Exam 3 Flashcards
(30 cards)
Inductive arguments
Make a specific claim about the world, and they generally provide evidence for why we should believe or act according to the claim.
Abductive arguments
By contrast, offer an proposed explanation for a set of facts or evidence. It does not offer a conclusion but rather an explanation
- 2 types of explanations reason and causal
Induction by enumeration
Argues from a set of instances describing properties or relations to a generalization concerning the given property to relation
- sample size affects this
- one definitive counterexample shoots down argument
Example:
“Senator Smith takes money from lobbyists. So also does Senator Jones and Senator Wood takes money from lobbyists. [ . . . ] Therefore, all Senators take money from lobbyists”
Reductio ad absurdum
Argument infers that a “particular position should be rejected because accepting it would justify absurd outcomes”
- used to infer direct contradiction
Example:
“If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you”
Causal arguments
“I sent that document to the printer, & it is not on the tray, it must be a prober with the driver”
“Since seatbelts have been installed by default in passenger vehicles, traffic fatalities have lowered 35% we should also therefore, install them in school busses”
Analogical arguments
Argues that if a property or relation holds between two things A and B, then it will also hold between two others C and D
- relies on similarity b/w A & C
Higher-level induction
- can be used to “overrule” some of the lower level inductions
- characteristic of higher-level inductions that have more generality than lower-level
- can be used to bring in relevant information overlooked in the original argument
Examples
Lower level: My car has run fine for the last 70,000 miles without breaking down. Therefore my car will never break dow
Higher-level: “All internal combustion engines eventually wear down from heat and friction. Therefore, since my car has an internal combustion engine, it will eventually break dow
Small or unrepresentative sample (fallacy)
Fallacy of faulty analogy (fallacy)
When comparing relationships if not identical then faculty analogy.
Apples and oranges (fallacy)
In analogies when comparing similarity, of there are relevant differences then its apples and oranges.
Fallacy of division
Assuming that all the properties of the whole are also properties of the parts.
example:
- “Sherri must be liberal, because she comes from Massachusetts.”
- “Bill lives in the tallest building in the city. His apartment must be pretty larg
Fallacy of composition
Assuming that all properties of the parts are also properties of the whole.
Example:
Atoms are invisible to the naked eye. Joe is made of atoms. Therefore, Joe is invisible to the naked eye
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc (fallacy)
A common fallacy of causal reasoning, when failing to discern between causation (A brings about B) and correlation (A and B occur together)
Means: “after this, therefore because of this”
Violation of Occam’s razor (fallacy)
Common heuristic principle of scientific reasoning
- sometimes called the “principle of parsimony”
- stated as “entities must not be multiplied without necessity”
- the image of the razor functions by “shaving off” superfluous assumptions and causes.
Inappropriate of appeal to authority (fallacy)
Is a fallacy of believe in a claim solely on expert advice when there is good reason to doubt experts advice, that is if
- the appeal is not an appropriate domain of expertise
- there is little expert consensus in that area
- lack of expertise of the expert
- expert did not have time to review information
- expert has relevant biases
- a claim is taken from non-credible source
- arguments and reasons given not plausible
Inappropriate domains of expertise
Often inappropriate domains are those that are too subjective; ethics & aesthetics
- expertise is a question of knowledge. So areas where there are not readily available factual judgments - so axiological and normative disciplines are excluded by definition
- no experts in morality
- judgement on specific aspheric items (painting, an album) often doesn’t on its own make us like or dislike the work itself
- ## even with domains (ex.physics) some points are settles and others still in dispute
Consensus and expertise
- while agreement is not a sufficient condition for truth, it is often a necessary criteria for it
- note: consensus forms not mean agreement by ALL exporters.
Relevance of expertise
- authorities in one field are often not experts in other fields.
- ## credentials are often a useful tell. (Dr is ambiguous)
Confirmation bias
Conflict of interest
- researchers try not to embellish information which the funding source dislikes
- many experts require funding for research, that they are funded by a specific source is not sufficient to discount her/him
Peer-reviewed sources
- serve as a vital “double-check” for information
- there are several types of peer-reviewed articles which have their benefits and drawbacks
Celebrity endorsement
Proof surrogate
Authoritative sources
