Critical Thinking Final

Front 1

statement (claim)

Back 1

An assertion that something is or is not the case

Front 2

inference

Back 2

The process of reasoning from a premise or premises to a conclusion based on those premises

Front 3

argument

Back 3

a group of statements in which some of them (the premises) are intended to support another of them (the conclusion)

Front 4

premise

Back 4

In an argument, a statement, or reason, given in support of the conclusion

Front 5

conclusion

Back 5

In an argument, the statement that the premises are intended to support.

Front 6

obstetrical to thinking - self

Back 6

when our interests stop us from critical thinking

- only accepting a claim solely because it furthers your interest
- you accept because it helps you save face

Front 7

saving face

Back 7

when we accept a claim because it protects our image

Front 8

group think / conformism

Back 8

peer pressure
appeal to popularity
appeal to common practice

Front 9

connection between fallacies and inferences

Back 9

Please keep in mind that fallacies are bad INFERENCES
They do NOT necessarily involve FALSE STATEMENTS
An inference is “A therefore B”, and criticizing an inference typically takes the form “Just because A does not mean B,” or in other words, “B doesn’t follow from A”
…and this can be the case even where BOTH A and B are TRUE

Front 10

deductive argument

Back 10

is intended to provide logical conclusive support for its conclusion.

Front 11

inductive argument

Back 11

is intended to provide probable - non conclusive - support for its conclusion

Front 12

valid or invalid

Back 12

an argument that succeeds in providing such decisive logical support is valid if it does not it is invalid

deductive argument

Front 13

strong / weak

Back 13

an inductive argument that succeeds on providing probable but not conclusive logical support for its conclusions is strong if not its weak

Front 14

sound

Back 14

a deductively valid argument that has true premises

Front 15

cogent

Back 15

when inductively strong arguments have true premises

Front 16

judging arguments step 1

Back 16

find the argument's conclusion and then the premises

Front 17

judging arguments step 2

Back 17

if the premises are true and the conclusion must be true - then its deductive - if not move to next step

Front 18

judging arguments step 3

Back 18

if the premises are true and its conclusion is probable true then the argument is inductive if this is not true go to next step

Front 19

judging arguments step 4

Back 19

discover what type of failed argument it is invalid or weak and discover this by its form and indicator words

Front 20

steps for judging arguments from pp

Back 20

. First, figure out whether there’s an argument of any kind going on
Second, figure out whether it’s inductive or deductive
If it’s deductive, ask: IF the premises are true, must the conclusion also be true? If so, it’s VALID. If not, it’s INVALID.
If it’s inductive, ask: IF the premises are true, is the conclusion probable or likely? If so, it’s STRONG. If not, it’s WEAK.
Third, figure out whether the premises are true.
If they are, and the (deductive) argument is VALID, then it’s SOUND. If not, then it’s UNSOUND.
If they are, and the (inductive) argument is STRONG, then it’s COGENT. If not, then it’s NOT COGENT

Front 21

Implicit Premises

Back 21

The hidden premises in an argument that are not apart of the argument its self - these can be already known thing are things assumed by the wirter

Front 22

Conditional

Back 22

the if then premises of an argument

Front 23

Antecedent

Back 23

The if part of the conditional

Front 24

Consequent

Back 24

The then part of the conditional

Front 25

Modus Ponens

Back 25

Affirming the antecedent

If p the q
p
Therefore q

If it takes this form then it is always a good valid

Front 26

Modus Tollens

Back 26

Denying the consequent

If p, then q
Not q
therefore not p

Always Valid

Front 27

Affirming the consequent

Back 27

If p, then q
q
therefore p

Not valid

Front 28

Denying the Antecedent

Back 28

If p, the q
not p
there for not q

Not Valid

Front 29

When is it is ok to appeal to authority

Back 29

The ONLY kind of AA that is OK is an INDUCTIVE one, where we’re saying: such and such (real) expert in the relevant field (one in which there is in fact consensus among experts) says X, therefore X is likely true

Front 30

When it is not ok to appeal to authority

Back 30

When its deductive

the expert appealed to is NOT actually an expert, either AT ALL, or IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
their expertise, or reasoning, is questionable in one or more of the ways

Front 31

Making judgments on personal experience

Expectations

Back 31

We often see what we expect to see even if that is not what is happening - something to be aware of

Front 32

Making judgments on personal experience

Innumeracy

Back 32

Be careful about probabilities as it is easy to get them wrong and gamblers fallacy - where we believe the odds have changed but they really have not based in past events

Front 33

Confirmation Bias

Back 33

When we only see information that confirms what we expect or we want to see

Front 34

Availability error

Back 34

Rely on the most memorable or last data we say and that's what we remember

Front 35

Genetic fallacy

Back 35

The fallacy of arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of it origin

Front 36

Fallacies of composition

Back 36

is arguing that what is true of the pars must be true of the whole

ex the atoms that make up the human body are invisible. Therefore, the human body is invisible

Front 37

Fallacies of Division

Back 37

arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts

ex. University students study every conceivable subject. So that student over there also studies every subject

Front 38

ad hominem fallacy

Back 38

appeal to the person

is rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather then the claim

Front 39

fallacy of equivocation

Back 39

is the use of a word in two different senses in an argument

Ex The end of everything is its perfection
The end of life is death
Therefore, death

Front 40

Decision - point

Back 40

Has you assume that there must be a point for something to happen even though that point does not exist

Front 41

appeal to popularity

Back 41

is arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it

Front 42

appeal to tradition

Back 42

is arguing that a claim must be true just because it's par of a tradition

Front 43

Appeal to ignorance

Back 43

is arguing that a lack of evidence proves something.

such as something must be true because it had not been proven false

Something must be false because it has not been proven to be true

Front 44

Appeal to emotion

Back 44

is the use of emotions as premises in an argument. It consists of trying to persuade someone of a conclusion solely by arousing his feeling rather then relevant reasons

Front 45

Straw man

Back 45

the distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone's position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.

Front 46

"two wrong make a right"

Back 46

is arguing that your doing something morally wrong is justified because someone else has done the same thing

Front 47

begging the question

Back 47

is the attempt to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise

p
therefore, p

God Exists. We know that God exists because the Bible says so, and we should believe what the Bible says because God wrote it.

Front 48

False dilemma

Back 48

asserting that there are only two alternatives to consider when there are actually more then two

Front 49

hasty generalization

Back 49

when we draw a conclusion about a group based on an inadequate sample group

Front 50

False analogies

Back 50

Because two or ore things are similar in several respects, the must be similar in some further respect

Front 51

Enumerative induction

Back 51

Begin with observation about some members of the group and end with a generalization about all of them.

Front 52

Sample Group

Back 52

The observed members of the target group

Front 53

Target group

Back 53

The group as a whole - the whole collection of individuals in question

Front 54

Sample Size

Back 54

Size of the sample group

Front 55

Hasty generalization

Back 55

Whenever we draw a conclusion about a target group based on inadequate size

Front 56

Representative Sample

Back 56

the sample must resemble the target group in all ways that matter

Front 57

Biased Sample

Back 57

When a sample group does not properly represent the target group

Front 58

Strong inductive argument

Back 58

Has a large claim and with the large claim has to have large premises to support it. If it does not it becomes a hasty gen.

Front 59

Weak claims

Back 59

is one that claims less, or a little

ex. Some people love chocolate

Front 60

analogical inducation

Back 60

Thing A has properties P1, P2, P3 plus the property P4
Thing B has properties P1, P2, P3
Therefore, thing B probably has property P4

Front 61

Strength of arguments by analogy

Back 61

Relevant Similarities
Relevant Dissimilarities
The number of instances compared
Diversity among cases

Front 62

Casual Arguments

Back 62

an inductive argument whose conclusion contains a causal Claim

Front 63

Correlation and causation

Back 63

When two events are correlated they probably come from the same cause

Front 64

Confusing cause and effect

Back 64

This is when the effect is not easy to find

Does your coffee drinking cause you to feel stressed out - or do your feelings of being stressed out causes you to drink coffee

Front 65

Temporal Order

Back 65

Post hoc

We believe the cause must follow the effect but that does not mean it is true - need to be careful of looking for cause just because it happens first

An Hour after Julio drank the cola, his headache went away. the cola cured his headache.

Front 66

Inference but the best explanation

Back 66

we need to consider what the best explanation is of some event or phenomenon

So, we reason: given these observed facts, what WOULD explain them the best?

Front 67

Criteria for adequacy

Back 67

5 main things for Inference by the best explanation

Testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, conservatism

Front 68

CONSISTENCY

Back 68

with the known facts to be explained – if a theory contradicts them, it’s not even worth applying the five main criteria to it

No point in checking the 5 points of adequacy if there is no consistency

Front 69

Testability

Back 69

Being able to test if the theories are true are false.

Front 70

Fruitfulness

Back 70

yield new insight that can open up whole new areas of research and discovery

Front 71

Scope

Back 71

The more a theory explains or predicts, the more it extends our understanding

Front 72

simplicity

Back 72

the best theory is the one that is the simplest - the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

Front 73

Conservatism

Back 73

The best theory is the one that fits best with our well established beliefs

Front 74

Perhaps the two most important features of scientific method relating to Critical Thinking

Back 74

REPLICATION
FULL DISCLOSURE

Front 75

REPLICATION

Back 75

the question of whether (and how many) other scientists, conducting the same experiment, produce the same or similar results

Front 76

FULL DISCLOSURE

Back 76

the question of whether a given experiment or scientific study has disclosed its data and methodology for others to examine

Front 77

Scientism

Back 77

is the idea that science is somehow more valuable than anything else, that it is the ONLY way to determine ANY knowledge, that if science cannot describe or explain something, it is not worth knowing or caring about, - this is not scientific

Front 78

Test implications/predictions

Back 78

Set up a test case with your hypothesis and then testing it with it.

Front 79

Double blind test

Back 79

A test were neither the performance or the participants don't know who has the plecebos