Definitions Flashcards
(42 cards)
what is logic?
is the the formal study of valid reason; “formal” because it is intrested in the forms of inferences
Reasoning (inference)
is the move from premises to conclusion
Forms
are empty (without context) and repeatable (adaptable to any context)
Structures are…
content-context sensitive
Argument
is an inference addressed to an audience aimed to convince that the drawn conclusion is true= dialogic form
Difference between reasoning (inference) and argument
is that the inference is simply the mind process that draws conclusions from premises, meanwhile the argument is the expressed form of an inference (inference: just in the mind; argument: expressed inference)
Critical thinking
is the informal logic, informal analysis of the inferences in contents– it is context and content sensitive. The inferences are studied in the concrete contexts and with reference to the contents
Justification
Justifying
is the relation between premises and conclusions– it is used in the expressed form of an inference, meaning just in the arguments
Giving reasons to believe
Reasons
is expressed by declarative sentences; they are thesis or proposistions– as such they can be true or false, strong or weak, relevant or irrelevant in relation to the conclusion
Proof
is an argument wherefor there are no counter-reasons
The proofs are true only relatevely the language in which they are expressed
Validity
it means formally adequate
Two types of validity:
- syntactic: it means based on language, that follows the grammatical rules of the language; syntactically valid
- semantically: it means that an argument is true in every possible world in which the inferences are true, thus also the conclusion
Soundness
Formal validity (both syntactically and semantically) + premises are true in OUR world
Irrelevant reasons
have no relation to the conclusion
Weak reasons
may have some relation, but there can be counter-reasons
Proving
giving strong justifications – there is no counter-reason, no counter-example
Good argument
- has validity in inferences= formally adequate
- premises and conclusions are true
- is sound= is formally adequate and the premises are true in our world (convincing)
A sound argument rationally forces us to accept its conclusions (it’s convincing)
Dialectics
theory and practice of intellectual confrontations
Pragmatics
analysis of the effects of speaking
Reconstructing arguments
- look at possible premises, conclusions and indicators
- isolate the T-conclusion
- remove redundancies and rethoric artificies
- make allusions explicit
- add implicit premises or conclusions
- in case of complex arguments, make a list of sentences (=PARAPHRASIS)
- then represent the justification relations by a diagram (justification expressed by arrows)
Data + Warrant–Claim
Data= preliminary givens (unrestricted contents)
ex. Amal was born in Italy
To move from Data to Claim we need a Warrant
Warrant= other givens
ex. because her parents are italian
Data + Warrant + Backing– Claim
Backing= other data, most frequently generalizations expressing rules/ conventions, common sense principles
Data + Warrant + Backing– Claim + Qualifier
Q= adverbial expressions diminishing or increasing the epistemic (credibility) of the C
They are qualifier, which modifies the claim such as “probably”, “presumably”, “very likely”
Data + Warrant + Backing + Rebuttal– Claim + Qualifier
Rebuttal= counter-reason which blocks the move from D to C
ex. unless she had changed her citizenship
Data + Warrant + Backing + Rebuttal Exclusion – Claim + Qualifier
Rebuttal exclusion (RE)= D-premise importing rebuttal exclusion. Anticipates and rejects the counter-reason (rebuttal). To reject the Rebuttal one has therefore to import some other data
ex. since she did not change her citizenship
