Philosophy week 2

Question 1

logical argument

Answer 1

a series of statements meant to establish a claim.

An argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion, by means of logical implication, via a procedure called logical inference

Question 2

statement

Answer 2

any unambiguous declarative sentence about a fact (or non-fact) about the world. All statements have a truth value

Question 3

truth preservation

Answer 3

with a logically valid argument, true premises always lead to true conclusions.

Question 4

logically valid argument

Answer 4

In a logically valid argument, the truth only preserves when all premises are true.

If NOT all premises are true, we don’t know if the conclusion is true.

Question 5

invalid argument

Answer 5

the validity of the argument does not depend on the truth of the premises, nor the conclusion. the premises do not have logical connection that leads to the consequence even though separately everything is true
all rabbits are mortal; socrates is a person - therefore, socrates is mortal

Question 6

valid vs invalid (how to judge)

Answer 6

To judge if each is valid or invalid, ask the question, “If the premises are true, would we be locked in to accepting the conclusion?”If the answer is “yes,” then the argument is valid.If the answer is “no,” then the argument is invalid.

Question 7

affirming the antecedents

Answer 7

if A then B
X is A
Thus, X is B

Question 8

denying the consequent

Answer 8

If A then B
X is not B
Thus, X is not A

Question 9

affirming the consequent

Answer 9

if A then B
X is B
Thus, X is A

the logic is invalid

Question 10

Denying the antecedent

Answer 10

if A then B
X is not A
Thus, X is not B

the logic is invalid

Question 11

role congruity theory

Answer 11

a group will be positively evaluated when its characteristics are recognised as aligning with that group’s typical social roles

Question 12

The stereotype fit hypothesis

Answer 12

suggests that group members will experience discrimination in different social roles or positions to the extent that their group stereotypically does not have characteristics associated with success in the position.

Question 13

logical positivism

Answer 13

a form ofpositivism, developed by members of the Vienna Circle, which considers that the only meaningfulphilosophicalproblems are those which can be solved by logical analysis.

Central idea: we should look for verification

Question 14

rationalism

Answer 14

purely based on thinking, thinking is the basis for all knowledge (if you observe, you see sunset - but this may be not true cause it is just an observation: you see the sun and you think the sun is going down, but actually the earth is rotating so it seems like this)

the problem with rationalism:

-we need to put input ourselves, the empirical content, otherwise, knowledge is empirically meaningless, not logically meaningless, but empirically meaningless

Question 15

empiricism

Answer 15

(purely based on observations)

the problem with empiricism:

-we are limited by our ability to observe;

-observations can be wrong (sunset);

-sometimes we simply cannot observe.

→there is no laws of theory

Question 16

idealism

Answer 16

all knowledge comes from experience (necessary but not sufficient condition to predict knowledge)

• and we need the ability to structure the experience (that is the idea)

combination of rationalism and empiricism

problems with idealism:

• where do these ideas come from?
• metaphysical

logical positivism helps idealism with that → rely on logic

logic + observations (empirical data)

Question 17

metaphysics

Answer 17

concepts and knowledge that are beyond what we can verify

Question 17

linguistic turn

Question 18

synthetic statement