• 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
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/51

Click to flip

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;

51 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Logic
The branch of philosophy that explores the way we reason
Logic (1)
1. To define the correct reasoning
Logic (2)
To distinguish between good arguments and bad ones
Logic (3)
To pick out flaws and weakness in reasoning
Logic (4)
To create rules which enable us to test whether our reasoning is correct and consistent
Logic (how?)
To define a problem, consider solutions, come to a conclusion
Deductive logic
concerned with the rules for determining when an argument is valid; does not concern itself with truth at all, only the process of reasoning
argument
process of reasoning, series of reasons
argument (structure)
First two lines=premise
last line=conclusion
logical=valid
illogical=invalid
symbolic logic (Aristotle!)
(Gottlob Frege=first complete system...all and some)
logicians use symbols to distance themselves from potentially ambiugous language
Categorical symbolism
premises show that one set of things (a category) is either included or excluded from another set of things
deductive logic
general to particular
inductive logic
particular to general; reasoning we use to make generalizations/analogies; we use experience (empirical knoweldge and make inferences from that)
induction
means the making of a general rule form particular instances
inference
means the forming of a conclusion from the information available
imply
to express or indicate indirectly
features of inductive logic (2)
1. it gives good raesons for supporting a conclusion but it does not guarantee that conclusion.

2. Its conclusion contains information that is not in the argument
Three tests for Soundness
sufficient number
varying circumstances
the search for exemption
analogies
comparing two related things and making judgments about them based on similarity
fallacy
an argument that uses an invalid form of reasoning
formal fallacy
invalid reasoning found in syllogisms
informal fallacies
all the different ones
arugment is fallacious if...
assuming a false prepostion as one of its premises
its premises do not imply its conclusion
fallacies of relevance
premises not relevant to conclusion
ad hominem
focus transferred from argument to arguer (person OR group)
ad hominem, abusive
disparage character of opponent
ad hominem, circumstantial
generalziations made on opponent's beliefs because of their employment, nationality, etc. (ex: terrorists)
tu quoque
(and you too) make opponent seem hypocritical
ad baculum
appeals to force
everyone-does-it fallacy
numbers make it right
appeals to emotion
expressive language/images used to cause reaction
ad misericordiam
appeals to pity
straw man (person) argument
distort argument, attack distorted argument like it's the real argument
petitio principii; begging the question
circular argument
non sequitur
any fallacy of relevance (except petitio principii), means conclusion doesn't follow premises
argument ad ignorantium
argument from ignorance; it's true because it hasn't been proved false yet
ad verecundium
appeal to authority fallacy; refrence to authorities who have no authority in subject matter and studies
complex question
loaded questions
hasty generalization
accident
converse accident
accident
moves too quickly from a generalization to a specific judgment
converse accident
move too quickly from a specific to a generalization
non causa pro causa
false cause/post ergo propter hoc (after the thing because of the thing
ignoratio elenchi
irrelevant conclusion; premises "miss the point"
dicto simpliciter
doesn't take genuine excpetions into account
false analogy
compares two things wrongly
slippery slope
weak inductive references to bad conclusion (if, then, then...)
red herring
distracts audience from premise with off topic remark
logic
can help identify and clarify vague/ambiguous statements

indicate unstated assumptions/biases

help identify unstated premises

make us aware of the strength and validity of analogies/comparisons
equivocation
words used in more than one meaning within the same argument without distinguishing between meanings
composition
arguer inappropriately projects property of parts of something onto the whole
division
aruger inappropriately projects the property of the whole onto one/some of the parts