Lecture 2 (reasoning) Flashcards
(41 cards)
1
Q
What is ambiguity?
A
multiple ways of possible interpretation for a single propositio
2
Q
what’s the fallacy of equivocation?
A
using ambiguity to obscure argument content
3
Q
What’s lexical ambiguity?
A
expressions that are ambiguous in the absence of context
4
Q
What are Homonyms?
A
words with different meanings and spellings but with the same pronunciation
5
Q
What is syntatic ambiguity? 2
A
- sentence can be understood in multiple ways because of the arrangement of the words
- Syntactically ambiguous sentences should be rewritten so the meaning is clear
6
Q
How is vagueness defined? 2
A
meaning of the expression is unclear and indefinite
or a word is given in an unfitting context and is thus unclear
7
Q
What is a word’s primary connotation?
A
- a rule by which the meaning of the word is decided and whose characteristics have to apply to every instance of the object
- e.g. tsunami = large ocean wave
8
Q
What is a word’s secondary connotation? 4
A
- things one assumes about the meaning of the expression based on its primary connotation but which does not have to apply to every instance of the object
- can contribute to vagueness
- metaphors rely heavily on and emphasize secondary connotations
- gives the word more rhetorical force
9
Q
rhetorical questions?
A
making a point indirectly by relying on the intention being obvious
10
Q
Irony?
A
usage of a sentence whose literal meaning is the exact opposite to its intended meaning
11
Q
Quantifiers? 4
A
- expressions detailing the existing amount of something
- Quantifiers may not be used with enough precision so it is easier for the speaker to defend themselves when questioned
- Some quantifiers are inherently vague, but at the same time, omitting quantifiers can make statements vague
- Using more specific quantifiers is desirable in science because it makes the statement more falisifiable (also works to fight generalization)
12
Q
Generalizations? 1+2+1
A
- generalizations are statements about things in different categories
- soft generalizations: generalization about certain things being true in many cases but not in all
- hard generalizations: generalization without exception and directed towards every instance
- disproving generalisations with a single counterexample, means assuming that a hard generalisation was
intended, which is often not justified (gradpa that smoked example)
13
Q
rhetorical force?
A
the suggestive and emotive component of an argument which amplifies the attempt of persuasion
14
Q
implicature? 1+1+2
A
- unstated meaning that can be thought to have been intended
- conversational implicature: usually implied in normal conversation, can be misleading when doing logical assessment
- contextual information is crucial for recognizing implicature
- can only imply something if the listener believes the implication to have been intentional
15
Q
what are definitions and their necessary and sufficient conditions?
A
- definitions: describe the necessary components to categorize something as being what it is
- necessary conditions: conditions that have to be satisfied for the object to count as the object
- sufficient conditions: conditions that are enough, if satisfied, for the object to count as the object, but do not have to be satisfied by all instances of the object
16
Q
creating definitions? 3
A
- selecting plausible necessary and sufficient conditions
- testing these by looking for counterexamples (either fitting the description but not being X, or not fitting the description but being X)
- either altering definition or excluding X
17
Q
what is the difference between fallacies and rhetorical ploys?
A
- fallacies are argumentative attempt at persuasion using reasons that do not hold up when conducting logical assessment
- rhetorical ploys are non-argumentative attempts at persuasion using psychological tactics
18
Q
rhetorical ploys: appeal to certain feelings? 7
A
- appeal to novelty: the idea that a new item is different and better than an already existing one, making us feeel outdated or inflexible to change
- appeal to popularity: appeals to our wish to adopt the habits of the masses and not pass up new opportunities
- appeal to compassion, guilt or pity
- appeal to cuteness or sexiness
- appeal to wealth, power, status, etc
- appeal to fear (scare tactics): usually purely emotive, but in warnings good reasons are given to take preventive action
- appeal to ridicule to undermine their authority
19
Q
rhetorical ploys: the direct attack and the hard sell?
A
- direct attack: stating a command to do something without any reasons being given for it
- hard sell: repeating the direct attack persistently
20
Q
rhetorical ploys: scare quotes? 2
A
- putting words into single quotes to hint at an underlying meaning and to discredit their literal and immediate associations
- Gives no reasons for disagreeing but helps in making the expression look suspicious and to cast doubt on it
21
Q
rhetorical ploys: trading on equivocation? 2
A
- using ambiguity to obscure the true point of an argument by stating the same word in multiple senses
- equivocation: using a word misleadingly
22
Q
rhetorical ploys: trading on implicature?
A
The speaker can use the implied proposition to mislead the audience and avoid responsibility for doing so
23
Q
rhetorical ploys: leading questions tactic and push polling tactic?
A
- leading questions: asks questions about statements that are phrased in a way that assumes them to be true
- push polling: tactic where leading questions are asked to sway the opinion of the potential voter in relation to the candidate without explicitly saying that the candidate does something
24
Q
rhetorical ploys: smokescreen?
A
avoiding discussion of a certain problem by addressing a different one and emphasizing its importance
25
rhetorical ploys: buzzwords, jargon, and acronyms?
- buzzwords: using trendy, rhetorically powerful expressions to make a statement
- jargon: expressing yourself with words that are likely unfamiliar to a large part of the audiance, making the speaker appear like they know things and exclude others
- acronyms: series of letters used as an abbreviation which creates insiders
26
spin and gas lighting?
- spin: effective usage of rhetorical ploys to sway opinions
- gas lighting: making the speaker feel less confident about their claim by questioning, contradicting, and discrediting the claims they make
27
what is the rational model to make decisions? 2
- internally consistent decisions
- usually exhibiting transitivity: positing that a relationship between the first and second and the second and third of three elements can also be found in the first and third elements
28
what is the normative model for making decisions? (1+2)
- considering multiple choices with one usually being optimal
- expected value theory: optimal choice is the one with the largest financial reward (probability x value)
- expected utility: personal value attached to an outcome which is influenced by external, subjective factors
29
irrationality classical definition?
inconsistency in acts and words
30
what is description invariance?
consistently making the same decision as long as the problem has the same basic structure for making decisions
31
violations of description invariance? 1+3
- Changing a decision's problem frame (e.g. from gains to losses) may alter a person's preferred choice thus violating description invariance.
- psychic budgets: items are assigned to certain categories which determine spending behavior, and one might be more likely to spend onitems in one category than in another
- sunk cost: investment that is spent and cannot be recovered, which is considered unwise in retrospect
- loss aversion: avoiding losses because it feels more unpleasant than a similar gain
32
what is procedure invariance?
consistently making the same decision regardless of how the decision-making process is measured
33
violations of procedure invariance? 1+1->1
- Depending on the framing of the problem, people might assign a higher value to a decision even if they would not themselves choose it
- Finding the optimal solution may be very difficult and require excessive calculations, trials, or a formula, so people can opt for satisficing (finding the first option that fulfills certain selection criteria)
34
logical benchmark: deductive reasoning? 1+1->2
- deductive reasoning: relies on certain premises that are assumed to be true and which can lead to a logical conclusion.
- conditional statement: modus ponens (if P then Q) and modus tollens (if not P then not Q)
35
logic benchmark: syllogism? 2
- two premises and a conclusion without the if-then format with all statements being declarative
- venn diagrams can be used to evaluate syllogisms
36
failures in the logic benchmark? 4
- confirmation bias (demonstrated by the Wason card selection task)
- conversational implicatures
- conversion error: the objects of some comparisons can be flipped and the statement will still hold true but this does not hold for all comparisons (e.g. all birds can fly, everything that flies is a bird)
- belief bias: prior convictions influence the evaluation of an argument
36
Pragmatic reasoning schemas? 2
- using the reasoning schema people can reason much more logically even if the situation is abstract
- highlight that human reasoning is often more effective when it is grounded in practical, everyday contexts rather than in abstract, formal logic
37
probabilistic benchmark? 2
- Updating beliefs in accordance with the rules of probability
- using algorithim to have optimal results
38
probabilistic beanchmark failures: heuristics? 6
- ignoring sample sizes: sample size affects the average one would calculate for different circumstances
- base rate neglect: believing that because everyone in a certain sample has something it implies that that causes something in that sample
- representiveness: The representativeness heuristic reflects the tendency to asses the
similarity between two entities as a proxy for a judgment about likelihood
- availability: if many examples for a certain claim can be remembered it is judged as more probable
- hidsight bias: in a lot of analyses we’re likely to conclude that the way
things ended up was the most likely thing to have happened
- Anchoring & adjustment heuristic: people anchor estimates based on values given to them
39
rational decision benchmark? 3
- consistency of preference and choice
- deciding in a manner that maximizes expected utility
- subjective expected utility: quantifying outcomes based on how useful the outcomes are and calculating utilities (probability X expected objective value)
40
what does the allias paradox state?
states that most people choose the option with lower expected outcome if it's extremely likely that it will happen and the option with higher expected outcome if it's less likely that it will happen
