Exam 1

Question 1

Argument

Answer 1

A group of statements where one or more (the premise[s]) support the idea(s) presented by one of the others (the conclusion). It’s goal is to provide evidence that an idea should be believed as true; interchangeable with inference

Question 2

Rational

Not in studyguide, added by me

Answer 2

Something that is based on reason and logic; reason is the cheif source and test of knowledge; it does not claim more than the evidence available suggests, and leaves open possibilities that are not closed off by that evidence.

Question 3

Knowledge

Answer 3

A specialized belief that is justified and true, it cannot be mistaken; it increases our true beliefs and decreases our false beliefs

Question 4

Epistemic Bubble

Answer 4

An informational network that hinders knowledge because outsider voices are filtered out; you cannot hear other opinions

Question 5

Premises

Answer 5

The statements in an argument that provide the case for beliving in the conclusion (1 or more per argument)

Question 6

Echo Chamber

Answer 6

A social structure that hinders knowledge and critical thinking because outside voices are actively discredited; trust has been manipulated to the point that you cannot believe anything the ‘other side’ says

Question 7

Statement

Answer 7

A true or false sentence used in arguments as premises and conclusions ; interchangeable with proposition

Question 8

True Belief

Answer 8

An attitude that someone has about a claim, that ends up being a fact (can be justified or unjustified)

Question 9

Belief

Answer 9

An attitude that someone has about a claim; all beliefs should be coherent with each other

Question 10

Matters-of-Fact

Answer 10

A claim that is expressed as a statement, and appeals to facts in order to prove it (“Joe Biden is the president of the US”/”The sky is green.”)

Question 11

Critical Thinking

Answer 11

The careful and deliberate determination of a claim and whether it should be accepted, rejected, or suspended AND the amount of confidence that should be placed upon it (“We ought to believe this” - Normative)

Question 12

Matters-of-Opinion

Answer 12

A claim that is expressed as a statement, but does not appeal to facts to prove it (“nothing you can show me that will make this a fact”/”Vanilla is the best ice cream flavor”)

Question 13

Conclusion

Answer 13

A statement in an argument that is being claimed to support/given evidence for believing (only 1 per argument)

Question 14

Justified Belief

Answer 14

A belief supported by previous evidence, regardless of correctness, meaning it can also be incorrect

Question 15

Why is critical thinking NORMATIVE?

Answer 15

Normative - ‘how things should be, we ought to believe in this.’ It expresses a claim of how something should be/if something should be believed (NOT descriptive ‘how things are’)

Critical thinking is normative because we use it to accept/reject claims and whether we should be confident in our judgement (we adjust our degree of belief regarding the amount of evidence that we have). Using these judgements, we make the claim that ‘we ought to believe in this because __,’ meaning it is normative as it tells us what we ought to do.

Question 16

What does it mean to say that critical thinking is a METHODOLOGY?

Answer 16

Methodology - A system of methods used to support your rationale

Critical thinking involves determining whether a claim should be accepted or rejected, and you utilize multiple methods to attain that goal (arguments, justification, etc.)

Question 17

What is the “trial analogy?” How is it used to illustrate critical thinking as a methodology?

Answer 17

In a court trial, the goal is to exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. There are rules set up in trials to make sure that this goal is met, like ‘innocent until proven guilty/ rules of evidence and disclosure.’ The court system is set up to achieve the desired ends. However, the guilty will sometimes go free and innocent people will be convicted.

In critical thinking, the goal is to decide if a claim should be accepted or rejected. There are rules to ensure that we achieve this goal, like supported arguments and evidence. Critical thinking is set up to achieve this goal, but sometimes we cannot come to a conclusion on whether a claim should be justified or not.

Question 18

What does it mean to claim that we should want our beliefs generated by reality and not a desire?

Answer 18

We should want our beliefs to be coherent, as in they are clear and consistent. Beliefs should generally make sense in the real world, and have arguments to back them up. You can want god to be real, but that shouldn’t be the ground for your belief in him. You should have a good argument and empirical evidence as a ground for your belief.

Question 19

Coherence in relation to beliefs

Answer 19

If I believe that all cats are intelligent, believe that my neighbour’s pet is a cat, and also believe that my neighbour’s pet is stupid, then my beliefs are incoherent.

Question 20

What is Morton’s “Black cat” example and how is it connected to the ideas of justification and truth?

Answer 20

There is some mechanism in the universe which ensures that whenever a black cat crosses a person’s path, something bad happens to that person in the future. No one knows about this mechanism, which works by principles that humans will never understand. IT IS TRUE, but there might not be any good evidence for it. So, irrational beliefs can be true. If I were to come across a black cat multiple times, and each time, bad luck was to occur, then I would be justified in my belief that black cats bring bad luck. It is an IRRATIONAL/UNJUSTIFIED belief, since there is not facts or proof understood about this mechanism, but it is a TRUE belief. It would be rational if there were facts that I could appeal to to prove it.

Question 21

How are knowledge and belief related to each other?

Answer 21

A belief is an attitude that someone has about a claim/statement. Knowledge is a special kind of belief that is justified and true. Belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for knowledge. Beliefs can be mistaken (true or false) while knowledge cannot. Knowledge is justified and rational

Question 22

Why is having a true belief inadequate for knowledge?

Answer 22

A belief can end up being true, but that does not mean that I ‘knew’ that it was true. It would be like if I said, “I believe god is real,” and then he showed up one day. My belief ended up being true, but I did not know that he was real. JUSTIFICATION is the deciding factor.

Question 23

What is a justified belief?

Answer 23

A belief supported by previous evidence, regardless of correctness. A justified belief can also be incorrect. I know nothing about giraffes. I read a book saying that a rhino is a giraffe. I go to the zoo, point at a rhino, and say that it is a giraffe.” This is a justified belief, but it is incorrect. “My sister, who is an expert on giraffes and rhinos, says ‘no, that is not a giraffe, that is a rhino.’” Her belief is justified also, but hers Is correct. Opposing beliefs can also be justified, but one is still wrong and CANNOT count as knowledge.

Question 24

How is “truth” connected to “facts.”?

Answer 24

Truth and falsity are evaluations of statements. A fact is simply the way the world is. There is a cat on a mat. This is TRUE if there is a cat on the mat, and the state of affairs is a FACT. However, this is FALSE if there is not a cat on the mat, and the state of affairs is a FACT. Facts are indisputable and have research, and Truth can include facts but also a belief.

Question 25

What is the difference between an epistemic bubble and an echo chamber?

Answer 25

An ‘epistemic bubble’ is an informational network from which relevant voices have been excluded by omission; you don’t hear people from the other side. IT IS A FILTER. An ‘echo chamber’ is a social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited. An echo chamber is what happens when you don’t trust people from the other side. So, EC is where voices are not TRUSTED, but are heard and actively discredited; EB is where voices are NOT HEARD. Unknowing ignorance v. Willful ignorance. You can pop a bubble, but it’s harder to break an echo chamber.

Question 26

How are epistemic bubbles and echo chambers connected to rationality?

Answer 26

People in epistemic bubbles are usually more willing to listen to different beliefs. Just informing someone in a bubble, and them responding with ‘oh, who knew?’ can pop the bubble. They take in new information and consider their beliefs with this new information. They can come to the realization that they were being irrational due to ignorance and become rational beings.

People in echo chambers are harder to break, since opposing voices are actively discredited and are told to not be trusted. It doesn’t sound like brute irrationality, though, since the sources that are brought up against them are seen as unreliable. EC’s manipulate trust between professionals/organizations and the viewer, so they are not irrational, but they are dis-informed on where to put their trust.

Question 27

Tell the difference between a statement and a non-statement.

Answer 27

A statement is a true or false sentence that is divided into premise(s) and 1 conclusion when in an argument.

Non-statements are things like Questions, Proposals, Suggestions, Commands, Exclamations, etc. These are not statements because they cannot be said to be either true or false.

Question 28

Tell the difference between an argument and a non-argument.

Answer 28

An argument is a group of statements where one or more claims to give reasons (THE PREMISE[S]) to believe in one of the others (THE CONCLUSION). It tries to show that something is, will be, or should be the case; giving reasons for supporting what someone believes is true.

Non-arguments don’t have at least one of the statements claiming to present evidence or reasons. ALSO, there is no claim that the alleged evidence supports or implies something. This is things like warnings, pieces of advice, statements of belief/opinion, loosely associated statements, reports, expository passages, illustrations, conditional statements, and explanations. THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING.

Question 29

Tell the difference between a matter-of-fact and a matter-of-opinion.

Answer 29

A matter-of-fact is when there are generally accepted criteria/standards that the issue can be judged on; an appeal to facts is made.

A matter-of-opinion is when there is no generally accepted method/standard that can be employed to decide the issue definitely; no appeal to fact can make a judgement on it.

Question 30

Tell the difference between an argument and an explanation.

Answer 30

An argument is a group of statements where one or more claims to give reasons to believe in one of the others. An explanation sheds light on an event/phenomenon that is usually accepted as a fact. Arguments have premises that support the conclusion; explanations have explanans that shed light on explanandum (accepted facts). PREMISES prove that something is the case, EXPLANANS show why something is the case.