STUDY NOTES** ( THEY ARE ON THE FINAL) Final exam questions from midterm:

o Usually the burden of proof rests on the side that Makes a positive claimo In good arguments, premises are always explicit Falseo There is something inherently wrong with accepting a claim that furthers your own interests

Falseo Knowledge requires certainty Falseo Doubt is always reasonable False

Chapter 8: Inductive Reasoning- 1. Enumerative Induction: a way of reasoning where we begin with observations

about some members of the group and end with a generalization about all of themo Particular Generalo Natural and usefulo Formal form:

X % of the observed members of Group A have property P. Therefore, X% of all members of group A probably have property P.

o Target population/Target group: the whole collection of individuals in question

o Sample members/Sample: the observed members of the target group o Relevant property/Property in question: the property we’re interested ino The strength of the argument depends on the premises as well as on how

much is claimed in the conclusiono Enumerative Inductive arguments fail to be strong when sample is:

1. TOO SMALL Smaller sample = limit generalization of the target group2. NOT REPRESENTATIVE Sample must be representative of the whole

o Sample Size: Hasty Generalization: draw conclusions about a target group on the

basis of a too small sample• E.g. polls, consumer opinion surveys, scientific studies (medical

research), QC checks, anecdotal reports etc. Larger sample = more likely it is reliably reflecting the nature of the

larger group **The more homogeneous(identical/uniform) a target group is in traits

relevant to the property in question, the smaller the sample can be; the less homogenous, the larger the sample should be

o Representativeness: Representative sample: it must resemble the target group in all the

ways that matter Does not represent the target group = biased sample The sample must be like the target group by:

• Having all the same relevant characteristics (that influence the property in question)

• Having them in the same proportions that the target group does (e.g. 50% catholic = sample 50% catholic)

Selective Attention: the tendency to observe and remember things that reinforce our beliefs and to gloss over the dismiss things that undercut those beliefs

Reason for bias samplingo Common problems in poll questions:

Phrasing of Question: wording of the questions is skewed (e.g. choice of wording more negative)

Order of Questions: the first question can affect the respondent’s perspective on second question

Restricted Choices: False Dilemma/condense broad spectrums of opinions on issues into convenient choices

o Opinion polls are used to arrive at generalizations (enumerative inductions reach a high level of sophistication in this form)

Be strong

1

STUDY NOTES

Have true premises1. Use a sample that is large enough to represent the target population

accurately in all the relevant population features 2. Generate accurate data (results must correctly reflect what they

purport to be about)o FAILED POLLS = data-processing errors, botched poll interviews, poorly

phrased questions, etc.o National polling: samples need not be enormous to be accurate reflections of

the larger target populationo Random Sampling: to ensure that a sample is truly representative of the

target group, sample must be selected randomly from the target group Simple Random Selection: every member of the target group has an

equal chance of being selected for the sample• Assign a number to each member of the population then use a

random-number generator to make the selections (avoid biases made consciously/unconsciously by humans)

o Self-selecting Samples: allowing survey subjects to choose themselves (TELLS YOU VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE TARGET POPULATIONS)

o Biasedo Every instance of sampling is only an approximation of the total population

results Margin of Error: each attempt at sampling will yield slightly different

results• E.g. + 3% or -3% of %points from 62%

Confidence Level: the probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error

• confidence level: 95% (usual value) chance that the results from sample (taking into account the margin of error) will accurately reflect the result that we would get if we polled the entire target population

• only refers to sampling error: the probability that the sample does not accurately reflect the true values in the target population

o SS: 600, MoE: 4%...SS:1000, MoE 3% ** enlarging the sample substantially (beyond 1000) does not substantially decrease the margin of error

o Lower confidence level (desired) = smaller sample sizeo Larger the margin of error = the higher the confidence level can be ( high

chance of falling within the MoE range)- A. Statistical Syllogism: inductive arguments that apply a statistical generalization

–a claim about what is true of most members of a group or category –to a specific member of that group or category

o Formal Form: Premise 1: A proportion X of the group M have characteristic P. Premise 2: Individual S is a member of Group M. Conclusion: Individual S has characteristic P.

o Must identify: (IGCP or C-PIG) The individual being examined The group to which the individual is said to belong The characteristics being attributed The proportion of the group said to have that characteristic (% or

Fraction…or probability words)o General Particular (Premise 1 of Statistical Syllogism = Conclusion

of Enumerative Induction)o Evaluating Statistical Syllogisms:

1. Acceptable Premises

2

STUDY NOTES

• Premises = Common knowledge? Careful survey (Randomly Selected Sample)?

• Grounding of the generalization is weak = argument is weak2. Statistical Strength

• Strength of generalizations being offered• 60% vs. 99%...vague words like “a lot” or ”most”= 51%?

3. Typical or Randomly Selected• Consider whether the individual person or item under

consideration is likely to be a typical member of the group, or whether you have reason to believe he/she/it is an exception to the rule

• E.g. 85% of Canadians don’t know CPR…Talk to a man with doctor’s uniform (not Randomly selected…and not typical)

- 3. Analogical Induction (argument by analogy)o Analogy: a comparison of two or more things alike in specific respects (often

in forms of similes)o Because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be

similar in some further respecto Formal Form:

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

• Humans can move about, solve mathematical problems, win chess games, and feel pain. Robots are like humans in that they can move about, solve mathematical problems and win chess games.Therefore, it’s probable that robots can also feel pain.

o The greater the degree of similarity between the two things being compared, the more probable the conclusion is

o ** enumerative induction argues from some members of a group to the group as a whole

Argues from the properties of a sample to the properties of the whole group

o ** analogical induction reasons from some (1 or more) individuals to one further individual

Reasons from the properties of one or more individuals to the properties of another individual

o Used in law, science, medicine, ethics, archaeology and forensics E.g. mice vs. human + drugs

o Judging the strength of arguments by analogy:1. Relevant similarities

• More relevant similarities between the things being compared = more probable conclusion

• Inference can be strong, even if it is not cogent (premises not true)

• Similarities cited as part of an analogical argument clearly has to be connected in some significant way to the conclusion being argued for

o Has effect on whether the conclusion is probably trueo Explanation may be required to show WHY a particular

similarity is actually relevant (burden of proof)2. Relevant dissimilarities

• More relevant dissimilarities (disanalogies) between the things being compared = the less probable the conclusion

• Weakens/undermines arguments by analogy

3

STUDY NOTES

3. The number of instances compared• Greater the # of instances/cases that show the relevant

similarities = the stronger the argumento E.g. 5 wars instead of 1 (Vietnam war vs. current war)

4. Diversity among cases• The greater the diversity among the cases that exhibit the

relevant similarities = the stronger the argument• Suggest that the similarities are not accidental or contrived

linked even in a variety of situationso E.g. young, middle-aged, old professors + all with same

similarities = good course- 4. Causal Arguments

o Causal claim: a statement about the causes of thingso Causal argument: an inductive argument whose conclusion contains a

causal claimo Sometimes reason about cause and effect by using enumerative induction,

analogical inductiono Can be enumerative inductions, analogical inductions, or rely on Mill’s Methodo Inference to the best explanation: reason from premises about a state of

affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs Reason to a causal conclusion by pinpointing the best explanation for a

particular effect Powerful and versatile form of inductive reasoning Essence of scientific thinking

o Mill’s method’s of inductive inference (ways of evaluating causal arguments):

1. Agreement or Difference• Method of Agreement: If two or more occurrences of a

phenomenon have only one relevant factor in common, that factor must be the cause

o E.g. factor c consistently accompanies effect E in all instances :. c brings about E

o Pg. 303• Method of Difference: the relevant factor that is present when a

phenomenon occurs and that is absent when the phenomenon does not occur must be the cause

o Factors that are points of differences among the instances

o E.g. factor c is probably the cause of E because all the other factors are the same

2. Both Agreement and Difference• Joint Method of Agreement and Difference: the likely cause is

the one isolated when you:o Identify the relevant factors common to occurrences of

the phenomenon (Method of Agreement)o Discard any of these that are present even when there

are no occurrences (Method of Difference)• Increases the probability that the conclusion is true• Modern “controlled trials” used to test the effectiveness of

medical treatmentso 2 groups + controlled vs. experimental + IV vs DV

3. Correlation• Relevant factors aren’t merely present or absent during

occurrences of the phenomenon – they are closely CORRELATED with the occurrences

• Cause of occurrence varies as the occurrence (effect) does

4

STUDY NOTES

• Method of Concomitant Variation: when two events are correlated – when one varies in close connection with the other – they are probably causally related

• Indirect evidence of one thing causing another decrease + increase factor

o Dose-response relationship: the higher the dose of the element in question, the higher the response

• ** correlations can be just COINCIDENCESo Causal Confusions:

1. Misidentifying Relevant Factors• Are the factors preceding the effect truly relevant to that effect?• Depends on background knowledge

o Lack of it can lead you to dismiss or ignore relevant factors or to assume that irrelevant factors must play a role

o Cure for this inadequacy: deeper study of the causal possibilities in question

2. Mishandling Multiple Factors• Too many relevant factors to consider (cannot narrow

possibilities to just 1)• Causal reasoning is often flawed because of the failure to

consider ALL the relevant antecedent factors (failure to consider alternative explanations)

o Skimpy background knowledge3. Being Misled by Coincidence

• Interesting correlations of events that are actually just coincidences

• Want a coincidence to be a cause-and-effect relationship• Incredible coincidences are common and must occur

o Any event, even one that seems shockingly improbable, is actually very probable over the long haul

• Misjudging probabilities involved (remembering only what we want)

• ** done assume that a causal connection exists unless you have good reason for doing so (research, or evaluation)

o Confusing Cause with Temporal Order Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after that, therefore because of

that): a particularly common type of misjudgement about coincidences Other considerations besides temporal order would have to apply1. Ignoring Common-Causal Factor

• A and B are caused by some third factor C A doesn’t cause B and vice versa

• Ice cream & deaths due to drowning (both more common during a particular season)

o Common causal factor shared by those two variables is: SUMMER

2. Confusing Cause and Effect• Sometimes we may realise that there’s a causal relationship

between two factors BUT we may not know which factor is the cause and which is the effect

• ** done assume that a causal connection exists unless you have good reason for doing so (research, or evaluation)

o Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Causal processes always occur under specific conditions

5

STUDY NOTES

• The conditions for the occurrence of an event Necessary condition for the occurrence of an event: is one without

which the event cannot occur (X is needed for Y to happen) Sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event: is one that

guarantees that the event occurs ( X is enough to…) Dropping a water balloon:

• NC: releasing balloon, gravity, breakable material of balloon, hard pavement

• SC: all four conditions of NC are guarantees that it will cause the balloon to break

Set of necessary conditions constitutes a sufficient condition for an event: individually necessary and jointly sufficient

Set of conditions individually necessary but NOT jointly sufficient• E.g. some conditions are necessary for sustaining the goldfish’s

life are present, but not all of them are. Because the necessary conditions are missing, the sufficient condition keeping the fish alive would not exist.

Set of conditions that are jointly sufficient but not individually necessary

• E.g. by not feeding the fish for weeks, we would create a set of conditions sufficient for the death of the fish, but these conditions are not necessary for the death of the goldfish (there are other ways)

Necessary causal conditions: interested in preventing or eliminating a state of affairs

Sufficient causal conditions: when we are interested in BRINGING about a state of affairs

• “if”• Sure to happen if the condition obtains

Necessary condition• “only if”• This may not be the only necessary condition:. May or may not

occur even if the condition obtains Necessary and sufficient condition:

• “If and only if”- Mixed Arguments: arguers will often combine inductive and deductive elements

within a single, compound argument.o No limits of combinationso Premises of the categorical syllogism is actually the conclusion of an inductive

argument No S are M

All P are MTherefore, no S are P

o Mixed argument as a whole is weak (?)

Chapter 9: Inference to the Best Explanation- (4th Kind of Inductive Reasoning) Inference to the Best Explanation

o We reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs

o Formal Form: Phenomenon Q

E provides the best explanation for QTherefore, it is probable that E is true

o Most commonly used form of inference and arguably the most empowering in daily life

6

STUDY NOTES

- Explanation: a statement (or statements) asserting WHY or HOW something is the case

o Clarify and increase understanding- Argument: give us the reason for believing THAT SOMETHING is the case- There are different kinds of explanations:

1. Procedural: try to explain how something is done or how an action is carried out

She opened up the engine, examined the valves, and then checked the cylinders

2. Interpretive: try to explain the meaning of terms or states of affairs, semantic meaning

This word means “fancy” or “showy”3. Telelogical/Functional: they try to explain how something functions or fits into a plan

The heat circulate and oxygenates the blood4. Theoretical Explanation: are theories, hypotheses that try to explain why

something is the way it is, why something is the case, or why something happenedo must included all explanations intended to explain the cause of events

causal explanationso Are CLAIMS: assert that something is or is not the caseo Explanations can be a PART OF an argument

Heart of an inductive argument (Inference to the best explanation) “What is the best explanation for the existence or nature of this state of

affairs?” Best one = most likely to be true :. INDUCTIVELY STRONG

• Premises are true and strong = COGENTo Tries to explain facts but does so by positing a theory that is not derived

entirely from those factso If your explanation is as good as other explanations, your explanation is in

doubto It helps increase our understanding by fitting our experiences and background

knowledge into a coherent patterno **See phenomenon theorize the reason for it with the best explanationo Science: usually the theories of interest are causal theories, in which events

are the things to be explained and the proposed causes of the events are the explanations

Inference to the best explanation (theory)- Theory in question meets the minimum requirement of Consistency

o Internal Consistency: consistent with itself, free from contradictionso External Consistency: consistent with data it’s suppose to explain (accounts

for the observable data)- Weigh evidence for each theory = most plausible theory- Criteria of Adequacy: constitutes the ultimate test of the theory’s values

o For the best theory is the eligible (met minimal requirement of consistency) theory that meets the criteria of adequacy better than any of its competitors

o Give a fair assessment of the relevant theories in relation to each other to avoid bias conclusions

1. Testability: there is some way to determine whether the theories are true or false

No possible procedure for checking truth = worthless explanatory theory

E.g. witches Testable: if it predicts/explains something other than what it was

introduced to explain• The wiring theory predicts that if the wiring is repaired, the clock

will no longer shut off when touched

7

STUDY NOTES

Increase understanding of a phenomenon2. Fruitfulness: theories that successfully predict previously unknown

phenomena are more credible than those that don’t (suggest that the theories are more likely to be true)

Fruitful: yield new insights that can open up whole new areas of research and discovery

Many good theories make no novel predictions excel in other Criteria of adequacy

3. Scope: a theory that explains more diverse phenomena than others The more the theory explains and predicts, the more it extends our

understanding• Less likely it is false because there is more evidence in its favour

E.g. Constructive Perception: what we perceive is determined in part by what we expect/know/believe can explain many instances in which people do this (UFO)

4. Simplicity: Other things being equal, the best theory is the one that is the simplest – the one that makes the fewest assumptions

Less assumptions = less evidence required to support it E.g. Evolution > Creationism assumes the existence of a creator +

unknown forces Lack of Simplicity Ad Hoc Hypothesis: is one that cannot be verified

independently of the phenomenon it’s suppose to explain makes the theory less simple – so less credible

5. Conservatism: other things being equal, the best theory is the one that fits best with our established beliefs

Does not conflict with well-founded beliefs• The chances of the new belief being true are not good• The conflict of beliefs undermines our knowledge• The conflict of beliefs lessens our understanding

More conservative = more plausible Need good reason to show that the non-conservative theory is correct

o no strict formula or protocol for applying criteria of adequacyo despite the lack of formula in theory assessment, the process is far

from subjective or arbitrary objective

- TEST Formula (Test Good Theories from Bad) – 4 steps to finding the best explanation

o State the Theory and check for consistency Clear and specific statement consistent

o Assess the Evidence for the theory Understand empirical or logical arguments that may support or

undermine the theory Credibility of sources, causal reasoning, evidence from personal and

scientific observationso S crutinize alternative theories

Consider alternative explanations no biased conclusion See strength and weakness of competing theories

o T est the theories with the criteria of adequacy Measure the plausibility of the theories Putting applicable evidence in perspective

8

STUDY NOTES

Chapter 10: Judging Scientific Theories- Science seeks to acquire knowledge and an understanding of reality, and it does so

through the formulation, testing, and evaluation of theories.- Science is NOT:

o Science is not technology Technology = use of knowledge to do things in the world (does not

search for truth) • Makes things DOES NOT pursue knowledge/truth (science is

this)o Science is not ideology

Can’t identify science with a specific world viewo Science is not scientism

Scientism = the view that science is the only reliable way to acquire knowledge

• BUT we actually do know many things without the aid of scientific methodology (reliability of our sense experience under standard, unhindered conditions)

- Science embodies to a high degree what is essential to a reliable knowledge of empirical facts: systematic consideration of alternative solutions or theories, rigorous testing of them, and check and rechecking of conclusions

o It is self-correcting open up to criticism + alternative theories etc.- The Scientific Method:

o cannot be identified with any particular set of experimental or observations procedures

many different methods for evaluating the worth of a hypothesiso Has SEVERAL STEPS (independent of the specific procedure involved)

1. Identify the problem or pose the question (develop your research question)2. Devise a hypothesis (state thesis claim)

• Guides research, suggesting kinds of observations or data that would be relevant to the problem in hand

• Generated through induction (collecting data draw generalizations)

• OR generated like WORKS OF ART (Dream them up)o Follows TEST Formula

3. Derive a test implication or prediction (construct your survey and interview)

• If hypothesis were true, what consequences would follow?• If H, then C

Not-CTherefore, not-H (modus tollens)

• If H, then CCTherefore, H (affirming the consequent invalid)

9

STUDY NOTES

o If consequence is true, it does NOT PROVE that the hypothesis is correct

o MORE Cs true = more evidence that H is true4. Perform the test (conduct the survey and interview)

• Test many consequences of several competing hypotheses• One hypothesis remains, with considerable evidence in its

facour5. Accept or reject the hypothesis (evaluate/interpret the results according to

your original thesis)• Make changes to hypothesis in the regards to background

claims• Accept or deny a hypothesis with a high degree of confidence

6. alter/modify thesis, if necessary, based on resultso double-blind experiments: neither the subject nor the experimenter knows

who receives the real treatment and who the inactive one (avoid unconscious behavioural cues by experimenters)

o Random Sample (groups as alike as possible)o Replicationo Judge scientific theories via criteria of adequacy amongst alternative theories

- Copernicus (sun) vs Ptolemy (earth)o Same scope (explained just as many astronomical observations) & fruitfulness

e.g. retrogradeo Accepted due to simplicity

- Evolution vs. Creationismo Creationism = no evidence, fails conservatism, not fruitful, lack of simplicity,

diminished scope and decreased understanding- Weird claims are evaluated

Widely believed and difficult to ignore due to media Should not be discredited or credited because of it’s weirdness

o Leaping to the Weirdest Theory: when people have extraordinary experience, they usually try to make sense of it

Just because you can’t think of a natural explanation does not mean there isn’t one

E.g. assume something is supernatural/paranormal Appeal to ignorance: not shown to be false :. It must be true

o Mixing What Seems with What is: leap prematurely to an extraordinary theory by ignoring this elementary principle: just because something seems real doesn’t mean that it is.

Only accept evidence by personal experience if there is no reason to doubt it

• Perceptual abilities impaired, expectation, poor conditionso Misunderstanding the Possibilities: debates about weird theories often

turn on the ideas of possibility and impossibility Dismiss a weird theory because “it’s impossible!” Logical possibility (follows principles of logic (no contradictions)) Logical impossibility (violates principles of logic (contradictions)) Physical possibility (follows laws of science) Physical impossibility (violates laws of science) ** can be logically possible but physically impossible

o Judge weird theories based on TEST formula State if the theory has consistency Assess the evidence of the theory Scrutinize alternative theories Test plausibility of theories using the criteria of adequacy

10

STUDY NOTES

Chapter 11: Judging Moral Arguments and Theories- Morality: concerns beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, and just and unjust.

o Must accept or reject moral statements, make and criticise moral arguments, and wrestle with moral theories

o We formulate our own moral theory (own beliefs of morality)- Word View: to be intellectually mature, we must also try to integrate the results of

moral analyses and deliberations into a comprehensive picture of realityo Philosophy of life, a set of fundamental ideas, beliefs and theories that help us

make sense of a wide range of issues in lifeo Defines for us what exists, what should be, and what we can knowo Notions of morality an important part

- Emotivism: the reasoning about morality is not possible because moral statements are not statements at all (can’t be either true or false) they are expressions of emotions

- Moral Argumentso Conclusion are moral statementso Moral Statements: statement asserting that an action is right or wrong

(moral or immoral) or that something (such as a person or motive) is good or bad

E.g. Serena should keep her promise to you Standard moral argument: mixture of moral and non-moral

statements• It is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on a child (moral

statement)• Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child (non-moral)• Therefore, spanking is wrong (moral statement judgement

about a particular kind of action) No moral premise = no moral statement (conclusion) Only non-moral premise = no moral statement (conclusion) No non-moral premise = no moral argument + statement (conclusion)

11

STUDY NOTES

We cannot infer what SHOULD BE OR OUGHT TO BE (in the conclusion) from statements about WHAT IS

• The conclusion is not supported by the premise• ** moral premise can be missing because it is IMPLICIT

o Implicit moral premises are often dubious and need to be studied closely spell out ANY missing premises

• Best way to identify implicit premises treat it so that:o Moral arguments = deductive (valid)

Ease of analysis• Counterexamples (questionable??)• Flaws of argument? conclusion F :. 1

premise is F Find implicit moral principle premise

- Moral Theories:o Moral judgements: decision about the morality of specific classes of action

or of the goodness of people and their motives Prized product of moral deliberation Based on moral principles and standards (which are crucial premises in

moral arguments)o Moral theories from:

Parents Great thinkers of the past

• Divine-command theory God is always right• Act-utilitarianism right actions = maximizes overall happiness

(everyone considered)o To identify the best theory, we must compare competing theories and use the

criteria of adequacy to appraise their worth Consistency with considered moral judgements

• Moral data (or considered moral judgements) influence our moral theory

• Moral theory can lead us to accept or reject certain data • Must fit data and theory as close as possible “reflective

equilibrium” Consistency with our experience of the moral life (conservatism)

• Moral experience of moral life involves:o Making moral judgements (done constantly)o Making moral disagreements (sometimes done)o Sometimes acting immorally (we are not morally perfect)

• Accept it at face value even though it may be an illusion Workability in real-life situations

• Solve problems (fruitfulness and scope)• Helps to make moral decisions (moral dilemmas) moral

principles and moral judgements are in conflict• Moral theory SHOULD guild actions and reconcile clashing moral

beliefs (with this, it is unworkable)o Act-utilitarianism:

What matters is the CONSEQUENCES of an action, not whether the action breaks a rule or violates some moral principle

If action maximizes happiness = morally right (regardless of any other considerations)

• Assumes we can and do make moral judgements, disagreements, act morally

• Calculating amounts of happiness is difficult/impossible• Temporal issues (happiness regarding short term vs. long term)

12

STUDY NOTES

• UNWORKABLE does not guide actions, making decisionso Conflict with moral judgements of rights – kill baby =

town happy O_oo Conflict with moral duties (to other people)o Inconsistent with relevant moral data

IMPORTANT: moral theories = has the notion that the consequences of actions are indeed relevant to moral judgements

- Coherent and powerful worldview = work of a life time- World view: massive intellectual construct with many elements

o Must have internal consistencyo Composite of theories about morality, God, Science, mind, personhood,

society, knowledge etc.o Good world views = good moral theories

Increase our understanding by fitting our beliefs into a coherent pattern Theories must be consistent

o Moral theory can conflict with our view of human freedom Causal determinism everything has a cause (indefinite past)…

therefore we are not FREE/in controlo Our theory about the existence of God can conflict with our scientific theory of

the nature of the universeo Our theory about the mind can be in conflict with theories of personal survival

after death Some believe that people can live on in some ethereal form (souls) But is mind identical to body, or separate…conflicts

- MUST reconcile conflicting beliefs (by eliminated or modifying them) o NECESSARY for creating theories and world views that guild thinking,

choices, deeds

13