Final Flashcards

Question

What is vagueness?

Answer 1

A statement is vague just in case it is indeterminate exactly which things it applies to.

Answer 2

When the use of a term presupposes certain standards of comparison. It's not clear what the intended standards are, the meanings are unclear. e.g. "starbucks coffee is better and delivered faster" - what is it better or faster than??

Answer 3

Their meanings are unclear.

Answer 4

Occurs when emotionally laden language is inappropriately used. ## Footnote Example: Calling someone 'bossy' when they just show leadership can bias people's reactions.

Answer 5

Occurs when a statement ascribes a property to something that it does not make sense for an object of that kind to have.

Answer 6

Yes, but their literal meaning doesn’t make sense.

Answer 7

When the statement provides little or no information.

Answer 8

Yes, they can still convey conversational implicatures.

Answer 9

Groups of people use specialized vocab to communicate quickly and effectively.

Answer 10

It impedes effective communication.

Answer 11

Obscure and convoluted language.

Answer 12

Sometimes people use it to sound smart and convey authority.

Answer 13

Arguing against a claim by attacking the person rather than the argument itself. ## Footnote This fallacy shifts focus from the argument to the individual, undermining rational discourse.

Answer 14

Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or false because it hasn’t been proven true). ## Footnote This fallacy highlights the misconception that lack of evidence against a claim serves as evidence for its truth.

Answer 15

Lack of disproof does not mean proof. ## Footnote The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Answer 16

Using pity to support a conclusion. ## Footnote Emotional appeal does not provide factual support.

Answer 17

Arguing something is true because it's popular. ## Footnote Popularity doesn’t guarantee truth.

Answer 18

If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. ## Footnote This is not valid logic—don’t confuse with modus ponens.

Answer 19

If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q. ## Footnote This is an invalid inference—don’t confuse with modus tollens.

Answer 20

Making an argument with premises that already assume the conclusion. ## Footnote The premises do not provide independent support.

Answer 21

Asking a question that contains an unfair assumption. ## Footnote Example: “Have you stopped doing drugs?” to someone who never did drugs.

Answer 22

Assuming a whole has the same properties as its parts. ## Footnote A whole can differ from its components.

Answer 23

Assuming the parts of a whole have the same properties as the whole. ## Footnote Parts can differ from the whole.

Answer 24

Presenting only two choices when more exist. ## Footnote Suggests a false binary.

Answer 25

Believing an event is “due” because of previous unrelated outcomes. ## Footnote Example: “I’ve lost three games, I’m due for a win.”

Answer 26

Judging something as good or bad based on its origin rather than its current value or meaning. ## Footnote Example: “Democracy is good—it came from Greece!”

Answer 27

Making an argument whose conclusion does not follow from or receive support from its premises ## Footnote No valid support is given for the conclusion.

Answer 28

Assuming that because Y follows X, X caused Y. ## Footnote Temporal sequence ≠ causation.

Answer 29

Introducing an irrelevant topic to distract from the actual issue being discussed. ## Footnote This tactic diverts attention from the main argument.

Answer 30

Arguing that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (and usually negative) events. - Falsely claiming that if we accept a claim, we will eventually have to accept an absurd or unacceptable conclusion ## Footnote Lacks sufficient evidence.

Answer 31

Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. You are not addressing the actual claim or argument of your opponent Making stuff up and attributing to your opponent ## Footnote You are not responding to the actual position.

Answer 32

Only presenting confirming evidence while ignoring contradicting evidence. ## Footnote Empirical claims require considering all relevant evidence.

Answer 33

Inferring that something ought to be a certain way simply because it is that way. ## Footnote This fallacy overlooks ethical considerations.

Answer 34

Persistent and widespread psychological tendencies that can impair objectivity and rationality.

Answer 35

Biases that affect how we encode and recall information.

Answer 36

We recall more recent information better than earlier information.

Answer 37

We recall the first items in a list or sequence better than later ones.

Answer 38

We estimate frequency or probability based on how easily examples come to mind. People tend to answer based on what’s easiest to recall.

Answer 39

We respond more positively to things we’ve seen before—familiarity increases liking.

Answer 40

We overestimate the likelihood of emotional or dramatic events.

Answer 41

We are more influenced by vivid individual cases than by general statistical data.

Answer 42

Just imagining an event can make us think it’s more likely to happen.

Answer 43

Bias in judgment triggered by irrelevant features of the context or the way information is presented.

Answer 44

We rely on arbitrary reference points ("anchors") and adjust our judgments from there.

Answer 45

Describing something using human-like metaphors biases our predictions about its behavior.

Answer 46

How a problem is worded or presented affects our judgments, even if the underlying issue is the same.

Answer 47

Cases where we misuse or misinterpret evidence.

Answer 48

We look for evidence that supports our beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts them.

Answer 49

We continue to believe something even after learning it’s false.

Answer 50

Biases related to self-perception and comparison with others.

Answer 51

Most people think they are better than average at most things.

Answer 52

Circularity – it can be circular in that the definiens cannot be understood without a prior understanding of the defined term Obscurity – its definiens do not provide a clear understanding of the defined term

Answer 53

Step 1: Identify the hypothesis to be tested Step 2: generate predictions from the hypothesis - If the hypothesis is true what predictions would follow Step 3: Use experiments to check whether the predictions are correct Step 4: If the predictions are correct, the hypothesis is confirmed, otherwise, the hypothesis is disconfirmed

Answer 54

Predictive Power Do the theories make interesting predictions that are later confirmed? Quality and quantity of the predictions: Do they cover a wide range of phenomena? Mechanism Do the theories reveal underlying causal mechanisms? Fruitfulness Do the theories make surprising or unexpected predictions, which are later confirmed? Do they provide new explanations for other phenomena? Simplicity A simpler theory has fewer assumptions and posits fewer entities than a more complex theory. Epicycle: Unsupported complexities in a theory needed to make it consistent with the evidence. Coherence Are the theories coherent? Internal consistency: The theory can’t contradict itself. Consistency with other knowledge: Does the theory align with established knowledge?