CH 1. Why Philosophy

Question 1

Chapter Objectives

Answer 1

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES: For the sake of Study points

1.1 Philosophy: The Quest for Understanding:

• Practical and theoretical benefits of studying philosophy.
• Four main divisions of philosophy.

1.2 Socrates and the Examined Life:

• Understand why Socrates declared, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
• Explain the Socratic method and how Socrates used it in search of understanding.

1.3 Thinking Philosophically:

• Define argument, statement, conclusion, and premise.
• What are the 2 conditions that must be met for an argument to be good?
• Deductive argument, inductive argument, valid, sound, cogent, strong, and weak. Inferences to the best explanation and how their strength is evaluated.
• Identify arguments.
• Are they valid or invalid, sound or not sound, strong or weak, and cogent or not cogent.
• Guidelines for reading and appreciating philosophy.
• Common fallacies and know how to identify them in various contexts.

Question 2

Philosophical method

Answer 2

PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD – The systematic use of critical reasoning to try to find answers to fundamental questions about reality, morality, and knowledge.

Question 3

The Good of Philosophy

Answer 3

FUNDAMENTAL IDEA – Those upon which other ideas depend.

FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF – A Foundational belief that Logically supports other beliefs.

• The more beliefs it supports the more fundamental it is.
• Fundamental beliefs, therefore, make up your “PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE,” which informs your thinking and guides your actions.

PHILOSOPHY’S GREATEST PRACTICAL BENEFIT:

• It gives us the intellectual strength and endurance to improve our lives by improving our philosophy of life.
• Faulty philosophy of life – one that comprises many false fundamental beliefs
  
  • False beliefs can lead to a misspent or misdirected life, a life less meaningful than it could be.

GREEK PHILOSOPHER SOCRATES (469-399 BCE):

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” – MEANING: To examine your life is to scrutinize the core ideas that shape it and that self-examination** was critical to living a **meaningful life.

• ​This search for answers is a search for wisdom.
• With the attainment of wisdom, we come to understand the true nature of reality and how to apply that understanding to living a good life.

Philosophy’s chief theoretical benefit – Understanding for its own sake.

• Even if philosophy had no practical applications at all, it would still hold great value for us. We want to know how the world works, what truths it hides, just for the sake of knowing.

Greek Philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE)

Philosopher Walter Kaufmann (1921–1980)

With philosophical inquiry comes freedom:

• We are fed ready-made beliefs that may or may not be true and that we may never think to question. If you passively accept such beliefs, then those beliefs are not really yours. If they are not really yours, and you let them guide your choices and actions, then they—not you—are in charge of your life.
  
  • Philosophy helps us rise above this predicament – to think for ourselves.

Question 4

Philosophical Terrain

Answer 4

PHILOSOPHICAL TERRAIN – Ordinary beliefs that seem to have no connection with philosophy can quickly become philosophical – a question that science alone cannot answer.

Philosophy is broken into Four Main Divisions:

1. METAPHYSICS – The study of reality in the broadest sense.
   
   • Metaphysics generally focuses on basic questions that science alone cannot address.
   • Questions of interest:
     
     • Does the world consist only of matter, or is it made up of other basic things, such as ideas or mind?
     • Is there a spiritual, ideal realm that exists beyond the material world?
     • Is the mind the same thing as the body?
     • Do people have immortal souls? Do humans have free will, or are they determined by forces beyond their control?
     • What is the nature of causality?
     • What is the nature of time? Is time travel possible?
2. ​​EPISTEMOLOGY – Philosophical study of knowledge.
   
   • Questions of interest:
     
     • \What is knowledge?
     • \What is truth?
     • Is knowledge possible can we ever know anything?
     • Does knowledge require certainty?
     • Is mysticism or faith a source?
     • Can we gain knowledge of the empirical world through reason alone?
     • Do we have good reasons to believe that the world exists independently of our minds? Or do our minds constitute reality?
3. AXIOLOGY – The study of value, both aesthetic and moral.
   
   • ETHICS – Study of moral value. Ethics involves inquiries into the nature of moral judgments, virtues, values, obligations, and theories.
     
     • Questions of interest:
       
       • What makes an action right (or wrong)?
       • What things are intrinsically good?
       • What gives life meaning?
       • What makes someone good (or bad)?
       • What moral principles should guide our actions and choices?
       • Is killing ever morally permissible? If so, why?
       • Are moral standards objective or subjective?
       • Is an action right merely because a culture endorses it?
   • AESTHETICS – Study of the feelings, judgments, and views involved in our appreciation and experience of the arts or other objects deemed beautiful.
     
     • Questions of interest:
       
       • What, if anything, gives an object aesthetic value (beauty?)?
       • Can art be a source of truth or knowledge?
       • Does the perception of beauty have anything to do with moral concerns?
       • Can an art object be beautiful and yet express a moral perspective that is despicable?
       • Can some art objects be reasonably judged to be better than others—or are there no standards at all for judging one object superior to another?
       • That is, can anything be objectively beautiful?
4. LOGIC – Study of correct reasoning.
   
   • Questions of interest:
     
     • What are the rules for drawing correct inferences?
     • What is the nature and structure of deductive arguments?
     • How can propositional or predicate logic be used to evaluate arguments?
     • Upon what logical principles does reasoning depend?
     • Does logic describe how the world is—or just how our minds work?
     • Can conclusions reached through inductive logic (where the conclusion is merely probable rather than certain) be rationally justified?

SUBDIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY – the use of philosophy in specific areas of focus. The point is to critically examine the assumptions and principles that underlie specific fields.

• When those laboring in a discipline begin questioning its most basic ideas – ideas that define its subject matter and principles of inquiry.

Question 5

Socrates and the Examined Life

Answer 5

SOCRATES – “The unexamined life is not worth living,”

• For Socrates, an unexamined life is a tragedy because “The soul is harmed by lack of knowledge” – ignorance of one’s own self and of the most important values in life (the good).
  
  • A clear sign that a person has an unhealthy soul is her exclusive pursuit of social status, wealth, power, and pleasure instead of the good of the soul.
• The good of the soul is attained only through an uncompromising search for what’s true and real, through the wisdom to see what is most vital in life.
  
  • Such insight comes from rational self-examination and critical questioning of simplistic assumptions and unsupported beliefs.
• To get to the truth, we must go around the false certainty of custom, tradition, and superstition and let reason be our guide.

SOCRATIC METHOD – Question-and-answer dialogue in which propositions (statements or assertions) are methodically scrutinized to uncover the truth.

• Using this, many common beliefs are exposed as false or confused.
• Socrates used this not to win arguments, but to get closer to the truth. He thought people who pursued this noble aim as he did should not be embarrassed by being shown to be wrong; they should be delighted to be weaned from a false opinion.

Question 6

Plato

Answer 6

PLATO (c. 427–347 BCE) – Student and admirer of Socrates, who turned Plato’s mind toward philosophy and the pursuit of wisdom.

• Founded the Academy, a teaching college regarded as the first university.
  
  • The Academy’s most renowned student was Aristotle.
• Plato’s thinking is embodied in his dialogues, twenty-five of which exist complete. These early works portray Socrates as a brilliant and principled deflater of his contemporaries’ bogus claims to knowledge.

Question 7

Thinking Philosophically

Answer 7

THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY – To think philosophically is to bring your powers of critical reasoning to bear on fundamental questions.

• When you do this, you are usually:
  
  • clarifying meaning
  • creating and evaluating philosophical theories
  • evaluating logical arguments.
• Principal labor of philosophy
  
  • ​Philosophers provide reasons for thinking their ideas are plausible—that is, they give us arguments.
  • If we believe what they say, it should be because there are good reasons for doing so.
  • Likewise, if we expect intelligent people to accept our philosophical views, we must argue our case.

Question 8

Reasons and Arguments

Answer 8

REASONS AND ARGUMENTS:

ARGUMENT – Group of statements in which one of them (The conclusion) is supported by the others (The premises).

STATEMENT – Is an assertion that something is either true or false.

CONCLUSION – In an argument, the statement being supported by the premises.

PREMISES – In an argument, the statements supporting the conclusion are the premises.

• Premises are meant to provide reasons for believing that the conclusion is true.
• A good argument gives us good reasons for accepting a conclusion.
  
  • ​Believing a statement for good reasons increases your chances of uncovering the truth.
• A bad argument fails to provide good reasons, and so we should NOT accept it on those grounds.
  
  • Accepting a conclusion (statement) without good reasons is an elementary mistake in reasoning.

When we do philosophy, we are trying to either:

1. Devise an argument to support a statement.
2. Evaluate an argument to see if there really are good reasons for accepting its conclusion.

ARGUMENT – In the sense used here is NOT synonymous with Persuasion.

• An ARGUMENT provides us with reasons for accepting a claim; it is an attempted “proof” for an assertion.
• But PERSUASION does not necessarily involve giving any reasons at all for accepting a claim.
  
  • To persuade is to influence people’s opinions, which can be accomplished by offering a good argument but also by lying or offering misleading assertions such as: logical fallacies, exploiting emotions and prejudices, dazzling with rhetorical gimmicks, hiding or distorting the facts, threatening or coercing people, etc.
• ARGUMENTS — try to PROVE an assertion.
  
  • Good arguments prove something whether or not they persuade.
• PERSUASION – tries to convince someone to agree with an idea, true or not, and with or without legitimate proof.
  
  • Persuasive ploys can change minds but do not necessarily prove anything.

BASIC ARGUMENT STRUCTURE: a conclusion supported by at least one premise.

• EX: Consider the following argument:
  
  • Argument 1:
    
    • ​ It’s wrong to take the life of an innocent person.
    • Abortion takes the life of an innocent person.
    • Therefore, abortion is wrong.
  • For Argument 1:
    
    • ​Conclusion: “abortion is wrong”. (This is the claim that is being made)
    • Premise: “It’s wrong to take the life of an innocent person” (This supports the claim being made)
    • Premise: “Abortion takes the life of an innocent person.” (This also supports the claim being made)
• EX: Consider the following argument:
  
  • Argument 2 :
    
    • God does not exist.
    • After all, most college students believe that that is the case.
  • For Argument 2:
    
    • ​Conclusion: “God does not exist.”
    • Premise: “After all, most college students believe that that is the case.”
• Both of these are ARGUMENTS because they follow the basic argument structure: a conclusion supported by at least one premise.
  
  • Now, whether or not they are actually STRONG arguments, is another issue that we will get to in a minute.
• If the BASIC STRUCTURE of an ARGUMENT is not present, then we may simply be left with a strong statement that is NOT an argument at all, but rather someone’s unsupported opinion.
  
  • People often fail to distinguish between arguments and strong statements that contain no arguments at all.
• EX: Suppose we change Argument 1 to this:
  
  • Argument 1:
    
    • Abortion is wrong.
    • I can’t believe how many people think it’s morally okay.
    • The world is insane.
  • For this set of statements, there is a CONCLUSION (“Abortion is wrong”) but there are NO supporting PREMISSES – which means this does not fit the definition of an ARGUMENT.
    
    • What we have are some unsupported assertions.
• It is critical to make a distinction between genuine arguments and nonargumentative material in order to separate truth from opinion.

TO LOCATE AN ARGUMENT:

1. Find the conclusion first.
2. Then find the supporting premises for that conclusion.

• Keep an eye out for INDICATOR WORDS which often (but not always) indicate that a conclusion or premise may be nearby.
  
  • Indicator words do not guarantee the presence of conclusions and premises. They are simply telltale signs.
  • EX: CONCLUSION indicator words:
    
    • ​Words that lead TO a conclusion:
      
      • which means that…
      • so
      • hence
      • as a result
      • it follows that
      • therefore
      • thus
      • consequently​
  • PREMISE indicator words:
    
    • ​​Words that lead FROM a supporting statement:
      
      • in view of the fact
      • because
      • due to the fact that
      • assuming that
      • since
      • for
      • given that
• Recall some statements that you have heard or read in which strong assertions were made but no argument was presented. Did the assertions prove anything? Were you persuaded or impressed by them?

HOW TO TELL IF AN ARGUMENT IS GOOD: A set of statements can be considered an argument if they follow the basic argument format of Conclusion + Premise(s), but what if the premises are ridiculous or false?

• CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE MERITS OF AN ARGUMENT:
  
  • A good argument must have:
    
    1. SOLID LOGIC – the conclusion should follow logically from the premises, that there must be a proper logical connection between the supporting statements and the statement supported.
    2. TRUE PREMISES – what the premises assert must in fact be the case.
• An argument that FAILS in either respect is a BAD argument.

Question 9

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Answer 9

There are two basic kinds of arguments—deductive and inductive.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS – Intended to give logically conclusive support to their conclusions so that if the premises are true, the conclusion absolutely must be true.

• Recall the “Argument 1” example.
  
  • Argument 1:
    
    • PREMISE:​ It’s wrong to take the life of an innocent person.
    • PREMISE: Abortion takes the life of an innocent person.
    • CONCLUSION: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
• This is a deductive argument and is therefore supposed to be constructed so that IF the two premises are true, its conclusion cannot possibly be false.
  
  • If the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true? It would be illogical, to agree that the two premises are true but that the conclusion is false.
• EX: Argument 3:
  1. All dogs are mammals.
  2. Rex is a dog.
  3. Therefore, Rex is a mammal.
• There is no way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.
  
  • The deductive form of the argument guarantees this. So a deductive argument is intended to have this sort of airtight structure.
    
    • A deductive argument (one with this airtight structure) that provides conclusive support to its conclusion is said to be VALID.
    • If it does NOT provide conclusive support, then it is INVALID.
• With DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS, their VALIDITY is a separate issue from the TRUTH of the premises.
  
  • VALIDITY depends on how an argument is put together.
  • TRUTH depends on the nature of the claims being made.
• DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS are structured so that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true – HOWEVER, in a particular case, the premises might NOT be true.
• A VALID argument can have true or false premises and a true or false conclusion.
  
  • However, By definition, of course, it CANNOT have true premises and a false conclusion.
  • In any case, being invalid or having false premises doom a deductive argument.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS – Supposed to give PROBABLE SUPPORT to their conclusions.

• Unlike deductive arguments, they are not designed to support their conclusions decisively.
• If their premises are true, their conclusions are PROBABLY true (more likely to be true than not).
• EX: Recall Argument 2:
  
  • God does not exist.
  • After all, most college students believe that that is the case.
• This is an inductive argument meant to demonstrate the probable truth that “God does not exist.”
  
  • Like all inductive arguments (and unlike deductive ones), it can have true premises and a false conclusion.
    
    • So it’s possible for the sole premise – “After all, most college students believe that that is the case” to be true while the conclusion is false.
• If inductive arguments succeed in providing very probable support to their conclusions, they are said to be STRONG.
  
  • Strong arguments are such that if their premises are true, their conclusions are very probably true.
• If they fail to provide this very probable support, they are termed WEAK.
  
  • Argument 2 is a weak argument because its premise, even if true, does not show that more likely than not God does not exist.
• EX: Consider this inductive argument:
  
  • ​Argument 4:
    
    • 85% of the students at this university are Republicans.​
    • Sonia is a student at this university.
    • Therefore, Sonia is probably a Republican.
• This argument is strong.
  
  • If its premises are true, its conclusion is very likely to be true.
    
    • If 85% of the university’s students are Republicans, and Sonia is a university student, she is more likely than not to be a Republican too.
• When a VALID (DEDUCTIVE) argument has true premises, it is a good argument – A good deductive argument is said to be SOUND.
  
  • A DEDUCTIVE argument is SOUND only if it is BOTH VALID and its premises are TRUE.
• When a STRONG (INDUCTIVE) argument has true premises, it is a good argument – A good inductive argument is said to be COGENT.
  
  • An INDUCTIVE argument is COGENT only if it is BOTH STRONG and its premises are TRUE.

Question 10

Reading Philosophy

Answer 10

READING PHILOSOPHY:

VALID ARGUMENT FORMS: Only specific forms of an argument are valid. If they differ from these forms, then they are NOT a valid argument.

• Affirming the Antecedent (P) – Thing that comes before:
  
  • If p is true, then q is also true.
  • p is true
  • Therefore, q is true.
• Denying the Consequent (q) – Thing that remains:
  
  • If p is true, then q is also true.
  • Not q (q is NOT true).
  • Therefore, not p (Therefore p is NOT true)

INVALID ARGUMENT FORMS: These forms of an argument are NOT valid as one part does NOT lead logically to the next.

• Affirming the Consequent: You CANNOT use the effect to determine the cause.
  
  • If p is true, then q is also true.
  • q is true (This is the effect or result of p)
  • Therefore, p is true (This is FALSE (INVALID) because q being true does NOT depend on p being true. q can be true even without p being true.)
• Denying the Antecedent:
  
  • If p is true, then q is also true.
  • Not p (p is NOT true)
  • Therefore, not q (q is NOT true – this is INVALID because q NOT being true does NOT depend on p NOT being true. q can be NOT true even without p being NOT true.)

When you read a philosophical essay, you are not simply trying to glean some facts from it as you might if you were reading a science text or technical report. You are tracing the steps in an argument, trying to see what conclusion the writer wants to prove and whether she succeeds in proving it.

• To do this, you need to locate the conclusion and the premises (first to determine that the statements are an argument, and second to determine whether or not the argument is convincing.
• But the conclusion and premises are NOT always so easy to discern.
• So take these steps:
  
  • Locate the conclusion – it is the strongest assertion – the base assertion that is the foundation of all other assertions in the group of statements.
  • To find the premises, go statement by statement to find those that are supposed to support the conclusion. Those are the premises.
    
    • After this elimination process, only the premises will remain:
• EX:
  
  • (6) But Darrow is wrong about human free will for two reasons.
  • (7) First, in our moral life, our commonsense experience suggests that sometimes people are free to make moral decisions.
  • (8) We should not abandon what our commonsense experience tells us without good reason.
  • (9) Darrow has given us no good reason.
  • (10) Darrow’s determinism is not confirmed by science, as he claims—but actually conflicts with science.
  • (11) Modern science says that there are many things (mostly at the subatomic level) that are not determined at all.
• Statements 7 through 11 are the PREMISES. They are all meant to provide support to statement 6 (CONCLUSION), but their support is of unequal weight.
• Statement 10 gives independent support to the conclusion without the help of any other premises, so it is an INDEPENDENT PREMISE.
• 7, 8, and 9 are DEPENDENT PREMISES supporting the conclusion – Taken separately, they are weak, but together they constitute a plausible reason for accepting the conclusion.

How to Read Philosophy:

1. Approach the text with an open mind:
   
   • Try your best to counteract negative attitudes and feelings about the material you’re reading. Remember, philosophy at its best is a fair-minded, fearless search for truth. Anything that interferes with this noble quest must be overcome and cast aside.
   • Avoid making a judgment about an essay’s ideas or arguments until you fully understand them and have fairly considered them. Make sure you are not reading with the intent to prove the conclusions false (or true). Be open to the possibility that the essay could give you good reasons to change your mind about something.
   • Try to maintain a neutral attitude toward the writer.
   • If you are reading the work of a famous philosopher and you find yourself thinking that his or her ideas are obviously silly or ridiculous, think again. The odds are good that you are misunderstanding what you read. It is wiser to assume that the text offers something of value (even if you disagree with it) and that you need to read more carefully.
2. Read actively and critically:
   
   • Philosophical reading is intense. It cannot be rushed. It cannot be crammed. It cannot be done while your mind is on automatic pilot.
   • ACTIVE READING – Instead of reading just to get through a piece of writing, you must take your time and ask yourself what key terms and passages mean, how the argument is structured, what the central thesis is, where the premises are, how certain key ideas are related, whether the main conclusion conflicts with propositions you know are true, even how the material compares with other philosophical writing on the same subject.
   • CRITICAL READING – In critical reading, you ask not just what something means but also whether a statement is true and if the reasoning is solid.
     
     • You ask if the conclusion really follows from the premises, whether the premises are true, if the analysis of a term really makes sense, if an argument has been overlooked if an analogy is weak, whether there are counterexamples to key claims, and whether the claims agree with other things you have good reason to believe.
3. Identify the conclusion first, then the premises:
   
   • First, identify the argument (or arguments). And the key to doing that is to find the conclusion first, then look for the premises.
   • When you find the main conclusion, you thereby identify the main point of the essay, and you then have the number-one clue to the function of all the rest of the text. Once you uncover the point that the writer is trying to prove, finding the supporting premises becomes much easier.
   • First—and most important—question you can ask about a philosophical essay is, “What claim is the writer trying to prove?”
     
     • i.e. – What is their conclusion?
4. Outline, paraphrase, or summarize the argument:
   
   • Understanding an essay’s argument is so important that testing whether you really “get it” is crucial.
   • If you can lay out an argument’s premises and conclusion in an outline, or if you can accurately paraphrase or summarize the argument, you probably have a pretty good understanding of it.
5. Evaluate the argument and formulate a tentative judgment:
   
   • ​​When you read philosophy, understanding it is just the first step. You also must make an informed judgment about what you read. Simply reiterating what the writer has said will not do. Your judgment is what matters here.
   • This judgment is your evaluation of the argument presented by the writer—an assessment of:
     
     1. Whether the conclusion follows from the premises and
     2. Whether the premises are true.
   • Only when the answer is yes to both these questions can you say that the conclusion of the argument is worthy of acceptance.
   • This kind of evaluation is precisely what your instructor expects when she asks you to critique an argumentative essay in philosophy.

Question 11

Fallacious Reasoning

Answer 11

FALLACIOUS REASONING: False Reasoning – invalid reasoning structures that nonetheless tend to be used constantly. They must be recognized so that you can deconstruct false arguments, and discern whether or not the argument should be accepted.

FALLACIES – Are common but bad arguments.

• They are defective arguments that appear so often in writing and speech that philosophers have given them names and offered instructions on how to recognize and avoid them.
• Many fallacies are also deceptively plausible appeals.
  
  • They can easily appear sound or cogent, misleading the reader. Their potential for slipperiness is another good reason to study fallacies. The best way to avoid being taken in by them is to study them until you can consistently pick them out of any random selection of prose.
• STRAW MAN – Misrepresentation of a person’s views so they can be more easily attacked or dismissed.
  
  • EX: Say you argue that the war in Afghanistan is too costly in lives and money, and your opponent replies this way:
    
    • My adversary argues that the war in Afghanistan is much too difficult for the United States and that we ought to, in effect, cut and run while we can. But why must we take the coward’s way out?
    • Thus, your point has been distorted, made to look more extreme or radical than it really is; it is now an easy target. The notion that we ought to “cut and run” or “take the coward’s way out” does not follow from the statement that the war in Iraq is too costly.
  • The straw man kind of distortion, of course, proves nothing, though many people fall for it every day.
  • This fallacy is probably the most common type of fallacious reasoning used in politics.
• APPEAL TO THE PERSON (AD HOMINEM FALACY) – Rejecting a statement on the grounds that it comes from a particular person, not because the statement, or claim, itself is false or dubious.
  
  • EX: You can safely discard anything that Susan has to say about government. She’s a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.
    
    • This relies on the perceived bad reputation of the person making the argument.
  • Each of these arguments is defective because it asks us to reject or resist a claim solely because of a person’s character, background, or circumstances.
  • A statement must stand or fall on its own merits.
  • Only if we can show that someone’s dubious traits somehow make the claim dubious are we justified in rejecting the claim because of a person’s personal characteristics. Such a circumstance is rare.
• APPEAL TO POPULARITY – Appeal to the masses – Arguing that a claim must be true not because it is backed by good reasons but simply because many people believe it.
  
  • The idea is that, somehow, there is truth in numbers.
    
    • EX: ​Of course, there’s a God. Everyone believes that.
      
      • The number of people who believe a claim, however, is irrelevant to the claim’s truth.
      • Large groups of people have been—and are wrong about many things. Many people once believed that Earth is flat, mermaids are real, and human sacrifices help crops grow. They were wrong.
    • Remember, however, that the number of people who accept a claim can be relevant to its truth if the people happen to be experts.
      
      • Twenty professional astronomers who predict an eclipse are more reliable than one hundred nonexperts who swear that no eclipse will occur.
• GENETIC FALLACY – Arguing that a statement can be judged true or false based on its source. In an appeal to the person, someone’s character or circumstances is thought to tell the tale.
  
  • In the genetic fallacy, the truth of a statement is supposed to depend on origins other than an individual—organizations, political platforms, groups, schools of thought, even exceptional states of mind (like dreams and intuitions).
    
    • EX: The U.S. Senate is considering a proposal to reform affirmative action, but you know their ideas must be ridiculous. What do they know about the rights of the disadvantaged? They’re a bunch of rich white guys.
• EQUIVOCATION – Assigning two different meanings to the same significant word in an argument.
  
  • The word is used in one sense in a premise and in a different sense in another place in the argument.
    
    • EX:
      
      • ​Only man is rational. - (Meaning Humankind)
      • No woman is a man. - (Meaning the Male sex)
      • Therefore, no woman is rational.
    • EX:
      
      • You are a bad writer.
      • If you are a bad writer, then you are a bad boy.
      • Therefore, you are a bad boy.
• The first argument equivocates on the word man – In the first premise, man means humankind; in the second, male.
• Thus, the argument seems to prove that women are not rational.
  
  • You can see the trick better if you assign the same meaning to both instances of man. Like this:
    
    • Only humans are rational.
    • No woman is a human.
    • Therefore, no woman is rational.
• In the second argument, the equivocal term is bad. In the first premise, bad means incompetent; in the second, immoral.
• APPEAL TO IGNORANCE – Tries to prove something by appealing to what we don’t know – arguing either that:
  1. A claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false or
  2. A claim is false because it hasn’t been proven true.
• EX: There is no evidence that people on welfare are hardworking and responsible. Therefore, they are not hardworking and responsible.
• EX: No one has ever shown that ESP (extrasensory perception) is real. Therefore, it does not exist.
• EX: Super Green Algae can cure cancer. No scientific study has ever shown that it does not work.
  
  • Both kinds of arguments are bogus because they assume that a lack of evidence proves something.
  • A LACK of evidence proves nothing.
  • EX: Since no one can disprove that you possess supernatural powers, you must possess supernatural powers.
• FALSE DILEMMA – You are forced to choose between two unattractive possibilities (despite other possible choices being available).
  
  • Since there are only two alternatives to choose from, and one of them is unacceptable, the other one must be true. – Also known as FALSE CHOICES (as though there are no other options available when there actually are).
  • EX: You have to listen to reason. Either you must sell your car to pay your rent, or your landlord will throw you out on the street. You obviously aren’t going to sell your car, so you will be evicted.
    
    • This argument says that there are only two choices to consider:
      1. Either sell your car or
      2. get evicted, and since you will not sell your car, you will get evicted.
    • This argument is fallacious because (presumably) the first premise is false—there seem to be more than just two alternatives here. You could get a job, borrow money from a friend, or sell your DVD player and TV. If the argument seems convincing, it is because other possibilities are excluded.
  • Why are people so quick to accept these fallacies?
    
    • It has to do with trust (of sources) and reputation.
• BEGGING THE QUESTION – Trying to prove a conclusion by using that very same conclusion as support. It is arguing in a circle.
  
  • This way of trying to prove something says, in effect, “X is true because X is true.”

EX:

• The Bible says that God exists.
• The Bible is true because God wrote it.
• Therefore, God exists.
• EX #2: All citizens have the right to a fair trial because those whom the state is obliged to protect and give consideration are automatically due judicial criminal proceedings that are equitable by any reasonable standard.
• This passage may at first seem like a good argument, but it isn’t. It reduces to this unimpressive assertion: “All citizens have the right to a fair trial because all citizens have the right to a fair trial.”
• The Premise is, in some way, equivalent to the conclusion.
• SLIPPERY SLOPE – The Metaphor behind this fallacy suggests the danger of stepping on a slippery incline, losing your footing, and sliding to disaster – Arguing erroneously that a particular action should not be taken because it will lead inevitably to other actions resulting in some dire outcome.
  
  • The keyword here is “erroneous”. A slippery slope scenario becomes fallacious when there is no reason to believe that the chain of events predicted will ever happen.
    
    • EX: This trend toward gay marriage must be stopped. If gay marriage is permitted, then traditional marriage between a man and a woman will be debased and devalued, which will lead to an increase in divorces. And higher divorce rates can only harm our children.
      
      • This argument is fallacious because there are no reasons for believing that gay marriage will ultimately result in the chain of events described.
• COMPOSITION – Sometimes what is true about the parts of a thing is also true of the whole—and sometimes not – Argues erroneously that what can be said of the parts can also be said of the whole.
  
  • EX: Each piece of wood that makes up this house is lightweight. Therefore, the whole house is lightweight.
• HOWEVER, remember that sometimes the whole does have the same properties as the parts. If each part of the rocket is made of steel, the whole rocket is made of steel.
• DIVISION – Turns the fallacy of composition upside down, you get the fallacy of division—arguing erroneously that what can be said of the whole can be said of the parts:
  
  • EX: The house is heavy. Therefore, every part of the house is heavy.
  • EX: The platoon is very effective. Therefore, every member of the platoon is effective.

Question 12

Summary

Answer 12

Philosophy: The Quest for Understanding

Four main divisions of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic.

• There are also subdivisions of philosophy that examine basic issues found in other fields.

Socrates and the Examined Life

• For Socrates, an unexamined life is a tragedy because it results in grievous harm to the soul, a person’s true self or essence. The soul is harmed by lack of knowledge – ignorance of one’s self and of the most important values in life (the good).
• SOCRATIC METHOD – Question-and-answer dialogue in which propositions are methodically scrutinized to uncover the truth.

Thinking Philosophically

• ARGUMENT – Group of statements in which one of them is meant to be supported by the others.
  
  • STATEMENT (or claim) – Is an Assertion that something is or is not the case and is, therefore, the kind of utterance that is either true or false.
    
    • ARGUMENT, the statement being supported is the conclusion, and the statements supporting the conclusion are the premises.
• GOOD ARGUMENT – (1) solid logic and (2) true premises. Requirement (1) means that the conclusion should follow logically from the premises. Requirement (2) says that what the premises assert must in fact be the case.
• DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT – Intended to give logically conclusive support to its conclusion.
  
  • Deductive Argument with the proper structure is said to be VALID; a deductive argument that fails to have this structure is said to be INVALID.
  • When a valid (deductive) argument has true premises, it is said to be SOUND.
• INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT – Intended to give probable support to its conclusion.
  
  • Inductive arguments succeed in lending probable support to their conclusions, they are said to be STRONG. If they fail to provide this probable support, they are termed.
  • When a strong (inductive) argument has true premises, it is said to be COGENT.
• In INFERENCE TO BEST EXPLANATION, we begin with premises about a phenomenon or state of affairs to be explained. Then we reason from those premises to an explanation for that state of affairs.
  
  • We try to produce not just any explanation but the best explanation among several possibilities.
  • The best explanation is the one most likely to be true.
• GUIDELINES FOR READING PHILOSOPHY ARE:
  
  • (1) Approach the text with an open mind;
  • (2) read actively and critically;
  • (3) identify the conclusion first, then the premises;
  • (4) outline, paraphrase, or summarize the argument; and
  • (5) evaluate the argument and formulate a tentative judgment.