phil105g exam preparations - auckland uni

7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 1/9

Philosophy 105/105G – Thursday 5th, 2.15pmMultichoice exam – section A 10qs 1 mark each, section B 10qs 2

marks each, section C 10qs 3 marks each, section D 10qs 4 marks

each

Part 1 – the basics

Critical thinkin

• Critical thinking is the systematic ealuation or !ormulation o!

"elie!s or statements "y rational stan#ar#s

• $tatements that su%%ort the conclusion are calle# %remises,

taken together these are arguments – this %rocess o!

reasoning is calle# in!erence

•

&hat is not a %remise' – (uestions or comman#s• &hat is not an argument' )x%lanations – these are statements

asserting *hy or ho* something is the case

• +ational illusions – situations *here most %eo%le come to the

*rong concl, "ut eentually get the right concl

!bstacles to critical thinkin that arise because o" how #e

think

• ccurs #ue to %sychological !actors

• $el!-intereste# thinking – *hen things get %ersonal, emotional

inestment – aoi# "y ensuring inclusion o! all ei#ence .#on/t

"e selectie

• rou% %ressure – eg %eer %ressure, a%%eals to %o%ularity,

a%%eal to common %ractice can result in narro* min#e#ness –

aoi# "y %ro%ortioning acce%tance o! a claim to the strength

o! the reasons

• )gocentrism – i#ea that your o*n kno*le#ge or ex%erience

counts more than others .eg Dunning-ruger – %eo%le rate

themseles a"oe aerage *hen they are "elo* – aoi# "y

"eing a*are an# charita"le

• Conrmation5selection "ias – only seeking conrming

ei#ence an# ignoring any ei#ence against you, results in

!ooling onesel! – aoi# "y "eing a*are an# looking "eyon#

striking or memora"le ei#ence

!bstacles to critical thinkin that arise because o" what #e

think

• ccurs #ue to our %hiloso%hical i#eas an# *orl#ie*

• +elatiism – "elie! that "elie!s are coherent, or that conincingan# agreement is "est – ho*eer, relatiism can/t ca%ture our

1



actual %ractices an# "elie!s .eg6 *e can "e mistaken, *e can

#isagree

• 7y%es o! relatiism – cultural .culture, su"8ectie .%erson,

social .society – results in su"8ectie !allacy, societal

in!alli"ility• $ke%ticism – *e kno* much less than *e think *e #o .or

nothing at all "ecause kno*le#ge requires certainty, results

in %hiloso%hical ske%ticism

• Dee% #isagreements – %ro"lems seem irresola"le .!acts are

#i9cult to esta"lish or com%licate# – most are resola"le *ith

a rational argument

• Bur#en o! %roo! – in critical thinking *e look !or goo# reasons

to think, a #eman# !or %roo! is o!ten unreasona"le

$rument "orms

• De#uctie – inten#e# to

%roi#e logically conclusive

su%%ort – i! it succee#s in

%roi#ing logical su%%ort it is

ali#5soun#, i! not .i! the concl

#oes not logically !ollo* !rom

the %remises it is inali#

• :ali#5soun# #e#uctie

arguments – these argumentsare truth preserving "ecause o! the guarantee o! truth in the

%remises an# concl .no counter exam%les eer – note; counter

exam%les can "e inali# or !alse

• <n#uctie – inten#e# to %roi#e probable su%%ort – i! it

succee#s in %roi#ing %ro"a"le logical su%%ort it is

strong5cogent, i! not it is *eak

• 7he structure o! an in#uctie argument cannot guarantee the

concl is true i! the %remises are true, "ut it can "e ren#ere#

%ro"a"le an# *orthy

Charity

• Al*ays analyse the strongest !orm o! an argument an# re%air

minor =a*s

• >ix %oor choices o! *or#s, a## missing ste%s, treat others as

intelligent, gie the "enet o! the #ou"t, aoi#

misinter%retation – "asically #on/t "e a #ick

• &hy' – ?ou *ant to make a "etter argument, you are "etter

o@ attacking a strong ersion o! the counter-argument, you*ant a quality #e"ate

2



• $u%%resse# %remises an# #isguise# conclusions – search !or

%remises or conclusions that are not ex%licitly inclu#e#, an#

make them ex%licit an# ali#

• <m%licit %remises – search !or a cre#i"le %remise to !urnish the

link "et*een %remise5s an# concl

%iarammin aruments

n#erline in#icator *or#s an# num"er the statements, n#

the concl an# #ra* a *ay line un#er it, locate the %remises

an# un#erline them, cross out extra material

Dra* the #iagram, connecting %remises an# conclusions *ith

arro*s sho*ing logical connections .inclu#e "oth #e%en#ent

an# in#e%en#ent %remises

Premises

• <n#e%en#ent %remises – o@er su%%ort *ithout hel% !rom other

%remises

• 7o sho* an in#e%en#ent argument is "a#, you nee# to sho*

that each %remise on its o*n !ails to %roi#e enough su%%ort

!or the concl

• De%en#ent %remises – %remises rely on each other .i! a

%remise is remoe# it un#ermines the rest o! the su%%ort

• 7o sho* a #e%en#ent argument is "a#, you nee# to sho* that

all #e%en#ent %remises together #o not %roi#e enough

su%%ort !or the concl

&easonin – trustin and doubtin claims

• oo# reasons to trust a claim – it/s "ase# on %ersonal

ex%erience or ex%ert o%inion – only trust i! there/s no goo#

reason to #ou"t

• oo# reasons to #ou"t a claim – i! it con=icts *ith "ackgroun#

in!o .*ell-su%%orte# "elie!s that in!orm our "ehaiour, i! it

con=icts *ith other claims *e hae goo# reason to acce%t .eg6

ex%ert o%inion, *hen ex%erts #isagree a"out it, *hen the

claim is "y ne*s re%orts or a#s

• De!ence against mislea#ing claims – use reasona"le

ske%ticism an# a critical a%%roach .look !or slanting or !alse

em%hasis, examine resources an# !acts

• <! there is a claim *e can neither acce%t nor re8ect, *e shoul#

%ro%ortion our "elie! to the ei#ence

Part 2 – "allacies and persuaders

3



'ormal "allacies

• Antece#ent – the rst statement in a con#itional %remise .i!/

• Consequent – the secon# statement in a %remise .then/

•

A9rming the antece#ent5%onens .ali# – i! x, then y6 6 7here!ore, y6

• Denying the consequent5tollens .ali# – i! x, then y6 Eot y6

7here!ore, not x6

• Fy%othetical syllogism .ali# – i! x, then y6 <! y, then G6

7here!ore, i! x, then G

• A9rming the consequent .inali# – i! x, then y6 ?6 7here!ore, x6

• Denying the antece#ent .inali# – i! x, then ?6 Eot x6

7here!ore, not y6

• Dis8unctie syllogism .inali# – either x or y6 Eot y6 7here!ore,

not x6

(n"ormal "allacies – irrele)ant premises *premises don+t

relate to the concl

• enetic !allacy – arguing that a claim is 7 or > solely "ecause

o! it/s origin

• Com%osition – arguing that *hat is 7 o! the %arts must "e 7 o!

the *hole

• Diision – arguing that *hat is 7 o! the *hole must "e 7 o! the

%arts• 7u quoque – re8ecting claims "5c arguer !ails to %ractice *hat

they %reach

• +e# herring – #eli"erately raising an irreleant issue

• $tra* man – #istorting, *eakening, or oersim%li!ying a

%osition so it can "e easily attacke#

• 7*o *rongs make a right – arguing that #oing something

morally *rong is 8ustie# "ecause someone else has #one the

same5similar thing

•

)quiocation – using a *or# in t*o #i@erent senses• A%%eal to the %erson – attacking the %erson rather than the

claim itsel!

• A%%eal to %o%ularity – arguing truth merely "ecause lots o!

%eo%le "eliee it

• A%%eal to authority – arguing truth "ecause an authoritatie

%erson says it is

• A%%eal to tra#ition – arguing truth "ecause it/s %art o! a

tra#ition

• A%%eal to ignorance – arguing that a lack o! ei#ence %roes

something

4



• A%%eal to emotion – the use o! emotions as %remises to

arouse !eelings .eg6 a%%eal to %ity, a%%le %olishing5=attery,

scare tactics

(n"ormal "allacies – unacceptable premises *premises don+trelate stronly enouh to the concl

• Begging the question – esta"lish the concl "y using that concl

as a %remise

• >alse #ilemma – asserting that there are only t*o alternaties

to consi#er *hen there are actually more than t*o

• Decision-%oint !allacy .$orites %ara#ox – arguing that "ecause

a #istinction cannot "e #ra*n at any %oint, then there are no

#i@erences in the %rocess

• $li%%ery slo%e – arguing *ithout goo# reasons that taking a

%articular ste% ineita"ly lea#s to a !urther un#esira"le ste%

• Fasty generaliGation – ina#equate sam%le siGe to #ra* concl

a"out a grou%

• >aulty analogy – the things "eing com%are# are not su9ciently

similar

(n"ormal "allacies – rhetorical persuasion

• <nnuen#o – suggesting something #enigrating *ithout

ex%licitly stating it

• )u%hemisms 5 #ys%hemisms – *or#s use# to coney %os or

neu attitu#es in %lace o! neg ones 5 *or#s use# to coney neg

attitu#es in %lace o! %os or neu

• $tereoty%ing – un*arrante# concl or generaliGation a"out a

grou%

• +i#icule – use o! #erision, sarcasm or mockery to #is%arage a

%erson or i#ea

Part - – aruments

%educti)e reasonin – propositional loic *truth tables

• Deals *ith logical relationshi%s among statements, #i! ty%es o!

connecties

• Con8unction .H5an# – t*o sim%le to !orm one com%oun#,

con8unct com%onents – "oth nee# to "e 7 !or the *hole

con8unction to "e 7

• Dis8unction .:5or – #is8unct com%onents – only one nee#s to

"e 7 !or the *hole #is8unction to "e 7

• Eegation .I5not – the #enial o! a statement, the I sym"olin#icates the reersal o! the statement/s truth-alue – i! a

J



statement "ecomes >, an > statement "ecomes 7 .note; "e

*ary o! #ou"le negaties

• Con#itional .-K5i!-then – i! x, then y – i! x is 7 an# y is > then

the statement is >, other*ise it is 7

Con8unction #is8unction negation con#itional

Checking !or ali#ity – #ou"le check i! any circumstances o! the

truth ta"le hae any a@airs that hae 7 %remises an# a > concl,

*hich *oul# then mean the argument is inali#

%educti)e reasonin – cateorical loic

• Deals *ith the relationshi% "et*een the su"8ect an# the

%re#icate

• Categorical statements – make sim%le assertions a"out

categories o! things, ary in characteristic o! quality

.a9rmatie or negatie

• (uantier .quantity – uniersal or %articular -K su"8ect term

-K co%ula .linking *or# – are or are not -K %re#icate term• A)< system !or !orms – all x are y L uni a9rm .A, no x are y

L uni neg .), some x are y L %artic a9rm ., some x are

not y L %artic neg .

7ranslating statements – i#enti!y the terms an# re*or# to

stan#ar# !orm

:enn #iagrams – x in#icator, the area *here the circles

oerla% in#icate that "oth x an# y are %resent, the sha#e#

area means the area is em%ty – note; enn #iagrams only

#escri"e situations *here the %remises are true

Categorical syllogisms – three categorical statements .t*o

%remises an# a concl that are structurally linke# – mi##le

term a%%ears once in each %remise, ma8or term a%%ears in

one %remise .ma8or %remise an# concl .%re#icate, minor

term in other %remise an# concl – check ali#ity *ith a 3-circle

enn #iagram

(nducti)e reasonin – enumerati)e, analoical and causal

induction



• )numeratie – argument a"out .releant %ro%erty some

.%ro%ortional quantier mem"ers o! a grou% .sam%le to a

generaliGation a"out the entire grou% .target – can result in

hasty generaliGation or non-re%resentatie "iase# sam%le –

the ariation "et*een the alues !rom the sam%le an# !romthe *hole grou% is calle# the margin o! error .higher Mo) L

*eaker concl L *eaker argument

• Analogical – since t*o or more things are similar in some

res%ect, they must "e similar in !urther res%ect – ealuate

accor#ing to num"er o! releant similarities5#issimilarities an#

#iersity among the cases

• Causal – argument *ith a causal claim in the concl – N$ Mills

metho# o! agreement .one !actor o! occurrence is common L

cause an# metho# o! #i@erence .!actor %resent an# not

%resent at releant times L cause – errors incl misi#enti!ying

or oerlooking releant causal !actors, or con!using cause *ith

coinci#ence or or#er – crucial to i#enti!y necessary con#itions

.require# an# su9cient con#itions .guarantee#

Part – eplanations

(n"erence to the best eplanation *( – inducti)e, not

stron

• Deci#ing the "est ex%lanation !or a situation "y reasoning

!rom %remises

• sually a"#uctie reasoning – "ack*ar#s reasoning .e@ect to

cause

• <n!erence to AE ex%lanation – %remises state a %henomenon

has occurre#, an# concl is a hy%othesis a"out ho* or *hy that

%henomenon occurre#

• <n!erence to the B)$7 ex%lanation – states that a %henomenon

has occurre#, lists arious hy%otheses !or ho* or *hy,

#emonstrates that one is most likely true, an# conclu#es thatthe chosen hy%othesis is true

• +ial conclusions – ans*ers that com%ete to "e the "est

ex%lanation – #eci#e *hich "y examining the strength o! the

su%%ort .#e%en#ing on the context an# make 8u#gements

• Eon-trace #ata .E7D – makes one or more rial seem

stronger, they #on/t ex%lain anything "ut they make o%%osing

#ata seem less likely

• Oots o! issues *ith <B) .easy to !ool yoursel!, aries "ase# on

starting "elie!s, some ans*ers rule# out imme#iately, "ut*e/e got nothing "etter ;

P



Consistency

• <nternal consistency – !ree o! contra#ictions *ithin itsel! – logic

says a theory lacking <C %re#icts eerything is true

•

Eote; internally inconsistent theories can "e ok i! there isnothing "etter

• )xternal consistency – consistent *ith #ata an# other

su%%orting theories – logic says a theory lacking )C can/t "e

true i! the #ata is

Criteria o" adeuacy *to 3ude plausibility in relation to

competin theories

• 7esta"ility – is there some *ay to #etermine the truth o! a

theory'• >ruit!ulness – ho* many noel %re#ictions are ma#e'

• $co%e – ho* many #ierse %henomena are ex%laine#'

• $im%licity – ho* many assum%tions are ma#e' Fo* easy is it

to un#erstan#'

• Conseratism – ho* *ell #oes the theory t *ith existing

kno*le#ge'

Testin theories – the T4T "ormula

• 1 state the 7heory an# check !or consistency

• 2 assess the )i#ence !or the theory

• 3 $crutiniGe alternatie theories

• 4 7est the theories *ith the criteria !or a#equacy

Part 5 – applyin critical thinkin

4cience

• $cience seeks kno*le#ge an# un#erstan#ing – it is not a

*orl#ie*

• Qseu#o-science – i#eas that are %resente# as science "ut

#on/t !ollo* the scientic metho# – results in "elie! in

authority, unre%eata"le ex%eriments, han#%icke# exam%les,

un*illingness to test, #isregar# o! re!uting in!o

• 7he scientic metho# – i#enti!y the %ro"lem, #eise a

hy%othesis .must "e !alsia"le, #erie a test im%lication an#

%er!orm the test .test must "e in#e%en#ently re%lica"le,

acce%t or re8ect the hy%othesis

• 7esting an# 8u#ging scientic theories – to minimiGe errors,

scientist uses control grou%s, make stu#ies #ou"le "lin#,

R



inclu#e %lace"os, an# seek re%lication o! their *ork – 8u#ge

"ase# on the criteria o! a#equacy

• $cience utiliGes <B) to assess *eir# theories an# common

%lace ex%lanations

• Mistakes *ith *eir# theories – *anting to "eliee, !ailure o!

imagination, in!alli"ility o! senses, logical s6 %hysical,

tra#ition, s%ecial status

• Common mistake in science – !orgetting that *e shoul#n/t

acce%t ei#ence %roi#e# "y %ersonal ex%erience i! *e hae

goo# reason to #ou"t it

orality and la#

• )thical theories – meta-ethics enquires a"out the o"8ectiity or

su"8ectiity o! our moral 8u#gements normatie ethics

#etermines *hat makes actions right or *rong a%%lie# ethics

a%%lies morality to real-li!e %ro"lems

• Moral statements – statement asserting that an action is right

or *rong

• +easons !or moral statements – utilitarianism .moral

righteousness achiees ha%%iness !or eeryone, #eontology

.con!orming to rules, irtue5ethics, egoism, su"8ectiism,

relatiism .culture

• Moral arguments – stan#ar# moral arguments hae at least

one %remise that asserts an im%licit an# general moral%rinci%le, at least one %remise that is a non-moral claim .these

#o not assert right or *rong, they 8ust #escri"e a state o!

a@airs, an# a concl that is a moral statement

• Eote; moral arguments can "e #e#uctie or in#uctie, "ut

treat as #e#uctie, then su%%ly %lausi"le %remises to make

the argument ali#

• Moral %remises – n#ing the truth inoles examining the

su%%ort they get !rom other moral %rinci%les, moral theories,

an# consi#ere# moral 8u#gements – assess "y n#ing counter-exam%les

• Moral theories – these attem%t to ex%lain *hat makes an

action right or *rong – test consistency *ith consi#ere# moral

8u#gements, consistency *ith our ex%erience o! the moral li!e,

an# *orka"ility in real-li!e situations

• Oegal reasoning – courts #etermine *hat the !acts are in cases

through in#uctie reasoning reasoning "y analogy a%%lies

*hen 8u#ges #eci#e cases in light o! %reiously settle# cases

"ur#en o! %roo! can "e highly unequal in legal reasoning

S

phil105g exam preparations - auckland uni

Documents