Keywords In Philosophy

Front 1

abduction

Back 1

a form of nondeductive inference, also known as inference to the best explanation.

Front 2

altruism

Back 2

an ultimate desire (a desire that one wants to come true for its own sake, not because it instrumentally contributes to some other goal) is altruistic if it seeks the well-being of some other person.

Front 3

analogy argument

Back 3

a nondeductive inference in which one infers that a target object T has some characteristic on the ground that T is similar to some other object A (the analogy), and A is known to possess that characteristic

Front 4

analytic

Back 4

an analytic sentence is one whose truth or falsehood is deductively entailed by definitions. If a sentence isn't analytic, it is synthetic

Front 5

a posteriori

Back 5

a proposition that can be known or justified only by sense experience

Front 6

a priori

Back 6

a proposition that can be known or justified independent of sense experience

Front 7

argument from design

Back 7

an a posteriori argument that God exists, advanced by Aquinas and Paley, criticized by Hume. The argument claims that some feature of the world (like the simplicity of its laws or the fact that organisms are intricate and well adapted) should be explained by postulating the existence of an intelligent designer, namely God.

Front 8

argument from evil

Back 8

an argument that claims that the existence of evil shows either that there is no God, or that God can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

Front 9

axiom

Back 9

in mathematics, a starting assumption from which conclusions (theorems) are deduced

Front 10

begging the question

Back 10

an argument begs the question when you wouldn't accept the premisses unless you already believed the conclusion

Front 11

birthday fallacy

Back 11

the error in reasoning that one would make in thinking that "everyone has a birthday" deductively implies that "there is a single day on which everyone was born"

Front 12

categorical imperative

Back 12

an imperative (a command) that is unconditional (no if's). In contrast, a hypothetical imperative is a command of the form, "If you have goal G, then perform action A."

Front 13

causal argument for the existence of God

Back 13

an argument that Descartes gives in the Meditations for the claim that God exists and is no deceiver: Since (1) I have an idea of a perfect being, and (2) there is at least as much perfection in the cause as there is in the effect, it is said to follow that the cause of that idea must be a perfect being, namely, God himself

Front 14

clarity and distinctness criterion

Back 14

Descartes maintained that if a belief is clear and distinct, then it can't fail to be true. The reason clear and distinct ideas must be true is that God exists and is no deceiver

Front 15

compatibilism

Back 15

the thesis that free will and determinism are compatible. Soft determinism is a version of compatibilism. Hard determinism and libertarianism are incompatibilist theories.

Front 16

compatibility

Back 16

two propositions are compatible if the truth of one wouldn't rule out the truth of the other. Example: (i) this shirt is blue; (ii) this shirt is torn. Proposition (i) and (ii) are compatible. This doesn't mean that either is true

Front 17

conditional

Back 17

an if/then statement. the if-cause is called the antecedent; the then-clause is called the consequent

Front 18

consequentialism

Back 18

a kind of ethical theory that holds that the ethical properties of an action (its rightness or wrongness, its justness or unjustness, etc.) can be determined by seeing what consequences the action would have if it were performed. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist doctrine. Kant's theory isn't.

Front 19

conservation law

Back 19

a law in physics that says that some quantity (like matter or mass/energy) can neither increase or decrease in a closed system

Front 20

contingent

Back 20

a being is contingent if it exists in some but not all possible worlds; a proposition is contingent if it's true in some but not all possible worlds. YOu are an example of a contingent thing; though you exist in the actual world, you could have failed to exist

Front 21

conventionalism

Back 21

trivial semantic conventionalism holds that a true sentence might have been false if we had defined our terms differently. For example, the sentence "dogs have four legs" might have been false if we had used the word "dog" to refer to fish. A philosophically interesting conventionalism must go beyond this unsurprising point. Substantive conventionalism holds that a particular proposition is true only because of someone's say-so. For example, the following is a substantive conventionalist claim (and a false one) : Dogs would have lacked four legs if we had used the word "dog" to refer to fish

Front 22

cosmological argument

Back 22

an argument for the existence of God that cites some large-scale feature of the universe as a whole -- for example that things are in motion, that events are related by cause and effect, or that contingent beings exist. Aquina's first three ways are instances of this type of argument

Front 23

counterexample

Back 23

a counterexample to a generalization is an object that refutes the generalization. a rotten apple in the barrel is a counterexample to the claim "all the apples in this barrel are unspoiled"

Front 24

deductive validity

Back 24

an argument is deductively valid because of the logical form it has. a deductively valid argument is one in which the conclusion must be true if the premisses are true

Front 25

descriptive/ normative distinction

Back 25

a descriptive claim says what is the case, without commenting on whether that is good or bad. a normative claim says whether something should be the case, or whether it is good or bad. "Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year" is a descriptive claim; "drunk driving shouldn't be so lightly punished" is a normative claim

Front 26

design argument

Back 26

an argument for the existence of God that begins with the observation that features of the universe show evidence o design. The inference is then drawn that an intelligent designer brought these features into being. The most familiar form of this argument cites the complex adaptive features of organisms. Creationists use the argument from design and reject evolutionary theory.

Front 27

determinism

Back 27

the thesis that a complete description of the causal facts at one time uniquely determines what must happen next. there is only one possible future, given a complete description of the present. Newtonian physics says that the behavior of physical objects is determinstic.

Front 28

Divine Command Theory

Back 28

the theory that ethical statements are made true or false by Gods decreeing how we should act

Front 29

dualism

Back 29

the thesis that the mind and the body are two distinct entities. Dualists claim that a person's mind is made of a nonphysical substance. Dualism rejects materialism

Front 30

Duhem's thesis

Back 30

the thesis that theories in physics typically do not, by themselves, make predictions about observations, but do so when supplemented with auxiliary imformation.

Front 31

emotivism

Back 31

a theory about how ethical statements are used. such statements are never true or false; rather, they merely allow the speaker to express feelings and attitudes. Emotivism accepts ethical subjectivism

Front 32

empirical

Back 32

for a proposition to be empirical is for it to be a posteriori

Front 33

epistemology

Back 33

the branch of philosophy concerned with concepts like knowledge and rational justification

Front 34

equivocation, fallacy of

Back 34

an argument commits this fallacy when it uses a term with one meaning for part of the argument and then shifts to another meaning for the rest of the argument. Example: "I put my money in the bank. A bank is a side of a river. Hence, I put my money in the side of a river." arguments that commit this fallacy should be clarified so that the terms in them are used with a single meaning throughout

Front 35

ethical conventionalism

Back 35

the thesis that ethical statements are made true by someone's say-so. the divine command theory, ethical relativism, and Sartre's version of existentialism are conventionalist theories

Front 36

ethical realism

Back 36

the thesis that some ethical statements are true, and are true independently of anyone's thinking or saying that they are

Front 37

ethical relativism

Back 37

the thesis that an ethical statement is true or false in a society because of the norms adopted in that society. Ethical relativism is a normative, not a descriptive, thesis

Front 38

ethical subjectivism

Back 38

the thesis that there are no ethical facts, only ethical opinions. Ethical statements are neither true nor false

Front 39

existentialism

Back 39

a twentieth-century philosophical movement that places great weight on the fact that individuals are free and so must take responsibility for how they live their lives. in Sartre's version of existentialism, each person creates ethical facts for himself or herself by a free decision

Front 40

fallacy

Back 40

an error in reasoning

Front 41

fatalism

Back 41

the theory loosely expressed by the slogan "whatever will be, will be" (que sera, sera). According to this theory, what happens to us doesn't depend on what we think or want or try to do. Example: Oedipus, the myth says, was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. Fatalism and determinism are different.

Front 42

foundationalism

Back 42

the view that all the propositions we know to be true can be divided into two categories. First, there are the foundational propositions, which have some special property (like indubitability) that explains why we know them to be true. Second, there are the superstructural propositions, which we know because they bear some special relationship (like deductive implication) to the foundational propositions. Sometimes foundationalism is understood as a thesis about justified belief, not knowledge.

Front 43

functionalism

Back 43

the theory in the mind/body/problem that says that psychological properties (types) aren't identical with physical properties, because psychological properties are multiply realizable. In addition, functionalism maintains that psychological properties are to be understood in terms of the causal roles

Front 44

genetic fallacy

Back 44

the mistake of thinking a statement can't be true simply because there's a causal explanation for why people believe that it's true.

Front 45

hard determinism

Back 45

the incompatibilist doctrine that holds that human actions are unfree because they are causally determined

Front 46

identity theory

Back 46

the thesis that the mind and the brain are identical. Also, that psychological properties are identical with physical properties

Front 47

if and only if

Back 47

"X is true if and only if Y is true" means that the truth of X is both necessary and sufficient for the truth of Y. "X if and only if Y" means that X and Y are either both true or both false.

Front 48

incorrigibility of the mental, thesis of the

Back 48

this thesis claims that we can't be mistaken in the beliefs we have about the contents of our own minds. If you believe that you believe P or want Q to be true, then it must be true that you believe P or want Q to be true

Front 49

independent

Back 49

two propositions are logically independent of each other if the truth or falsity of one doesn't deductively imply the truth or falsity of the other. Example: it was discovered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that Euclid's parallel postulate is independent of the other axioms and postulates of his system of geometry

Front 50

indeterminism

Back 50

the thesis that even a complete description of the present doesn't uniquely determine what will happen next. There's more than one possible future, each with its own probability of coming true, given a complete description of the present

Front 51

fatalism

Back 51

the theory loosely expressed by the slogan "whatever will be, will be" (que sera, sera). According to this theory, what happens to us doesn't depend on what we think or want or try to do. Example: Oedipus, the myth says, was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. Fatalism and determinism are different.

Front 52

foundationalism

Back 52

the view that all the propositions we know to be true can be divided into two categories. First, there are the foundational propositions, which have some special property (like indubitability) that explains why we know them to be true. Second, there are the superstructural propositions, which we know because they bear some special relationship (like deductive implication) to the foundational propositions. Sometimes foundationalism is understood as a thesis about justified belief, not knowledge.

Front 53

functionalism

Back 53

the theory in the mind/body/problem that says that psychological properties (types) aren't identical with physical properties, because psychological properties are multiply realizable. In addition, functionalism maintains that psychological properties are to be understood in terms of the causal roles

Front 54

genetic fallacy

Back 54

the mistake of thinking a statement can't be true simply because there's a causal explanation for why people believe that it's true.

Front 55

hard determinism

Back 55

the incompatibilist doctrine that holds that human actions are unfree because they are causally determined

Front 56

identity theory

Back 56

the thesis that the mind and the brain are identical. Also, that psychological properties are identical with physical properties

Front 57

if and only if

Back 57

"X is true if and only if Y is true" means that the truth of X is both necessary and sufficient for the truth of Y. "X if and only if Y" means that X and Y are either both true or both false.

Front 58

incorrigibility of the mental, thesis of the

Back 58

this thesis claims that we can't be mistaken in the beliefs we have about the contents of our own minds. If you believe that you believe P or want Q to be true, then it must be true that you believe P or want Q to be true

Front 59

independent

Back 59

two propositions are logically independent of each other if the truth or falsity of one doesn't deductively imply the truth or falsity of the other. Example: it was discovered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that Euclid's parallel postulate is independent of the other axioms and postulates of his system of geometry

Front 60

indeterminism

Back 60

the thesis that even a complete description of the present doesn't uniquely determine what will happen next. There's more than one possible future, each with its own probability of coming true, given a complete description of the present

Front 61

induction

Back 61

a nondeductive argument in which characteristics of individuals not in a sample are inferred from the characteristics of individuals in the sample. The strength of an inductive inference is influenced by sample size and sample bias

Front 62

is/ought gap

Back 62

Hume argued that ethical statements concerning what ought to be the case can't be deduced from statements that describe only what is the case

Front 63

JTB theory

Back 63

the theory that knowledge is justified true belief. In other words, the theory advances the following proposal: For any person S and any proposition 'p', S knows that 'p' if and only if (1) S believes that 'p': (2) 'p' is true; (3) S is justified in believing that 'p'

Front 64

KK-principle

Back 64

this principle says that if S knows that 'p', then S knows that S knows that 'p'. The principle is rejected by the reliability theory of knowledge

Front 65

law

Back 65

a scientific law is a proposition that is general (it concerns all objects of a certain kind), that doesn't refer to any individual, place, or time, and that has a kind of necessity called nomological necessity. The term is often reserved for a posteriori propositions satisfying these conditions

Front 66

Leibniz's Law

Back 66

If 'a' and 'b' are identical, then they must have all the same properties. Mind/body dualists defend their view by attempting to find some property that the mind has but the body lacks; they thereby appeal to Leibniz's Law

Front 67

libertarianism

Back 67

the incompatibilist doctrine that holds that some human actions aren't causally determined, since they are free

Front 68

logical behaviorism

Back 68

the thesis that the meanings of mentalistic terms can be given in exclusively behavioral terms

Front 69

logical form

Back 69

the logical form of an argument is what makes it deductively valid or deductively invalid

Front 70

materialism

Back 70

the thesis that every object is a physical object. The mind/brain identity theory and functionalism are materialistic theories about the mind. Both reject the dualist claim that minds are made of an immaterial substance

Front 71

mentalism

Back 71

the view that mental states are inner causes of outward behavior. Beliefs and desires are "inside" the subject; they cause behavior, which is more directly observable by others

Front 72

metaphysics

Back 72

the branch of philosophy concerned with specifying the basic kinds of things that exist. Whether electrons exist is a problem for physics, not metaphysics, but whether physical objects exist is a metaphysical question. Other metaphysical questions include: Do numbers exist? Does God exist? What is the nature of the relationship between minds and bodies?

Front 73

method of doubt

Back 73

the method Descartes used to determine which propositions are foundational. If it's possible to doubt the proposition, then it fails the test. To see if it's possible to doubt a proposition, see if you can construct a story in which the proposition is false even though you believe it's true

Front 74

methodological behaviorism

Back 74

the view that science shouldn't talk about the inner states of organisms when it attempts to explain behavior

Front 75

multiple realizability

Back 75

a property (type) is multiply realizable if the tokens that fall under the type need have nothing in common physically. Being a mousetrap is multiply realizable. Functionalism claims that psychological properties are multiply realizable

Front 76

mutually exclusive

Back 76

two characteristics are mutually exclusive when nothing can have both of them. Being a triangle and being a circle are mutually exclusive properties

Front 77

naturalistic fallacy

Back 77

G.E. Moore argued that the ethical properties of an action (e.g. its being morally obligatory" aren't identical with any "naturalistic' properties of the action. A naturalistic property is a property that might be studied in a natural science. To deny this, Moore held, is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Front 78

necessary

Back 78

necessary beins exist in all possible worlds; a necessary proposition is true in all possible worlds. it's customary to distinguish three kinds of necessary propositions: ones that are logically necessary (like "bachelors are bachelors"), ones that are nomologically necessary (like "nothing moves faster than the speed of light"), and ones that are circumstantially necessary (like "this bomb will explode in five minutes)

Front 79

necessary condition

Back 79

"X is a necessary condition for Y" means that if Y is true, then so is X. That is, it's necessary for X to be true in order for Y to be true

Front 80

objective

Back 80

a proposition describes an objective matter if the proposition is true or false independently of what anyone believes or thinks

Front 81

observation

Back 81

an observational proposition is one you come to believe via the "direct" testimony of sense experience (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell). One philosophical question about observation concerns what "direct" means in this definition

Front 82

Only Game in Town Fallacy

Back 82

the error of thinking that you are obliged to believe a proposed explanation of an observation just because it's the only explanation that has been proposed

Front 83

Ontological Argument

Back 83

an a priori argument for the existence of God, proposed by Saint Anselm. It attempts to show that the definition of the concept of God entails that God exists, necessarily

Front 84

other minds, problem of

Back 84

this is the problem of explaining how we know that other individuals have minds and how we know what the contents of those minds are

Front 85

positivism

Back 85

the philosophical view that sentences about God, morality, aesthetics, and metaphysics are meaningless and are shown to be so by the testability theory of meaning

Front 86

pragmatism

Back 86

in this book, the philosophical theory that claims that the usefulness of a belief is what makes it reasonable to believe. Pragmatists also proposed a theory about what truth is

Front 87

principle of Parsimony

Back 87

otherwise known as Ockham's Razor. This principle says that an explanation that postulates fewer entities or processes is preferable to one that postulates more

Front 88

Principle of Sufficient REason

Back 88

the thesis that everythin that happens in nature has an explanation. This idea is part of Aquina's and clarke's different versions of the cosmological argument

Front 89

Principle of the Common Cause

Back 89

a principle governing abductive infernce. it asserts that when two or more objects exhibit an intricate series of similarities, the similarities should be explained by postulating a common cause; this is preferable to a separate cause explanation, according to which each object obtained its characteristics independently. Example: two students hand in identical essays in a philosophy class. It's more plausible to explain this as the result of plagiarism than to think that each student worked independently. The Common Cause Principle is an application of the Surprise Principle

Front 90

Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (PUN)

Back 90

the thesis that the future will resemble the past. Hume believed that all inductive arguments presuppose that this principle is true.

Front 91

proposition

Back 91

that which is expressed by a true or false declarative sentence. Though the sentence "lemons are yellow" is part of the English language, the proposition that this sentence expresses is no more a part of English than it is a part of any other HUman language. A variety of philosophical theories maintain that some declarative sentences don't express propositions (though they may seem to). For example, ethical subjectivism says that ethical statements are neither true nor false. Logical positivism maintains that the statement "God exists" is neither true nor false

Front 92

propositional attitudes

Back 92

consider the following statements: "S believes that lemons are yellow"; "S wants to drink a cup of coffee"; "S doubts that it will rain" In each of these, a subject, S, is said to have an attitude- believing, desiring, or doubting - toward a proposition.

Front 93

psychological egoism

Back 93

the doctrine that people's ultimate desires are always self-directed; whenever a person has a desire about the situation of others, this desire is purely instrumental- you care about others only because you think that this will benefit yourself. Psychological egoism denies that people ever have altruistic ultimate motives

Front 94

random

Back 94

a sampling process is random when each object in the population from which the sample is drawn as the same probability of being drawn

Front 95

reductio ad absurdum

Back 95

a deductively valid form of argument in which one proves that P is true by showing that (1) if P were false, A would have to be true, and (2) A is false.

Front 96

redundancy theory of truth

Back 96

this theory claims that to say that a statement is true is to do nothing more than assert the statement: "it's true that snow is white" is just a long-winded way of saying that snow is white

Front 97

relativity

Back 97

the truth or falsity of a proposition p is a relative matter, if 'p's' truth or falsehood depends on an arbitrary choice. Example: Sue and Mary are walking side by side. I Sue to the left of Mary? that depends on (is relative to) a choice of point of view. There are several equally correct such choices. Whether it's true or false that Sue is to the left of Mary depends on that (arbitrary) choice

Front 98

Reliability Theory of Knowledge

Back 98

a theory that exploits the analogy between a thermometer's reliably representing the temperature and a subject's knowing a proposition to be true. The theory says that S knows that 'p' if and only if (1) S believes that 'p'; (2) 'p' is true; and (3) in the circumstance that S occupies, S wouldn't have believed that 'p' unless 'p' were true

Front 99

sample bias

Back 99

an inductive inference is weakened by its being based on a biased sample. If you want to know what percentage of Americans believe in God, don't conduct your survey by using church membership lists. To do so would probably bias your estimate

Front 100

sample size

Back 100

an inductive inference is made stronger by increasing its sample size. In telephone surveys, your conclusion about the population sampled is on firmer ground if you call more people than if you call fewer

Front 101

sense and reference

Back 101

two terms in a language may refer to a single object, even though they have different meanings (senses). An example: "The inventor of the bifocals" and "the first U.S. ambassador to France" have different senses, though both refer to the same person, namely, Benjamin Franklin. Frege held that terms with the same sense must have the same reference.

Front 102

skepticism

Back 102

the thesis that knowledge (or rational justification) is unobtainable. Descartes tried to refute skepticism about knowledge; Hume was a skeptic about the rational justifiability of induction.

Front 103

soft determinism

Back 103

the compatibilist thesis that human actions are both free and causally determined

Front 104

solipsism

Back 104

the thesis that the only thing that exists is my mind and its contents

Front 105

strong falsifiability

Back 105

a hypothesis is strongly falsifiable if it deductively implies an observation sentence. "Falsifiable" doesn't mean false

Front 106

subjective

Back 106

a proposition is subjective if its truth or falsehood depends on what occurs in the mind of some subject

Front 107

sufficient condition

Back 107

"X is a sufficient condition for Y" means that if X is true, so is Y. That is, for Y to be true, it's sufficient for X to be true.

Front 108

Surprise Principle

Back 108

a principle governing abductive inference. An observation O strongly favors one hypothesis H over another H' when the following two conditions are satisfied, but not otherwise: (1) If h were true, we would expect O to be true; (2) If H' were true, we would expect O to be false

Front 109

teleology

Back 109

an object is described in a teleological fashion when it si described in terms of its goals, purposes, or ends

Front 110

testability theory of meaning

Back 110

a positivist doctrine which says that a meaningful sentence must either e analytic or empirical. Statements whose truth or falsity cannot be decided either by observation or by reasoning are meaningless. Some positivists proposed to understand what it means to be empirical in terms of strong falsifiability

Front 111

theodicy

Back 111

the attempt to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the idea that God exists and is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good

Front 112

type/token distinction

Back 112

a type is a property or characteristic. The individual items that populate the world are termed tokens. A given token falls under many types. So, for example, you are a token of the type human being and a token of the type object on the surface of the earth. The type/token distinction is important to functionalism's critique of the mind/brain identity theory

Front 113

universalizability criterion

Back 113

Kant thought that the ethical permissibility of an action could be determined by seeing if it passes the universalizability test: See if it's possible for the action to be universal (performed by everyone) or if it's possible for a rational agent to will (intend) that the action be universal

Front 114

utilitarianism

Back 114

the ethical theory that the action you should perform in a given situation is the one that would promote the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. Hedonistic utilitarianism equates goodness with the feeling that the good to be maximized is the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarian theories also are distinguished by whether they are act or rule utilitarian. An act utilitarian says that it's the consequences of the token action under consideration that need to be considered. A rule utilitarian says that it's the long-term effects of the type of action that are relevant to deciding whether to perform a token act of that type

Front 115

vitalism

Back 115

the theory that living things differ from nonliving things because they possess a special immaterial substance-an elan vital- that animates them with life. vitalism and dualism both reject materialism

Front 116

Give an example that shows why true belief is not adequate for knowledge. What else is required for knowledge, according to Theaetetus?

Back 116

-Example: when a hypochondriac, with no training or medical background, believes they have a disease, and they end up being diagnosed with such a disease.
-theaetetus adds that you need to have true belief with an account. An account is "being able to name some mark by which that thing differs from everything else."

Front 117

Explain Descartes' foundationalism -- discuss foundationalis's analogy to building a house and geometry. Then explain how the method of doubt test is used by Descartes to pursue his project of foundationalism.

Back 117

-Foundationalism- all propositions can be divided into two categories: (1) foundational propositions= indubitability (2) superstructural propositions= deductive implication
-house = foundation then structure (walls, ceiling); foundational propositions= foundation, superstructural propositions= structure (walls, ceiling)
-Euclidean geometry: propositions divided into axioms and theorems
-method of doubt: if you can't doubt a belief it's foundational. test is trying to construct a story that makes proposition false (Ex: evil demons misleading you)

Front 118

Explain the first item of knowledge that passes Descartes' method of doubt test, and how it does so. What else do we know by the end of Meditation 2, according to Descartes? Explain how this only applies to the subjective realm.

Back 118

- I am thinking, I exist: indubitability
- the mind and its contents are known more clearly than the body or any corporeal things: WAX ARGUMENT example
- subjective: can't know what others think, can't measure what others think they know, or know they think. can only know one's own mind and its contents