begging the question/circular argument/circular reasoning
the conclusion is presupposed by the premises or the conclusion is included as one of the premises
false dilemma
one asserts that there are only two options/alternatives when there are actually more, and alternatives that are posed are not exhaustive of the possibilties
slippery slope
arguing w/o good reason that doing one thing will inevitably result in something else.
hasty generalization
drawing a conclusion about a whole group based on an inadequate sample of the group
faulty analogies
the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways
Irrelevant conclusion
premises prove something but not that particular conclusion
Ad Hominum: Circumstantial
An attempt to dismiss or disprove a claim on the basis of circumstances of the person holding it
Ad Hominum: Abusive:
When you attack the character or impugn the integrity of the person rather than criticizing the argument itself
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
up claims by saying others with some sort of authority can prove it
What are arguments?
collection of propositions/group of propositions where at least one can be inferred from the others. The assertion of reasons in support of a statement.
Two major kinds of arguments
Deductive--Formal & Informal
Valid Argument
If the premises are true, do they warrant the conclusion?
What are propositions?
anything that can be asserted or denied.
Property of propositions
All are either true or false
linguistic expression of a proposition
Simple propositions
it asserts or denies only one fact or state of affairs
Complex propositions
assert multiple facts/Each fact is asserted as true
Disjunctive proposition
(either/or statement)--Just because the whole proposition is being asserted as true, the parts themselves not being asserted as being true. One of them is true, but the proposition does not show which one is true.
Conditional/Hypothetical propositions
Don’t know if either simple proposition is true. Both statements can be false while the whole can still be true.None of these propositions have to be true for the proposition to be true.
a process by which one proposition (conclusion) is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of other propositions (premises).
Two kinds of propositions
the conclusion and the premises.
Non-declarative premise
Rhetorical questions--and Enthymemes--unstated assumptions, sometimes unstated conclusion
Bacon’s Idols
Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Cave, Idols of the Marketplace, Idols of the Theatre
Subjective Relativism
subjectivist fallacy--the truth depends on what you believe, or, truth varies from one individual to another. Truth is relative to persons.
Idols of the Cave
coupled with a particular custom, habit, education
Idols of the Marketplace
result from the misuse of language. Philosophical confusion can result from linguistic confusion. Language often contains terms for things that do not exist.
Idols of the Theatre
neither innate (tribe) nor language (marketplace) but from an unduly strong attachment to our ideas.
Social Relativism
cultural relativism--truth varies not according to individuals but rather to societies or cultures.
two types of Bacon’s Idols
1. Those that are due to how we think (reasoning)
2. Those that are due to what we think, the content of reasoning.
Deductive arguments
the conclusion follows the premises regardless of what else is true in the world.
You cannot add additional premises to a deductive argument to strengthen it.
Valid Deductive argument
to be valid, it is supposing the premises are true, therefore, the conclusion must be true
Sound and unsound arguments
Sound--premises are true, conclusion must be true
Unsound --premises are not true
Inductive argument
only probability in inductive arguments, never provide conclusive evidence. Only are weak or strong. They cannot be valid or invalid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is only probably true. You can add premises to an inductive argument to either strengthen it or weaken it
Disjunctive--non conditional
At least one (not ONLY one) is true. You can never infer the falsity of one of the disjuncts.
Either p or q
Not p (or q)
Therefore, q
The truth of one does not necessarily negate the other
Mixed hypothetical syllogisms
They contain as a premise a hypothetical/conditional statement. Only one of the premises is hypothetical.
Modus ponens
Modus Ponens-- if p then q (if p=antecendent) (then q=consequent)
Therefore, q
Modus tollens
If p, then q
Not q.
Therefore, not p
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
If p, then q
If q, then r
If p, then r
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
If A, then B
Therefore, A
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
If p, then q
Not p
Not q
An independent premise
offers at least partial support for the conclusion w/o other premises.
A dependent premise
offers support for the conclusion only in conjunction w/ other premises
Only 2 ways to criticize an argument
1. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The premises do not support the conclusion
2. Or the premises are false or unacceptable.
Two kinds of fallacies
Irrelevant premises
Unacceptable premises
Use of words
1. Distributively--applying it to each individually to each individual as an individual within a class
2. Collectively--applying it to the class or collection as a whole, not to the individuals w/I the class
confuse multiple meanings of one and the same word/when there is a shift in the meaning of a term over the course of the argument/two ways to commit: confuse meanings of words and use relative terms
Hasty Generalization
start from a few examples and reach a general conclusion on the basis of these examples, even when the examples do not warrant the generalization/inductive leap...made in two ways: a generalizaation is asserted based upon insufficient evidence or when a generalization is based upon a sample that is atypical.
Anecdotal Arguments
citing personal experience as evidence
Difference between composition and hasty generalization
Compostion: from parts to whole (distributive to collective)
Hasty generalization: argue from what is true of a small/nonrepresentative number of individuals taken individually to what is true of a larger number of individuals taken individually (distributive to distributive)
saying it is true of individuals taken individually
saying it is true of individuals as a whole, as a collection
False Cause
: try to establish/posit a casual connection that does not exist and for which we have no evidence (post hoc/ergo propter hoc [after the thing, therefore, on account of ] )
4 syllogism
Hypothetical syllogism,
Modus ponens
Modus tollens
Disjunctive Syllogism
What fallacies syllogisms commit
Denying the antecedent
Affirming the consequent
standard of proof that knowledge is possible only when there is no doubt or room to question it. strength of belief based on how much argument we have to back it