Philonew



Intro to PhilosophyLecture 1This first lecture is to introduce you to the meaning, the nature, and the current state of philosophy. I’d like to make a few remarks on the difficulty in studying philosophy and on how to study philosophy. First I want to try to give you a definition of philosophy. Defining philosophy is a complicated task, as you shall see in the course of this semester, due to the complicated nature and the age of the subject. I believe it is easier to understand the meaning of it by reading philosophical texts and by considering the kinds of questions philosophers try to answer and the way in which they try to answer them. It is interesting to note that no 2 philosophers agree on a definition of philosophy. Some philosophers even think the discipline of philosophy died many years ago. Others think it’s alive and well. Others think should be studied only for its historical value. Still others assure you that philosophy has, and continues to, resolve many problems. Some believe all philosophical questions are illusory because are generated by misunderstanding of language. To complicate it even more, there are rationalists who believe knowledge is acquired exclusively through reasoning and that sensory experience is deceiving, and empiricists who believe knowledge comes only from experience and observation and reasoning alone cannot generate knowledge. And as if this were not enough, today, there seem to be 2 distinct schools of philosophy, continental and analytic. Why Defining Philosophy is Not EasyLet me show you why:Consider the term itself. When you want to understand a term what’s the first thing that you do? Look up the term in a dictionary to become acquainted with that term. However, you’ll soon realize that there is something quite mysterious about this term—“philosophy”. Take the term “ornithology” for example. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it as, “A branch of zoology dealing with birds.” That’s clear. What about the term “biology”? It is defined as, “A branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes.” Clear, also.…but philosophy? Definitions of PHILOSOPHY:1A (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminaryB (1) archaic: physical science (2): ethicsC: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology (true but needs more)2A: pursuit of wisdom (true also but what’s wisdom?)B: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational meansC: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs3A: a system of philosophical conceptsB: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought: the philosophy of war.4A: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or groupB: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopherAs you can see, after having looked up the term in a dictionary, we are still in the dark as to a clear definition of philosophy. The above mentioned definitions, do not really, precisely explain what philosophy is. Those definitions, rather, are partial or describe certain fields or sub-fields with which philosophy is concerned.Then what else can we do? We can search for the etymology of philosophy. The term “philosophy” is a compound word of two words: philos (love) and sophia (wisdom), so that literally it means love of wisdom. To be a philosopher, then, is to love wisdom. Good! We’re getting somewhere. But what is wisdom?Do you see what I mean when I say that we are better off looking at examples of philosophers’ writings in order to understand what philosophy is?In any event, for now, I think a fair definition is that philosophy is the study of the most important questions (that matter to all) in life, questions about ethics, religion, reality, language, etc. “What’s just? Does God exist? Is the universe infinite? What’s the most favorable political system? Is capital punishment ever just? Is abortion ever just?” etc.—All of you at one point or other in life have asked or will ask yourselves these questions. When did humans start philosophizing? Humans started doing philosophy, so to speak, ever since they became capable of speculating about their existence in the world, and thus ask similar questions. Homo sapiens, scientists say, have been around for 150,000 years. That’s too far back to even guess what was going on. Humans before civilizations arose were foragers. And being busy collecting food, and hiding from danger, they must not have had much time to think about the world in a philosophical sense. But nonetheless, the point is that what distinguishes Homo sapiens, us, from the rest of the animals, is reason. I am making this point not because I want to suggest that we look into philosophy this far back in time. It would be fruitless and impossible. For the purpose of this course, I want you to understand that many of the ideas that we call philosophical, and indeed, philosophizing, have existed since man began speculating about the world. But for practical reasons, we’ll start from what we do know, and that is the year 585 B.C.E. At this time, although we do not have complete works, we know from references made by later generations of philosophers in their works, that in those years there were certain individuals who began asking questions about the world and giving answers in a way that was not the conventional way at the time. What do I mean? What were the questions? How would they answer? (More next lecture with pre-Socratics)Humans always had the need to explain the world. But in a time prior to modern science and technology, they could only come up with fantastic accounts that took the form of mythology. Philosophy in this sense is a precious instrument used by mankind with which to investigate beyond assumptions formed by common sense, generalizations, misconceptions, and appearance; philosophy aids us to dig deeper to find truths. Truth, we know today, is often hidden and often disagrees with common sense. Our senses are not always reliable instruments for detecting truth. The study of philosophy, thus, has offered humankind a way to escape prejudice, mythology, and misinformed conclusions about the world based on mere observation.Now, in a sense, we all are to some extent philosophers when we are engaged in the type of questions and investigations I mentioned. But philosophy, keep in mind, today is pretty much identified as a rigorous academic discipline. Today, to study philosophy, it is no longer sufficient to contemplate the world from under a tree. Today if one wants to take up the study of philosophy, he needs to study the classical questions as proposed and answered by the important thinkers of the past. These questions are studied with specific techniques, or styles if you will, that have been developed over centuries. We study free will/determinism, for example, in terms of the responses offered by those philosophers in the past who attempted to answer them. So you’ll see how one philosopher’s doctrine is often a response to a previous philosopher’s, and a method is the response to a previous method. Today, when we approach the subject of philosophy, we know we refer to the academic subject dealing with metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, and logic—also, political philosophy, and most recently, linguistics, cognitive science, philosophy of technology, and bioethics. Thus here is a sketch of the main 5 branches:METAPHYSICSMetaphysics is a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and existence. Metaphysics, therefore, goes beyond or transcends the natural science of physics. Metaphysics is concerned with two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:What is there?What is it like?Being, existence and realityThe nature of Being is a perennial topic in metaphysics. Objects and their propertiesThe world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract such as justice and numbers.Is there a fundamental substance?Is light a particle of a wave?Cosmology and cosmogonyMetaphysical Cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time. Modern metaphysical cosmology tries to address questions such as:What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? (see monism, pantheism, emanationism and creationism)What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see teleology)Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in its own nature or in an external cause).The universe exists.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.The universe began to exist.The best candidate for such a transcendent cause is God. Why?Infinity cannot exist.Because the universe is in space and time, what created it must transcend space + time.How did G create the universe? From pre-existing material?1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or intelligence.2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.From which it follows logically:3. Therefore, it is due to intelligence.Determinism and free willDeterminism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior events. Accordingly, no random, spontaneous, events occur. The principal consequence of the deterministic claim is that it poses a challenge to the existence of free will.The problem of free will is the problem of whether rational agents exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Identity and changeParmenides denied that change occurs at all, while Heraclitus thought change was ubiquitous: "[Y]ou cannot step into the same river twice." You are never the same you at 2 different times.Mind and matterHow can squishy material produce love, philosophy, math, science, friendship etc? How can a piece of fleshy stuff be about something?Religion and spiritualityTheology is the study of a god or gods and the nature of the divine. Whether there is a god (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism;, and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion.Problem of evilOntological ArgumentMorality AestheticsIt is the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste. “What is art?” for example is one of the questions of aesthetics. Do you remember the Gates in Central Park?I recently wrote about whether film is a form of art. Other questions are to define music and determine whether a certain form of art is best fit to convey a certain message: e.g. is there something that each medium does best? Is novel or film the best medium at story telling?One feature of the early 18th century’s style of art theorizing was the idea that all arts had the same purpose—that is, to imitate the beautiful in nature.?Later, some philosophers thought that each art form has a different purpose. Painting and poetry are different because painting imitates the single moment whereas poetry imitates process, for example. What is beauty? Is there a formula to determine what is beautiful? Or what we find beautiful is relative?EpistemologyEpistemology is the study of knowledge. It is concerned withOrigin of knowledge.Acquisition of knowledge: Experience vs. Reason.This field has focused on studying the nature of knowledge and how it relates to truth, belief, and justification. Some of the questions:What is knowledge? Is knowledge only what is true or rather what is useful? But is it what is useful always true? Take mathematics. We agree that it is a form of knowledge. But is 2+2=4 really knowledge or a tautology? What can 2+2=4 tell us about the world? Religion: many have justified belief in claiming knowledge of the existence of a god. Others, in a similar way, have sound justification to claim that there isn’t any god. Then to what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?One view is the objection that there is very little or no knowledge at all—skepticism.If you think you can clearly define knowledge, then you know not what knowledge is. Before Galileo, earth was “known” to be at the center of the universe. Today we “know” better—but do we? What puts us in a better position? If knowledge is linked with truth, what is the best instrument with which to acquire truth? Is it science? Is it religion?We saw the distinction between empiricism and rationalism. Which of the two views affords us knowledge?Knowledge that, knowledge how: in epistemology in general, the kind of knowledge in which philosophers are interested is propositional knowledge, AKA “knowledge that.”Example: The way in which we are able to see atoms is by using the “Scanning Tunneling Microscope” (STM). This type of microscope has an extremely sensitive “probe” with a very fine tip that, so to speak, feels the bumps caused by atoms. These “bumps” then are converted by a computer into a picture showing the individual atoms. When the probe of the microscope is brought close to the surface of the sample, there is an interaction between the electron cloud and the tip of the probe. The question that follows is obvious: What are those bumps, real atoms or images produced by a microscope that was built by its inventor to see those images?Atoms are thousands of times smaller than the smallest visible light waves, but there is so much evidence for atoms, and the success of many theories depend on the fact that we know so much about atoms. Now, some philosophers may object that such devices as the STM are made appositely to see what we want to see? But others say that if atoms do not exist, then it would seem that our theories work accidentally! Traditional Theory of knowledge: Many epistemologists hold the Justified True Belief (JTB) account of knowledge: the claim that knowledge can be conceptually analyzed as justified true belief.A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:P is trueS believes that P is true, andS is justified in believing that P is trueIs Justified True Belief (JTB) knowledge? Consider these 3 scenarios:Your roommate is watching TV in the kitchen. You’re in the bathroom preparing for work. You need to know the time and so you get out of the bathroom and see the time as it appears on the lower right corner of the TV set, which reads 2:15 P.M. You’re late for work. You get dressed quickly and zoom out. Now what you don’t know is that your friend was playing a tape. It just so happened that the time in the video precisely coincided with the real time. Now, do you know the time?It is true that the time is 2:15.You believe that the time is 2:15, and,You are justified in believing that the time is 2:15.Farmer Joe is concerned about his cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his wife tells him that Daisy is in the field, happily grazing, he says he needs to know for certain. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is safe. Farmer Joe then goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his cow. He goes back home and tells his wife that he knows that Daisy is safe in the field. Yet, at this point, does Farmer Joe really know it?Joe’s wife later goes to the field and there she finds Daisy, having a nap behind a bush. She also sees a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a bush.Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Joe thought.But was he right to say that he knew she was?In this case, according to JTB account:It is true that Daisy is in the field.Joe believes that Daisy was in the field.And his belief was justified.However, we might still feel that the farmer did not really know it; his justified true belief was actually operating independent of the truth. Smith and Jones are candidates for a job. While in the waiting room, Jones shows Smith his 10 lucky coins, which he always keeps in his pocket during interviews. Smith has strong evidence that: ????????? (P):? Jones is the man who will get the job. ? His evidence is that while waiting, Smith overhears a conversation between 2 secretaries, saying that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job. ?Now, (P) implies (e): ????????? (e)? The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. Smith believes (e).??It seems clear that Smith is justified in believing that (e) is true! However, Smith does not realize it, but he is getting the job; moreover, while Smith is unaware of the fact, he has ten coins in his pocket! The interviewer knew this fact because he has a monitor in his office connected to security showing the content of Smith’s pocket, 10 coins. Now, Proposition (e) [The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.] is true.Smith believes it.And Smith is justified in believing it—even though (P)—which led Smith to inferring (e)—is false).? So,Smith’s belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.You might think this is trivial. But think of this in terms of a legal dispute. Imagine a scenario where there is involved a murder and the testimony of a person who “knows” the time of the event? Also imagine an analogous situation in science. What if a certain scientific experiment or data we’ve been relying upon for centuries is generated by something similar, that is, by accident?!EthicsEthics is the branch of philosophy concerned about morality. Philosophers who specialize in ethics are called ethicists. They may be interested in 3 main sub-fields: Meta-ethicsNormative ethicsApplied ethics Meta-ethics focuses on how to understand, and come to know about right and wrong. Normative ethics is about ethical systems, that is, how to determine a moral course of action. For example, Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights. Some deontological theories includeImmanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” Ask yourself “Would I want all people in all places, at all times to do what I am about to do?”The first formulationRequires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature. This is a test to determine whether a maxim can be universalized, and it has 5 steps:Take a moral statement, for example the declaration “I will cheat for personal benefit.” Imagine a possible world in which everyone followed that maxim. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in such a world as a result of following the maxim.If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.If there is no contradiction, that maxim is morally sound; but if there is, well, then it is not morally sound!The second formulationThe second formulation holds that the rational being is “the basis of all maxims of action” and must be treated never as a mere means but as an end. What this means is that all rational beings should never be exploited for personal gain.The third formulationAll maxims must harmonize with a possible Kingdom of Ends. This means that we should act in such a way that we may think of ourselves as “a member in the universal realm of ends”.Contractarianism: Plato, Rousseau, Hobbes. The Contractarianism of John Rawls, which holds that the moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were under veil of ignorance.Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke or Robert Nozick argue that human beings have absolute, natural rights.And a third subfield of ethics is applied ethics is about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations; attempts to use philosophical methods to identify the morally correct course of action in various fields of human life. Bioethics, for example, is concerned with euthanasia, the use of human embryos in research, abortion etc. Environmental ethics is concerned with questions such as the duties of humans towards natures. Business ethics concerns questions such as the limits on managers in the pursuit of profit.ETHICAL SYSTEMSDESCRIPTIONSTRENGTH/WEAKNESSEXAMPLEETHICAL RELATIVISM - No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.S- Brings about tolerance of other cultures. Keeps societies from falling apart. W- Confuses what ought to be done with what is currently done.South Seas Islanders practice cannibalism. Cannibalism is strictly prohibited in the U.S.DIVINE COMMAND THEORY - Moral standards depend on God who is all-knowing. Any act that conforms to the law of God is right; an act that breaks God's law is wrong.S- Standards are from a higher authority than humans. Gives reasons why man should behave morally. Gives worth to all equally. W- Can be arbitrary depending on interpretation. Can we know the true divine authority?Christian religions point believers to rules like the Ten Commandments.UTILITARIANISM - Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are those that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.S- Promotes human well-being and attempts to lessen human suffering. W- One person's good can be another's evil. Hard to predict accurately all consequences.The U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII believing it was worth the loss of life to gain the end of the war and stop the higher loss of life if the war continued. DEONTOLOGY - Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If not willing for everyone to follow the rule, then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis on autonomy, justice and kind acts. People treated as ends, never means. S- It provides a special moral status for humans. Moral rules are universal. W- It says nothing about other living things. Rules can be abstract.In the U.S. a continued emphasis on human rights for all people stems from a willingness to reason that justice and equal treatment ought to be applied universally.VIRTUE ETHICS - Morals are internal. Seeks to produce good people who act well out of spontaneous goodness. It emphasizes living well and achieving excellence.S- It internalizes moral behavior. W- Offers no guidance for resolving ethical dilemmas.Consider terrorist of 9/11/01. In the context of their religious assumptions, they were being virtuous!SOCIAL-CONTRACTARIAN ETHICS – give up rights and sign contract to regulate behavior and protection.S-egalitarianW-we’re not terms of a contract. Morality should not be out of feat/convenience.Children, handicapped, animals not included.Furthermore…Philosophy of Language, Science, MindPhilosophy of language is concerned with all aspects of language: the nature of meaning, language use, language acquisition, and the relationship between language and reality. Philosophy of science inquires into the methods and foundations of science. One example is demarcation. That is, how do we distinguish science from pseudoscience? Another question is “How should one interpret the results of science?” another issue is this: Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that scientific theories describe truth about the world. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim, or does not succeed, at truth, and that scientific theories are instrumentally useful but not true descriptions of the world. Philosophy of mind studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, consciousness and their relationship to the body. Behaviorism is an example of a topic studied in philosophy of mind. Behaviorism proposes that all things that organisms do—including acting, thinking, and feeling—can and should be regarded as behaviors.Furthermore, there are many other branches. Philosophy of history is concerned with whether we can learn from history, e.g., history shows patterns in human behavior; thus some think that history is a process guided toward a final goal by a god or by a spirit. In antiquity, people believed that history is a cycle that repeats itself. Christian philosophers, for example, view the world as a temporary state where humans fulfill the Imago Dei in order to eventually be saved and become one with God.L O G I CAn “argument” is a set of premises, or at least 1 premise, in support of a conclusion. A premise is a statement, true or false. “Fetch me a bagel!” is not a premise. “Joe is my dog.” is a premise. Arguments can be deductive or inductive. A deductive argument can be valid or invalid; and a valid argument can be sound or unsound.An argument is called DEDUCTIVE when its conclusion follows NECESSARILY—by logical necessity. Deductive arguments may be valid or invalid. DEDUCTIVE + VALIDIF IT RAINS, MY CAR IS WET.IT RAINS.MY CAR IS WET.IF I AM EATING, I HAVE FOOD.I AM EATING.I HAVE FOOD. Given premises 1 and 2, the conclusion, 3, is necessary. If you deny (3) you contradict yourself.PEOPLE FROM FRANCE SPEAK FRENCH.MARK IS FROM FRANCE. MARK SPEAKS FRENCH.TO BE A BACHELOR ONE MUST BE MALE.JOE IS A BACHELOR.THEREFORE, JOE IS A MALE.Note that an argument may be deductively valid yet have one or more false premises.Premise (1) is false because birds, and octopi, shrimp, etc. are not teethed animal.ALL ANIMALS HAVE TEETH.DOGS ARE ANIMALS.SO, DOGS HAVE TEETH. ALL MEN ARE MORTAL.X IS A MAN.THUS, X IS MORTAL.Now, what is an INVALID argument? A deductive argument is INVALID when its conclusion does not follow at all.DEDUCTIVE + INVALIDIF IT RAINS, MY CAR IS WET.MY CAR IS WET.IT RAINS.DOGS HAVE TEETH. DOGS ARE ANIMALS.SO, ALL ANIMALS HAVE TEETH.IF I AM EATING, I HAVE FOOD.I HAVE FOOD.THEREFORE, I AM EATING.PEOPLE FROM FRANCE SPEAK FRENCH.MARK SPEAKS FRENCH. MARK IS FROM FRANCE.TO BE A BACHELOR, ONE MUST BE MALEJOE IS MALE.JOE IS A BACHELOR.ALL MEN ARE MORTAL.X IS MORTAL.THUS, X IS A MAN.ALL HUMANS HAVE TWO LEGS.ALL HUMANS ARE LIVING CREATURES.SO, ALL LIVING CREATURES HAVE TWO LEGS.The above arguments are INVALID because their conclusions are not granted by the premises; or, they neither follow necessarily nor probably—they just don’t follow!Next, deductive arguments can be sound or unsound. DEDUCTIVE + VALID + SOUNDALL MEN ARE MORTAL.X IS A MAN.THUS, X IS MORTAL.THE SUM OF INTERIOR ANGLES OF ALL TRIANGLES IS 180°.THIS IS A TRIANGLE.THUS, THE SUM OF ITS INTERIOR ANGLES IS 180°.NYC TECH IS EITHER IN BROOKLYN OR IN NORWAY.NYC TECH IS NOT IN NORWAY.NYC TECH IS IN BROOKLYN.5 IS GREATER THAN 3.3 IS GREATER THAN 2.5 IS GREATER THAN 2.IF THE MONTH OF JAN. HAS 31 DAYS, THE 31St IS THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH.JAN. DOES HAVE 31 DAYS.THUS, THE 31St IS THE LAST DAY.ALL TREES ARE PLANTS.THE OAK IS A TREE.THE OAK IS A PLANT.ALL PHYSICAL OBJECTS OCCUPY SPACE.MY BOOK IS A PHYSICAL OBJECT.MY BOOK OCCUPIES SPACE.The foregoing arguments are DEDUCTIVE because their conclusions follow by logical necessity and not probably. Hence, they are VALID. Furthermore, they are SOUND because their premises are true.DEDUCTIVE + VALID + UNSOUNDIF THE MONTH OF JAN. HAS 33 DAYS, THE 33Rd IS THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH.JAN. DOES HAVE 33 DAYS.THUS, THE 33Rd IS THE LAST DAY.ALL UNICORNS CAN DO MAGIC.JUJU IS A UNICORN.THUS, JUJU CAN DO MAGIC.ALL LIVING THINGS CAN FLY.WOMEN ARE LIVING THINGS.THUS, WOMEN CAN FLY.FELINES HAVE SIX LEGS.TIGERS ARE FELINES.THUS, TIGERS HAVE SIX LEGS.THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE.CHEESE CAN BE EATEN.THUS, THE MOON CAN BE EATEN.NY HAS THE ONLY SUBWAY SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. F TRAIN IS ONE OF THE NY SUBWAY TRAINS.THUS, F TRAIN IS THE ONLY SUBWAY TRAIN IN THE WORLD.ALL MUSIC GENRES STARTED IN INDIA. JAZZ IS A MUSIC GENRE.THUS, JAZZ STARTED IN INDIA.Notice that the conclusion to these arguments is necessary. The premises are related: one leads to the other; GIVEN THE PREMISES, the conclusion follows from the premises necessary and not probably. So, these are deductively valid arguments. But they are unsound because soundness requires true premises.On the other hand, INDUCTIVE arguments work differently. The conclusion to an inductive argument can be strong or weak, depending on the circumstances, but never 100% true or 100% false.For example, consider these inductive arguments:The last ten times I’ve played poker, I’ve won money.I’m playing poker tonight.I’ll win money tonight.The last ten times I’ve played poker, I’ve won money.I’m playing poker tonight.I wILL NOT win money tonight.90% of citytech students are females.therefore, if i walk out in the hallway now, chances are i’ll run into a female student.There are 52 cards LEFT in the deck, including 13 aces.I need to draw 1 ace to win.I’ll get an ace on the next draw.There are 20 cards in the deck, and that includes 13 aces.I need to draw 1 ace to win.I’ll get an ace on the next draw.It has snowed in Massachusetts?every December in recorded history.Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.Every time I have seen a thing be dropped in the past, it has fallen to THE GROUND.I AM ABOUT TO DROP THIS PEN.Therefore, it will fall to THE GROUND.Invalid Arguments:Logical FallaciesOne type of invalid argument is called a Logical Fallacy. These arguments are instances of bad or poor reasoning. The conclusion of a logical fallacy either does not depend on the truth of the premises at all or the conclusion only follows very weakly from the premises. Fallacies can be formal or informal. A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form without requiring an understanding of the argument’s content. For example, see if you can spot the logical error in this argument: All men are mortal.X is mortal.______________________Therefore, X is a man.The error is that the arguer does not carefully consider that entity X may not be a man. X could be a cat, which is mortal, but is not a man.Consider this other:If it rains, then my car gets wet.My car is wet.______________________Therefore, it rained.Again, the error here is to jump to the conclusion without carefully considering the premises. That is to say, my car could be wet for a number of reasons other than that it rained.On the other hand, informal fallacies occur for reasons other than structural, and thus require examination of the argument’s content.Here are some examples:Ad HominemYour reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. Example:My doctor told me I should lose some weight. But why should I listen to him? He’s fat! This attack may undermine the doctor’s physical aspect, but it does not undermine his reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the doc’s age or anything else about his aspect or personally.AmbiguityThis is an error due to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during the reasoning.Example:In a cartoon, two elephants are driving their car down the road in India. They say, “We’d better not get out here,” as they pass a sign saying:ELEPHANTSPLEASE STAY IN YOUR CAREquivocationShifting meaning of a key word in an argument results in the fallacy of equivocation.God is love.Love is blind.Stevie Wonder is blind.Thus, Stevie Wonder is God.Appeal to AuthorityYou appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Example:A TV commercial that gives you a testimonial from a famous film star who wears a Wilson watch and that suggests you, too, should wear that brand of watch is using a fallacious appeal to authority. The film star is an authority on how to act, not on which watch is best for you.Appeal to IgnoranceThe fallacy of “Appeal to Ignorance” occurs when the subject implies that not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false, or vice versa. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. Example:When we look in the sky we clearly see that the sun moves and not the earth. Therefore, it is false that the earth revolves around the sun. Appeal to the PeopleIf you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most or everyone believes.Example:God exists because the majority of people in the world believe in a god.Begging the QuestionA form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Example:“Women have rights. But women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because voting is a manly activity.”Black-or-White/False DichotomyExample:Well, it’s time for a decision. Either you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or you are on the side of environmental destruction?Circular ReasoningA student argues: “You can’t give me a C.? I’m an A student!”Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won’t sink in.A: “Why do you believe in Zeus?”B: “Because it is written in the Holy Scripture.” A: “But why do you believe the Holy Scripture?” B: “Because it’s the word of Zeus”False AnalogyThe problem is that the items in the analogy are too dissimilar. When reasoning by analogy, the fallacy occurs when the analogy is irrelevant or very weak or when there is a more relevant disanalogy. Example:The human body is a miniature copy of the universe.Watchmaker/ernment is like a family.God is a father.ReificationConsidering an abstract noun to be a term referring to an abstract object, when the meaning of the noun can be accounted for more mundanely without assuming the object exists.Example:“Nature has designed some amazing creatures.”Slippery SlopeSuppose someone claims that a first step (in a chain of causes and effects, or a chain of reasoning) will probably lead to a second step that in turn will probably lead to another step and so on until a final step ends in trouble. If the likelihood of the trouble occurring is exaggerated, the slippery slope fallacy is present.Example:We should oppose to homosexual marriage because if we allow it then one day people would demand to marry animals. Straw ManYour reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.Example:We should oppose the Obamacare because it’s a communist bill that will take away all our freedoms. Obamacare means that instead of private insurance there will be a death panel that chooses whether you will live or die. Illegal aliens will get covered.The theory of evolution says that man comes from monkeys. But how come monkeys don’t give birth to human babies? The theory of evolution is absurd! UnfalsifiabilityThis error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false.Post-hoc ergo propter hocThis fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”). This is often encountered with health claims: I was sick, a took a treatment, and now I am better, therefore the treatment made me better. Of course, it’s possible the illness resolved on its own.Genetic Fallacy It is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history or of meaning of that idea. Argument from age is a common version of the genetic fallacy where the thing in question is very new or old, so it must be better. Examples include products advertised as "New!" or "Old Fashioned remedy or medicine. Another variation is to dismiss or end praise ideas because they did or did not originate from here. "Not good because it is made in China!” or commercials that claim “Made in the USA!” Or “This cream is invented by German scientists…”“Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? So, you should not be a party to such a sexist practice." When we use the terms “sunset” and “sunrise” we’re not implying belief in a geocentric cosmology in which the sun revolves about the Earth and literally “rises” and “sets.” ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download