Chapter 6 10/09/2013
Chapter 6
10/09/2013
Pseudoreasoning: the support that fallacies seem to offer in place of actual reasoning Appeals to Emotion Argument from Outrage: inflammatory words or thoughts followed by a conclusion of some sort when the fact that someone else is outraged about a topic becomes the reason for accepting the argument, rather than the premises themselves Speaker has to be outraged Audience is not given a reason for being angry We let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence our opinion on another thing Scapegoat: blaming a certain group of people, or even a single person, for all of life’s troubles Type of argument from outrage Scare tactics: trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position Argument by force: to threaten the people to make them do something or accept a position Argument from pity: when pity leads you to draw a conclusion or take actions that are not logical or one would not otherwise take Yes, Steve just broke up with his wife and his house burned down, but is that a reason to give him a new job if he isn’t as qualified as others who have applied? Argument from envy: when we find fault with a person because of envy “he may have a lot of money, but he certainly has bad manners” would be one if the envy prompts us to criticize him Apple polishing: (appeal to pride) when oldfashioned flattery puffs up the ego of the listener, making them more likely to accept a claim Guilt trip: eliciting feelings of guilt to get others to do or not to do something
Wishful thinking: when hopes, desires and aversions lead us astray logically Peer pressure “argument”: when we use a desire for acceptance to motivate someone to accept a claim not because of its merits but because they will gain someone’s approval Involves one’s sense of group identification which people experience when part of a group Groupthink fallacy: substituting pride of membership in a group for reason and deliberation in arriving at a position on an issue; Nationalism: a powerful and fierce emotion that can lead to blind endorsement of a country’s policies and practices Red herring: when a new topic is introduced in order to distract from the real issue Smoke screens: piling issues on top of the original issue to make it so complicated and confusing that you can’t actually understand what’s going on Appeal to popularity: when we urge someone to accept a claim simply on the grounds that all or most or some substantial number of people believe it Appeal to common practice: trying to justify or defend an action or practice on the grounds that it is common I shouldn’t get a speeding ticket because everyone drives over the limit Appeal to tradition: do things because that’s the way it’s been for years Rationalizing: when we use a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests Motivation is something other than what it is claimed to be Subjectivist Fallacy: truth is simply what you believe it is Realism Cultural relativism Version of groupthink Two wrongs make a right: saying that wrongful behaviour on another’s part rationalizes your own behaviour
Chapter 7
10/09/2013
Ad hominem attack: a confusion between the quality of the person making the claims and the quality of the claims themselves Personal attack ad hominem: when the person is attacked in order to refute the claim Inconsistency ad hominem: when you say someone’s claim should be dismissed because it is inconsistent with previous actions/claims Circumstantial ad hominem: the circumstances of someone make his claims refutable So and so is a policeman, so you really can’t ask him about whether or not Jwalking is safe Poisoning the Well: when you use derogatory terms or put the other person in a negative light so that you’re less likely to believe what they say Genetic fallacy: when we try to “refute” a claim on the basis of its origin or its history Used when it isn’t a person who is disparaged as the source of a claim but some other kind of entity, such as a club, political party, industrial group, etc. Straw Man Fallacy: when a speaker or writer distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misrepresents an opponent’s position False Dilemma: when you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available Perfectionist fallacy: when X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them to, then policy X must be rejected Line Drawing Fallacy: insisting that a lie must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a precise line be drawn Slippery slope: if we accept X, Y will inevitably happen Misplacing the Burden of Proof: when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of the issue. Appeal to ignorance: you should believe in suchandsuch because no one has proved it to be false Begging the question: when we ask the audience to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion we’re arguing for and that are controversial on the same grounds. Premises are used as the conclusion
Chapter 8 Deductive arguments
10/09/2013
Chapter 8 Categorical logic: making claims about classes or categories of things Is deductive There are four types of categorical claims A type All ___ are ___ E type No ___ are ___ I type Some ___ are ___ O type Some ___ are not ___ First word is the subject, second is the predicate Subject is whatever is/isn’t part of the group Predicate is the group or classification you’re giving to the subject A and E types are universal I and O types are particular
Turning Categorical Claims into Standard Form Convert each claim into standard form Is it affirmative or negative?
10/09/2013
Chapter 8
10/09/2013
Is it universal or particular? Specific kinds of translation: “only” is translated by flipping the phrase “only those with a 90 average are accepted into science” becomes “all those accepted into science have a 90 average” “The only” is not flipped “the only ones accepted to science are students with a 90 average” Sometimes you have to use categorical operations Conversion Used for E and I type claims Switch the subject and the predicate terms Some glasses are hipster items Some hipster items are glasses Obversion Works for ALL types of claims Change quality of claim (negative to affirmative) Replace predicate with its opposite Add or take away non All cows are purple No cows are not purple Contraposition For A and O claims Subject and predicate switch places Both subject and predicate take complimentary term Some girls are not tomboys Some nontomboys are not nongirls
Chapter 9 Truthfunctional logic: otherwise known as propositional logic Claim variables: symbols that show the relationships between claims A conjunction is true only when both claims are true Disjunction is false only when two claims are false Conditional claim is false only if the antecedent is true and consequent is false
10/09/2013
Chapter 10
10/09/2013
Chapter 10
10/09/2013
Principle of total evidence: must take into account all of the information you have Statistical syllogism % of X are Y This is X Therefore, this is a Y Strength of the argument depends on proportion of X that is Y Sampling frame: a precise definition of a population and of the attribute in which we are interested Allows us to tell for any individual whether he, she, or it is in the population and whether he/she/it has the attribute of interest Representative: when the variables linked to the attribute of interest are present in the sample in the same proportion as in the population Biased: the extent to which the variable does not appear in the population as it does in the sample or vice versa Random sample: when each member of the population has an equal and independent chance of being selected for the sample Error margin: the range of the random variation of the sample participants Confidence level: level of probability Variable: something that varies Argument from Analogy X and Y both share A, B, and C X has attribute I Y has attribute I Because they’re similar on some field it’s safe to assume they’re similar on another Analogues: things that are said to have similar attributes
Chapter 10
10/09/2013
Contrary analogue: an analogue that shares some of the attributes of the analogue but does not share the attribute of interest Attacking the analogy: showing that analogues are not as similar as stated or implied Often calls attention to a single glaring dissimilarity between them Logical analogies: providing another argument that is just like the first but obviously invalid Must have the same form as the first
Summary thus far: Statistical syllogisms: reasoning from general to specific Inductive generalizing from samples: reasoning from the specific to general Reasoning from specific to specific: arguments from analogy Illicit inductive conversions: where we say that “most Xs are Ys, therefore most Ys are Xs” Fallacies in inductive Reasoning Hasty generalization: reasoning from a sample that is too small relative to the size of the population it is said to represent Making a generalization based on a few experiences Anecdotal evidence: a version of hasty generalization where the sample is presented as an example Biased generalization: when one is overly confident of how likely a biased sample makes a conclusion When you’re super sure that your statistic is for certain, so you overestimate or underestimate it Selfselection fallacy: when the people selected themselves for the study Slanted questions: how the questions are worded and when they are asked in relation to each other changes answers Weak analogies: when we overestimate the probability of a conclusion derived from an argument from analogy Overestimate how likely the premise makes the conclusion Vague generalities: a general statement that is too vague to be meaningful for practical purpose When categories or groups are too vaguely named to be of use, like kids, or feminists Glowing generality: when a vague generality is couched in words and phrases with strongly positive associations
Chapter 11 CAUSAL EXPLANATION
10/09/2013
Chapter 11
10/09/2013
Two Types of Causal Explanations Physical causal explanations A causal explanation of an event or phenomenon that refers to its physical background The general conditions under which the event occurred Whatever events we determine to be the direct or indirect cause of the result Behavioural causal explanations Explanations that attempt to elucidate the causes of behaviour in terms of psychology, political science, sociology, history, and the like Reasons and motives Provide the relevant background information and attempt to identify the immediate or direct cause of the behaviour in question. Often the explanations are about the future rather than the past He left early because he wanted to go to sleep Explanatory Adequacy: A Relative Concept Must be testable If the puddle is because the toilet is leaking, you expect the puddle to go away if you fix the toilet If there is no discernible change, the explanation wasn’t good enough Nontestable Explanations Bad. If it can’t be tested it’s not a good enough explanation. Not incorrect, simply meaningless Blondes just give people a better feeling than brunettes
Chapter 11
10/09/2013
What the heck does that mean? How do you test that? Circular Explanations Meaningless explanations Unnecessary Complexity Adding more causes than you need to in an explanation
Forming Hypotheses Method of Difference: Find the difference between the two situations to find the cause for the different behaviour I never pass exams, but I passed this last one. I also studied for this last one. Maybe the studying helped me pass my exam. Method of Agreement: find the similarities in effects you are trying to see are related I’ve liked my last two books I’ve read, and John recommended both of them to me. I should ask him to recommend another one. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: With that, therefore because of that. Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc: After that, therefore, because of that PHEPH and CHEPH are fallacies, because the connection could be coincidental, both coul be resulting from a third thing, and B could cause A instead of the other way around Causal Mechanisms and Background Knowledge Causal mechanisms are the properties of making effects happen If no causal mechanism between X and Y, if Y happens, it would be a complete coincidence that X preceeded it Have to use background knowledge to say whether or not X could be because of Y or vice versa The Best Diagnosis Method Best diagnosis method simply looks at all the alternatives and chooses the most believable one, or the one that explains the most important effects
Chapter 11 Mistakes in Causal Reasoning Statistics Chances that AB are totally different than BA Statistics can be misleading—figure it out mathematically Regression from the mean is a REGRESSION. Not a new mean. Proof by absence of disproof “nobody’s proved that it doesn’t work” Kind of the same as misplacing the burden of proof but for explanations Appeal to anecdote Tell stories of success or failure to try and prove an explanation Confusing Explanations with Excuses Explaining WHY someone did something is not the same as saying why it was OK.
10/09/2013
Chapter 12
10/09/2013
Value judgment: assesses the merit, desirability or praiseworthiness of someone/something Moral reasoning principle one: If separate cases aren’t different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way Consistency Principle Moral reasoning principle II: If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show that he or she is in fact not violating this principle If you’re treating two groups differently, have to show that they’re different on an important level
10/09/2013
10/09/2013
Pseudoreasoning: the support that fallacies seem to offer in place of actual reasoning Appeals to Emotion Argument from Outrage: inflammatory words or thoughts followed by a conclusion of some sort when the fact that someone else is outraged about a topic becomes the reason for accepting the argument, rather than the premises themselves Speaker has to be outraged Audience is not given a reason for being angry We let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence our opinion on another thing Scapegoat: blaming a certain group of people, or even a single person, for all of life’s troubles Type of argument from outrage Scare tactics: trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position Argument by force: to threaten the people to make them do something or accept a position Argument from pity: when pity leads you to draw a conclusion or take actions that are not logical or one would not otherwise take Yes, Steve just broke up with his wife and his house burned down, but is that a reason to give him a new job if he isn’t as qualified as others who have applied? Argument from envy: when we find fault with a person because of envy “he may have a lot of money, but he certainly has bad manners” would be one if the envy prompts us to criticize him Apple polishing: (appeal to pride) when oldfashioned flattery puffs up the ego of the listener, making them more likely to accept a claim Guilt trip: eliciting feelings of guilt to get others to do or not to do something
Wishful thinking: when hopes, desires and aversions lead us astray logically Peer pressure “argument”: when we use a desire for acceptance to motivate someone to accept a claim not because of its merits but because they will gain someone’s approval Involves one’s sense of group identification which people experience when part of a group Groupthink fallacy: substituting pride of membership in a group for reason and deliberation in arriving at a position on an issue; Nationalism: a powerful and fierce emotion that can lead to blind endorsement of a country’s policies and practices Red herring: when a new topic is introduced in order to distract from the real issue Smoke screens: piling issues on top of the original issue to make it so complicated and confusing that you can’t actually understand what’s going on Appeal to popularity: when we urge someone to accept a claim simply on the grounds that all or most or some substantial number of people believe it Appeal to common practice: trying to justify or defend an action or practice on the grounds that it is common I shouldn’t get a speeding ticket because everyone drives over the limit Appeal to tradition: do things because that’s the way it’s been for years Rationalizing: when we use a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests Motivation is something other than what it is claimed to be Subjectivist Fallacy: truth is simply what you believe it is Realism Cultural relativism Version of groupthink Two wrongs make a right: saying that wrongful behaviour on another’s part rationalizes your own behaviour
Chapter 7
10/09/2013
Ad hominem attack: a confusion between the quality of the person making the claims and the quality of the claims themselves Personal attack ad hominem: when the person is attacked in order to refute the claim Inconsistency ad hominem: when you say someone’s claim should be dismissed because it is inconsistent with previous actions/claims Circumstantial ad hominem: the circumstances of someone make his claims refutable So and so is a policeman, so you really can’t ask him about whether or not Jwalking is safe Poisoning the Well: when you use derogatory terms or put the other person in a negative light so that you’re less likely to believe what they say Genetic fallacy: when we try to “refute” a claim on the basis of its origin or its history Used when it isn’t a person who is disparaged as the source of a claim but some other kind of entity, such as a club, political party, industrial group, etc. Straw Man Fallacy: when a speaker or writer distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misrepresents an opponent’s position False Dilemma: when you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available Perfectionist fallacy: when X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them to, then policy X must be rejected Line Drawing Fallacy: insisting that a lie must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a precise line be drawn Slippery slope: if we accept X, Y will inevitably happen Misplacing the Burden of Proof: when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of the issue. Appeal to ignorance: you should believe in suchandsuch because no one has proved it to be false Begging the question: when we ask the audience to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion we’re arguing for and that are controversial on the same grounds. Premises are used as the conclusion
Chapter 8 Deductive arguments
10/09/2013
Chapter 8 Categorical logic: making claims about classes or categories of things Is deductive There are four types of categorical claims A type All ___ are ___ E type No ___ are ___ I type Some ___ are ___ O type Some ___ are not ___ First word is the subject, second is the predicate Subject is whatever is/isn’t part of the group Predicate is the group or classification you’re giving to the subject A and E types are universal I and O types are particular
Turning Categorical Claims into Standard Form Convert each claim into standard form Is it affirmative or negative?
10/09/2013
Chapter 8
10/09/2013
Is it universal or particular? Specific kinds of translation: “only” is translated by flipping the phrase “only those with a 90 average are accepted into science” becomes “all those accepted into science have a 90 average” “The only” is not flipped “the only ones accepted to science are students with a 90 average” Sometimes you have to use categorical operations Conversion Used for E and I type claims Switch the subject and the predicate terms Some glasses are hipster items Some hipster items are glasses Obversion Works for ALL types of claims Change quality of claim (negative to affirmative) Replace predicate with its opposite Add or take away non All cows are purple No cows are not purple Contraposition For A and O claims Subject and predicate switch places Both subject and predicate take complimentary term Some girls are not tomboys Some nontomboys are not nongirls
Chapter 9 Truthfunctional logic: otherwise known as propositional logic Claim variables: symbols that show the relationships between claims A conjunction is true only when both claims are true Disjunction is false only when two claims are false Conditional claim is false only if the antecedent is true and consequent is false
10/09/2013
Chapter 10
10/09/2013
Chapter 10
10/09/2013
Principle of total evidence: must take into account all of the information you have Statistical syllogism % of X are Y This is X Therefore, this is a Y Strength of the argument depends on proportion of X that is Y Sampling frame: a precise definition of a population and of the attribute in which we are interested Allows us to tell for any individual whether he, she, or it is in the population and whether he/she/it has the attribute of interest Representative: when the variables linked to the attribute of interest are present in the sample in the same proportion as in the population Biased: the extent to which the variable does not appear in the population as it does in the sample or vice versa Random sample: when each member of the population has an equal and independent chance of being selected for the sample Error margin: the range of the random variation of the sample participants Confidence level: level of probability Variable: something that varies Argument from Analogy X and Y both share A, B, and C X has attribute I Y has attribute I Because they’re similar on some field it’s safe to assume they’re similar on another Analogues: things that are said to have similar attributes
Chapter 10
10/09/2013
Contrary analogue: an analogue that shares some of the attributes of the analogue but does not share the attribute of interest Attacking the analogy: showing that analogues are not as similar as stated or implied Often calls attention to a single glaring dissimilarity between them Logical analogies: providing another argument that is just like the first but obviously invalid Must have the same form as the first
Summary thus far: Statistical syllogisms: reasoning from general to specific Inductive generalizing from samples: reasoning from the specific to general Reasoning from specific to specific: arguments from analogy Illicit inductive conversions: where we say that “most Xs are Ys, therefore most Ys are Xs” Fallacies in inductive Reasoning Hasty generalization: reasoning from a sample that is too small relative to the size of the population it is said to represent Making a generalization based on a few experiences Anecdotal evidence: a version of hasty generalization where the sample is presented as an example Biased generalization: when one is overly confident of how likely a biased sample makes a conclusion When you’re super sure that your statistic is for certain, so you overestimate or underestimate it Selfselection fallacy: when the people selected themselves for the study Slanted questions: how the questions are worded and when they are asked in relation to each other changes answers Weak analogies: when we overestimate the probability of a conclusion derived from an argument from analogy Overestimate how likely the premise makes the conclusion Vague generalities: a general statement that is too vague to be meaningful for practical purpose When categories or groups are too vaguely named to be of use, like kids, or feminists Glowing generality: when a vague generality is couched in words and phrases with strongly positive associations
Chapter 11 CAUSAL EXPLANATION
10/09/2013
Chapter 11
10/09/2013
Two Types of Causal Explanations Physical causal explanations A causal explanation of an event or phenomenon that refers to its physical background The general conditions under which the event occurred Whatever events we determine to be the direct or indirect cause of the result Behavioural causal explanations Explanations that attempt to elucidate the causes of behaviour in terms of psychology, political science, sociology, history, and the like Reasons and motives Provide the relevant background information and attempt to identify the immediate or direct cause of the behaviour in question. Often the explanations are about the future rather than the past He left early because he wanted to go to sleep Explanatory Adequacy: A Relative Concept Must be testable If the puddle is because the toilet is leaking, you expect the puddle to go away if you fix the toilet If there is no discernible change, the explanation wasn’t good enough Nontestable Explanations Bad. If it can’t be tested it’s not a good enough explanation. Not incorrect, simply meaningless Blondes just give people a better feeling than brunettes
Chapter 11
10/09/2013
What the heck does that mean? How do you test that? Circular Explanations Meaningless explanations Unnecessary Complexity Adding more causes than you need to in an explanation
Forming Hypotheses Method of Difference: Find the difference between the two situations to find the cause for the different behaviour I never pass exams, but I passed this last one. I also studied for this last one. Maybe the studying helped me pass my exam. Method of Agreement: find the similarities in effects you are trying to see are related I’ve liked my last two books I’ve read, and John recommended both of them to me. I should ask him to recommend another one. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: With that, therefore because of that. Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc: After that, therefore, because of that PHEPH and CHEPH are fallacies, because the connection could be coincidental, both coul be resulting from a third thing, and B could cause A instead of the other way around Causal Mechanisms and Background Knowledge Causal mechanisms are the properties of making effects happen If no causal mechanism between X and Y, if Y happens, it would be a complete coincidence that X preceeded it Have to use background knowledge to say whether or not X could be because of Y or vice versa The Best Diagnosis Method Best diagnosis method simply looks at all the alternatives and chooses the most believable one, or the one that explains the most important effects
Chapter 11 Mistakes in Causal Reasoning Statistics Chances that AB are totally different than BA Statistics can be misleading—figure it out mathematically Regression from the mean is a REGRESSION. Not a new mean. Proof by absence of disproof “nobody’s proved that it doesn’t work” Kind of the same as misplacing the burden of proof but for explanations Appeal to anecdote Tell stories of success or failure to try and prove an explanation Confusing Explanations with Excuses Explaining WHY someone did something is not the same as saying why it was OK.
10/09/2013
Chapter 12
10/09/2013
Value judgment: assesses the merit, desirability or praiseworthiness of someone/something Moral reasoning principle one: If separate cases aren’t different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way Consistency Principle Moral reasoning principle II: If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show that he or she is in fact not violating this principle If you’re treating two groups differently, have to show that they’re different on an important level
10/09/2013
