L1

Question 1

positivism

Answer 1

Logical positivism was a reaction against a style of philosophy (then popular) which
emphasised pompous, difficult & obscure writing.
* Positivists proposed that meaningful statements could be verified
* e.g. my desk is three foot tall VS the world does not really exist
* Two ways of determining whether a sentence was true
* Deduction
* Induction

Is Freud’s theory about the unconscious mind meaningful?
* Positivists: how can you theorise about something you can’t measure?
* It can’t be verified so it is not meaningful
Good arguments need to be falsibiable
(refutable – able to be proven wrong)

Question 2

deduction and induction

Answer 2

Drawing a conclusion that must be true if
the premises are true. The conclusion is
logically derived from the premises. useful for when evaluating other peoples work.
Inductive Reasoning
Establishing general truths based on a
limited set of observations. Inductive
reasoning can never be certain that there
are no exceptions to the general rule.

Question 3

premises

Answer 3

The statements or facts
that form the foundation of
an argument. Premises
provide the supporting
evidence and reasons for
the conclusion.

Question 4

syllogism

Answer 4

The simplest form of an
argument, consisting of two
premises and a conclusion.
For example: All swans are
white, Sam is a swan,
therefore Sam is white.

Question 5

logical fallacies

Answer 5

Appeal to Popularity
The conclusion of an argument is based
on the premise that something must be
true because it is widely accepted,
rather than on the actual merits of the
argument.

Appeal to Authority
The conclusion of an argument is based
on the premise that something must be
true because it is said by an expert,
rather than on the actual merits of the
argument.

Hasty Generalization
Reaching a conclusion based on
insufficient evidence or a small number
of observations, without considering
the full range of available data.

Ad Hominem Attack
Discrediting an argument by attacking
the character or motives of the person
making the argument, rather than
addressing the argument itself.

Slippery Slope Argument
Asserting that a relatively small first
step will inevitably lead to a chain of
related events with a disastrous
conclusion, without providing evidence
to support the causal links

Question 6

neuroimaging studies

Answer 6

Careful when using neuroimaging (fMRI, EEG/MEG, PET) findings to support claims
about mental processes!
* Since neuroimaging is correlational, how can we make claims about the human brain?
* Lesion studies
* Induced in animals
* Naturally occurring in humans
* Temporary “lesions” via TMS

What is a dissociation?
A dissociation means one mental ability is impaired, but another one is not.

For example:

Patient A can’t recognise words (Task X = word recognition),

But they can recognise faces (Task Y = face recognition).

This suggests that word and face recognition are handled by separate brain systems, because only one is damaged.

But here’s the issue:

Maybe word recognition is just harder, so it’s not clear if it’s really a different system.

That’s why a single dissociation (only one patient like A) isn’t very strong evidence.

What is a double dissociation?
Now, imagine:

Patient B is the opposite:

They can recognise words,

But can’t recognise faces.

So:

Patient A = impaired on Task X (words), but okay on Task Y (faces)

Patient B = okay on Task X (words), but impaired on Task Y (faces)

This is a double dissociation, and it’s strong evidence that:

Word recognition and face recognition are handled by different cognitive systems.