PHIL 145

Personal Notes

Marcus Chan

Taught by Greg Andres

'
UW Math 25
 Chapter 1:
The Basics THINKING ?
WHAT IS CRITICAL REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS '
OF
thinking
CRITICAL THINKING
in critical
course
Ef objective of any
'

"
'

The tools and

intellectual many
prevalent
in
with is
to provide students
-
'

critical thinking
comprehend
-

is
to better skills allows
of society
:

to utilise them critical thinking

the
prowess
areas
making well -
③ Good

safeguard against
citizens
args
on
relies to
analyse which
-

and us
① Democracy politics
/ exploitative people
about , .

decisions skills scams

informed potential
ADVANTAGES ? thinking
.

critical
WHAT ARE ITS requires proficient many
bedrock of
someone 's arguments is the
① The ability analyse
to
thinking
material , ② Critical )
understand complex Ceg history
.

academic disciplines
better
helps us
organised
.

how it is
us
understand
as it helps
skills to formulate
critical thinking use
personal
use
②
.

we can
our
own
for
good arguments
AN OVERVIEW
ARGUMENT
:

THE IS BEING PRESENTED ?

sentences WHAT ARGUMENT subject of
a

"
"

is a set of deda ,

decipher
the

argument we can
conclusion ways
'

An
'
"
many content
-

to be the There are

designated
its
.

-
from
i

one is
premises particular argument
.

where
which are the - the clauses / sentences
show
of usually
"

rest words the

and the that indicator not always
' '

being offered ① Certain

are meant as premises , *
note ; this is

reason them
succeed
"
is a case .

that
premise
''

conclusion et towards
A result of point
.

the not
"

supports
'

since because as a c Iws may

)
, ,
)
eg conclusion
premise /
theory
.

Cin smaller
be conclusions of a

may
premises conclusion etc
''
.

often arguments
.

or a so the
* sub
of
, ,
Note
,
hence
find
:
sub conclusions ,
' '

to
ie
therefore ,
* make sure

arguments whole note

, :
eg
.

author 's
a
as
the argument out the
conclusion
form part
of
figure
,
to main )
that
use use
Iws
it to find "
sub
"
( intermediate
they may ② we can use

arguments subsequently
a
,

than not
** when people express rhetorical gas
) and is
easier
-

Note conclusion , ( This conclusion

declarative sentences Ccg
: .

corresponding premises
.

iron
-

what they
are conveying the
the content of
that
Note declarative sentences .

vice
versa .
)
can
be expressed using the author intends her
what
PRESENTED ?
out
find
BEING
can
③ Then , we

IS AN
ARGUMENT premises
to be .

the
to establish we employ
author attempts this info ,

if the
) is true To make use of
; Generally 1 unstated
'

, , → is
( stated
' '
the author
claim
charity
:

principle of
a
whether
argument
.
"

strongest argument
.

an

author is presenting to present

their
the
attempting
do something
else
the author
the benefit of
" an
author may they → TL ; DR : we
give
I
case ,
often ,

claim ;
in
this
their doubt .

establish
to
argument
.

an

are NOT establishing

the
above is that if "

the
example of something happened
"

why
"
One
to solve
author attempts it is
"
instead
way
,

is the
why something logic
" .

or
-
is true using
the claim but
of shogi ng an argument ,

are
not presenting
they
explanation
.

an
rather
and
"
to differentiate arguments
An easy way
that when presenting
an argument ,

contentious /
is
explanations
usually regarded
as

is
conclusion
the
defense ; an explanation
to / needing doubt
open of the claim ,

assumes either the validity

simply
vice versa .

or

can take
whether we
-

When arguments omit

writing trivial fact )
.

' '
"

Cie a

something for granted the

the audience
highly dependent
on

is

meant for -

argument
is

reasons i explanations
TL ; DR :
arguments present
present causes
.
 Chapter 2:
The Structure of Arguments &
The ARG Conditions
STANDARDISING ARGUMENTS?
'
the official def't of
an
argument WHY STANDARDISE
; Although
-

the
lay
to take into account
Standardisation helps
fails
-

is
it that
is correct ,
out in a way
sentences
other ways argument and hence
that there are many
easy
to comprehend ,

together evaluate
. .

linked to
can be
account suborguments , easier
us
to visualise
sub
arguments
not take into -

also allows
( ie it does It
sub conclusions
.

etc ) and
what the
.

to see
easier
a) ? →

CONCLUSION standardise
? mud why about -

'
is
claim
THE Before we curative
-
.

to each
identifying
a
conclusion .
3
convert
all premises easier to refer
F' a) b) ?
'
'
→
when
why individual premise
- '
'
-

consider ;
and order; &
sentences
you sequential
.

make sure was

which it in cannot
premise
we
context
in each otherwise ,

number c) ? →
flaw
① the b) conclusion Why
properly identify
a

in ; no
written location etc ) individually ,
which

( ie audience ,
time ,

c) make
sure ,
an argument .
in an argument
expresses wrong
.

and goes
' '

;
or
premise
strength
' '

② its to be
contended
claim ? )
is the
"

likely
' '

lie
the
" or only
certainly
,
"

③ its scope
.

to
the
claim apply
( ie does
some ?
)
all cases ,
or only

THE PREMISES make sure

identifying premises
,
'

- "
when
consider :

you take
the form
will
① not
all premises i &
declarative
sentences instead
etc .

of
,

be rhet gns -

they might needed to

eg are
that
premises be present .

all the will

② not
complete
argument
premises
.

form
a "

''
unstated
are
ie there

to fill in
''

logical the
standardisation when considering
STANDARDISE
use * even
also note
premises
"
.
:
We can
unstated must
recognise
'

- Charity we

HOW TO caused by Principle of

,
"
set out
an argument ,
we
gaps sometimes
make bad
arguments
.

why authors
To standardise
with the
reasons
statements number of
'
' -
,

in clear There are a

an
I
its premises the conclusion .
→

may
be missing from
premises preceding
premises
argument
:

considered
Eyal
The argument may
be

① A premise ;
or

knowledge
common
that is made explicit
would be written as

Psychological
the argument

}
is
each statement of the author
premises ② part
Amiga
not address to imply
nuninsbened.si .
medication
does
be considered
,
issues .

claim ;
and lifestyle different
has
side effects .

committed
to a

"
2. medication often reasons
therefore
.

"

other
is used to amongst
indicate the ↳ Therefore
)
conclusion
,
solely
.

conclusion .

Medical problems
cannot be treated
€×I The argument
3 .

medication .

by

written as
be
in our would
arguments

}
sub
-

represent such as
potatoes be
and oranges
foods
We can
mode" "° natural the
'

standardisation 1 If would not on

premises
.

they
were dangerous ,

The argument underline market

€×az the
.

is an

means
this
such as
potatoes
and
oranges
I Natural foods
"

"
added z
( one market
.
-

written
premise the
-

are on
the
would be as
isn't in
"

)
that
original Mtm
}
"t
life can
S
""
www.si" '

therefore'm
a
leading
oanyptwhepo.pe?son
and oranges
① asubargument potatoes
.

as
such
*us ,
used , good ,

indicates, dangerous
.

• to it not
a sub Thus ,
different purpose
given , are
it does
not
Fusion knowledge
.

a
has
② Every life
,
common
that life is
.

2
leading
.

* since
note :
by the person argument
.

the
Therefore
③ The
,

purpose of life
in
general
is not
something
that can be known -

) wthedyion .
misrepresent
 ARGUMENTS
DIAGRAMMING makes them DIAGRAM
standardising arguments steps TO
; Although
how our
-

to reflect standardise
fails first
'

it we
-

comprehensible
:
,
Then :
more another
argument ②
. .

to
are
related
in the list ie ① etc
premises
.

sentence the bottom '

we
;) we associate every circle with *
the conclusion
at

premises with a
put
,
we
between diagram to read
.

our easier
links in
the and diagram to make it
show further
'

To its number
step
.

one have
will
can
use go ① * sub conclusions
-

arguments
-

① supports ie so ,

poem
and I
it '

our
premise f arrows

SUPPORT To show
a A
ii ) draw will have
② we
conclusions

PREMISES
② whereas
.

conclusion
'

(sub)
a
① to ② .

to it
only
.

WAYS from arrows

arrow
straight
Provide
CONCLUSIONS iii )
If two premises
① & ②
③)
ie ① +②
SUPPORT support for
( a (sub) conclusion ,

y
CONVERGENT
① and
② provide
linked
' '
t
' '
between ① & ② ,
and
③ .

we put a
set to
'
"
Two premises if they support from
the

convergent support
arrow
draw a
single
independently
.

the conclusion
history
③ .

%
.

in
an
At counter consideration , ie "
④
-

has is a
Debbie physics premise ① +②
.

l .

A+
in iv ) If a
circle with
eg from the
has
t
an
also line
Debbie draw a
wavy
-
2 .
we
the conclusion it weighs
number to
its
Therefore bright
.

,
very

Debbie
is probably against
.

3 draw
rebuttal
.

we
⑤
SUPPORT ① +②
is

cirdeatit-headk.oh.jo
.
a
ie
v) If a
premise
LINKED ② provide line with a

① and a
straight
- to the wavy /
-
" -

Two premises support

the
the rebuttal 's circle
consideration ,
if they from ⑤
.

linked support
.

but the counter -

taken together ,

corresponding
to
conclusion if line
individually .

NIT if taken are

there
has fleas ,

dog
EXAMPLES
bed
If my
.

t in my
eg
.

fleas
probably
has fleas
.

CONVERGENT example
My dog the previous
LINKED
2
consider
.
'

convergent arguments
-

example
.

Therefore fleas
previous
.
,

has
for
probably
the
consider get
'

bed

CONSIDERATIONS arguments
' -
-

we
My linked
Diagramming
3 . ,

for get
we ②
COUNTER① consideration
-

①
Diagramming
,

counter
¥
-

argued
a
②
is

conclusion being ①
" +
premise
'

A the
it -opposes t
if
consideration ③
REBUTTALS
counter
.
-

for .

example
) a

eg
( for
could
the

be
pier
maths
test .

COUNTER -
CONSIDERATIONS &

flunked
her
at a more complex &
1 Debbie will
look considerations
counter
.
-

we
'

Lastly ,

which
also utilises

argument
REBUTTALS rebuttal if rebuttals .

argument
a
① is

premise consideration the

.

= A
a
counter -
consider
it opposes a
rebuttal
could be

v example ,

for the pre she

eg sick when
was very
2 .
Debbie test .

her
maths
took considerations
get
-

we * counter
standardising
-

, and z
,
are

* rebuttals .

are
2 and 4 to 3
corresponds
-

& 4
1,
to
2 corresponds that
is

*
5 is a
missing premise
knowledge
.

common

premise
.

a
6 is

diagram
' .

'

j Finally ,
we

ThoI
-

⑤
/
°
I
v
0
i
it
⑤
④
 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
.

Whenever any argument

is
presented ( to convince
THE ARG CONDITIONS
) the
is whether
conclusion is true
, arguer can be used to see
someone a
'

"
ARG conditions not
The
to least 2 claims
cogent
:
-

at or
.

themselves is
committing a
given argument
) true and . .

( reasonably
i

ACCEPTABILITY
are
premises
. .
i) all the
by the premises FOR
.

ii ) the conclusion
is adequately supported A
we con Sider
whether
step
ARGUMENT ?
'

' -

For this
,

we
would
something
GOOD premise acceptable
.

A each ie

WHAT MAKES
:
true
reasonably
-

to be
consider

VALID ARGUMENTS "

) valid if knowing the truth

a for
''
GROUNDS
( deductively
argument is that
'
'

An definitively the
to show whether
sufficient
"
-
\ consider '

collectively
'
:
is word
premises we *
of ay
the :
for this step note the
coll provide
,

the
be the premises
'

also consider
conclusion must would we must
the
premises "

good grounds
'
!
'

gross
,

premises sufficient support

' or as a

false
,

have be true
argument could
can
.

valid the conclusion

that
for thinking
a
"

Note
conclusions says
validity only ''
'

RELEVANCE
*
and/or false notice :
were true '
"

if a" the premises for

true R
speak Spanish
is
-

'
whether consider
-

All cats conclusion consider *

1 then the we test , we

step In this
.

eg
,

for this
.

"'
- .

& the at
of linked premises
.

premises
a .

cats .

both reason
gyp
are

premises provide
z .
Dogs → obviously ,

but the any each

false the to
conclusion
is ,
the is not linked
Therefore '
valid nonetheless for thinking premise
-

is
slight If a

argument
how
consider it
Spanish irregardless
.
,

dogs speak
we
each
other ,
All be true
3 .

could .

" " conclusion in isolation .

"
SUPPORT linked Premises
ADEQUATE * need to consider
test
premises we
.

that the note :

the

argument ,
when performing
in any together
'

We say the conclusion

-
''

for
,

adequate support conclusion

"

only provide
the
makes
of all the premises
truth
if the
notdefinih.ve#ue
.

ARGUMENT IS COGENT
but
TO FIND
WHETHER AN
probable
-
,

USING ARU

SOUND
ARGUMENTS if :
flow diagram
to illustrate

argument
we can use a
both
if evaluate
"
" an
sound to
needed
'
'

An argument
is the steps
; &
true ARG

'¥:÷-%is÷÷÷-
using

memoirist
.

are

① all its premises

In! implies
" -

:O argument
sound

)
any →

conclusion
.

no
definitively
.

!
must have consistently
almost impossible to

!
be
reliable
Yes
it may Yes
-

However ,
as we have no

use
sound arguments ,

truth of a premise
.

::::¥:
the
verify

÷÷÷÷÷
method
to
this

too: ! :%;:÷÷÷÷÷:÷÷÷
I
"

i÷÷÷÷÷÷
.

win:O ::÷÷
"

mansion .

to
the premises
only require
f Yes
true
'

,
'

Since we "
rather
than
''

acceptable
given argument
be
simply whether
a

Tnggggnm+ -
determine show
whether
we can
we
cannot
whereas
is cogent ,

sound
?
-

COGENT IMPORTANT
it is

ARGUMENT IS
WHETHER AN
ARGUMENT IS COGENT,
WHY IS KNOWING NOI
COGENT AN
COGENT IF AN
ARGUMENT IS NOT
OR IT IS
.

IS
IF AN ARGUMENT '

decide an
argument is not cogent ,

evaluate someone
's
If we
'

when
-

we
cogent did not provide us
cannot merely
is the
argument arguer
,

decide an
must conclude
! argument
we we
'

If we
reasons the conclusion .

,
good for believing
even
exists nor

good
reasons
there with conclusion
must conclude
,
their
we
( even if
we
reject conclusion
for
a
the conclusion have to reasons
for accepting
we own
) does not mean
offer our

it appealing this
.

find However theirs

- ,

do not
false
.

, :
to
the conclusion
is
contrary
need to accept think the does not
either
imply arguer
we
'

does not the must

This better
I
mean we

might just good / Rather argument

-

rational i
"

their
.
,

remain it )
not used
a
to in
conclusion not necessarily valid has flaw or
.

are ( or
① find
the
cogent ;

cogent arguments know is

not
after all
it
Showing
,

argument cogent
.

contain is

even
a
valid argument might
but the argument
Furthermore acceptable ② accept
'

, ,
to be
see
that we can
all
after
.

premises makes the conclusion likely ,

this also
not certain
-

true
necessarily
.

but not
 Chapter 3:
Language &
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
LANGUAGE USAGE , CHANGED LANGUAGE
EMOTIONALLY
(OUEN CY
"

emotionally changed language

"
'

-
the term
win
.

we
that has been influenced
to describe any argument choice

AMBIGUITY
their
's own opinion , simply by
by the arguer
words
of
-

not clear
it is normal
ambiguous if
, ' .
'

ECL ! )
" " -
term is '

A
professor
'

two or more Cso

context ,
which of the eg "
-
insult
in some "
tower
intellectual
represents ivory
.

it
meanings sentence is loaded
"
out !
That '

when a
Watch
-

also occur
e.
g .

Ec , can
bad connotations;
hot ?
good
< or
hot?
" "
with
spicy
adjectives
"
"
Er
temperature with
up
editorial comments .

EQUIVOCATION ie "

!
a fallacy of equivocation "
Devi di
cannot make his mind about anything
commits due that moron
An arguer cogent eg
'

um is a
to be De Vidi 's indecisiveness
argument fails
\ thinks
if their ↳ speaker
!
bad thing
to ambiguity ECL
.

'
's we can replace
guilty of equivocation argument
"

analysing
,
When an
say they
are
* also the
might whether
"
we
' '

trades on an
ambiguity with neutral content to see

or that the
argument more
not
grounds
or .

FOE breaks at least has any

that commits the premise
Any argument however,
which
ARG conditions ;

EUPHEMISM
the
one
of we analyse
on Low
one it breaks depends deliberately bland
is the use of
euphemism
"
the premises
'

An
.

a more
where
something
I
to
terms to refer it
would
to
eg However , if we accept
that
manner of referring
meanings 2 direct / blunt
impolite
"

nothing has
" , .

I 2 + embarrassing or
then clearly premise 3!
be alarming ,

does not imply premise

cash-flow problem ;
"
"
"

huge deficit
as a

referring to
a
way
wowed at it this
.

l is
eg
" "
''
not even distance premise
"

Notice :
if nothing means ,
"
' '

that the Tumen being gone

"
" "
them
-

see death as
unacceptable ;
we can
or a
' "

but distance 's

"

condition a
fails the
fail
.
"

nothing that
" "

but if nothing means

often identify arguments

"
,

We
premise 2 is unacceptable . can
literal
with more
to hold constant by replacing euphemisms
if meanings
,

So ,
we have

Ai condition statements
'

the
argument fails
' ' ' ' .
-

+ hi ,

guilty of equivocation ,

argument
is
to show
an
Therefore ,

term has 2 meanings ,

to see which
it often helps in other words
each of these meanings
and paraphrase can be identified .

the different
meanings
so

VAGUENESS
when the meaning of
A word is
vague word
that the
unclear or
said word
is ,
''

cases
to
"
borderline .

might apply
red .

e9 DM This is definitely

definitely pink
.

This is
?
red or pink ''

vague
''
!)
DM Is this
-
so
this is

case
( Borderline

in arguments ;
can
cause problems
Vagueness term ,
'

uses
a
vague
when a
premise case .

eg borderline
it to a
! )
applies condition
' '

and
"

the
A
fails
( So the argument

eg

consider premise 2 to be unacceptable ,

Notice : we
might
make person
might
a
hair
because adding 1

"
"
less bald !

" this context ) .

(
"

Bald is in
vague
 DEFINITIONS STIPULATIVE
specifies
how the

stipulate're definition
' "
us
helps A to make
definition usually interpreted
general
" " a
In ,
claim or to be ,

to understand term is
or to restrict
hard
-

precise
-

comprehend
a more
/ phrase the meaning use
practical
.

term .

define
a
more
for
argument
or a
,
the meaning
to that
"
student refuse anyone
eg full term
OSTENSIVE
a
-

semesters
"

has completed eight

'

what
ostensive definition explains
OPERATIONAL
:
An
examples
"
"
at
thing
is by pointing of
type
a
is a

definition
thing operational
"
of that -

An
c.

concrete
. .

hydrant
-

fire where
the
putative definition
' ' "
is the color of Sti
,

abstract
red
Eg to define
an

used
examples are

REPORTIVE / LEXICAL uses

term .

into water
object
,

lexical , definition an
place
'' "

if you - ' '

concrete
report 've or
i
A ,
of eg ↳ "
)
characteristics it dissolves .
life
( real
-

and
soluble if
important properties it is example -

term
describes
the
the things / concepts literal meaning
.

word 's
to define it ; ie the
PERSUASIVE stipulate
've definition
krgemasso-frockorreporh.ve
a
is
is a definition definition
.

persuasive
"
mountain
'
' '

A
features
-
a
eg
wnse¥
' claim
of of a '

disguised
a
as
is
definition
mountain ! -

more of a
persuasive
purpose
one or
possess the
A report
've definition might Often ,

attitudes by
utilising
to change connotations
flaws :
to attempt
.

of these
emotional
broad / narrow ;
with strong
① The definition
is too
it
'
'

words associated !
"

buttons on
babysitters
.

device with but

nothing
''
is
calculator a

mouse) are
eg teachers
"

connotation !
a
too ! Leg eg emotional
refers to other things strong
↳ this
negatively i a
has
' ' "

↳ nothing
is defined
② A word
that is not negative '
: can
cause problems
"
not a type
-
writer '

persuasive definitions term

occurs
eg
a
computer is
?
However,
newly defined
mean
where the context
arguments
even
↳ what does this
.

in its everyday
trivial not significant; the same
term in ' '

features referenced alongside doesn't !

,
are
③ The
"
"
is someone
that cry
man
legs def 't
has : a
and
brown stipulated deft
'' -

chair is
eg
.

op
a
eg
,

" "

↳ not necessary org

:
these features
.
are

and one
vague
.
g)
are obscure ; or y
④ The terms used in the definition everyday
)
. . '' '' " ''
G
( so argument either
fails A or deff .

heamectaeing the
.
. . .

masticating
.
" ,
is
eg eating T T
words !
*
note : this is also an instance of a
used
rarely
albeit harder to
circular .
fa¥fegien ,

is
⑤ The definition to be true
"
spot
.

something presumed
.

is
presumption
'
'

a
eg ^

define
the word to be defiled is used
to

that word ! ( so circular ) .

 ACCEPTING & REJECTING PREMISES
accept premises ,

's acceptability remember

when we

premise ÷
,
about
' '

inquire
a
certain
-

whenever we ,
a
with
person
-

, do so
" certain
we are
always asking whether a
we always
not
acceptable
' "
or
level
finds it "

confidence
.

which could be us
-

certain
that a

assume
that a
premise
's acceptability C how confident
are we

? )
"

we will
accept it
or not for this
is acceptable
whether we premise
depends
on

section .

we do not find
the
premises
if
"

even
"

Note : have to
we

it does
not imply
unacceptable ,
=

the conclusion !
reject
CONDITIONS AUTHORITY
ACCEPTABILITY APPROPRIATE APPEAL
TO

A COGENT ARGUMENT also be acceptable if

the arguer
CONCLUSION OF can because
premise
'

A either
established to authority
appropriate appeal
,

it has been or
acceptable if makes an themselves
matter
,
is
-

A
premise the back
cogent subcrgument
or
authority
on
, can
who
the conclusion of a
they are an
authority
external cogent argument
as
have
cited an

is the conclusion of an because they

)
somewhere else premise
.

the
.

( ie presented up
must consider
appeal
we

( PRIORI)
said ,
"
To evaluate
NECESSARILY TRUE whether :
the subject
it
if
is "
authority on

'
is also acceptable "

authority
is an

A premise ① The
and it is a
"
obvious it is true , =
under
consideration : of
bias /
-
statement ( aka a
priori ) .

reason
to suspect them
true
objectively "
② There is any
is blue
dishonesty ;
''

shy
'

the

ish!? not subject

whe doubt this '
eg
?
it matter is one
obvious subject * if we
it is note
arguer
:

#
→
the the
to
③ whether experts always
ask
obi4
→ it is
opinion ) .

geementcitedamong we can
front of
us .

J
there is
authority are in
the
if they
,

is e
recess an
has reliably
themselves )
whether premise ① arguer
.

a
's audience ,
u the it
the arguer
not
are
depend they
on
!
not is ° dies
( if
does
=
the premise
's truth figure
ACCEPTANCE
but whether
true
" obvious ,

CONDITIONAL
-

''
is blue
the sky need
Eg only
"
are smaller than hee , may
not
cases ,
we might
viruses
special
-
' "
be obvious
!)
In the premise
bacteria
"
audience of
(
depends
on
conditional acceptance
argument
.

the
evaluate this
KNOWLEDGE to :
use
COMMON instances
where we

if two
also be acceptable There are

premise
can
A
knowledge ABSURDUM
.

common
accepted
as
AD
it is -

is
blue
''
. ) REDUCTIO is a way of showing
sky
-'

(
eg
the "
ad absurdum demonstrating
Reductio
'

that is false by
statement
,
note
contradiction
However , imply everyone particular
'

does not a
leads to
a

knowledge it were true , it

① common that if
ARGUMENT )
" "

reproductive
wegnoY.se
)
Cie absurd
has
sane OF
a
creature
.

living . .

for THE
c
this is true PROOF
CONDITIONAL
.

know
system any do not
children that
we
show
conditional proof things
,
to one audience '
other
knowledge
-

implies
-

In a
② what is common
was
true ,
it
''

another; & something

might
not be for if of argument
.

the sake
for
' '

the true ; ie
not imply are
③ Common knowledge does
true
statement is definitively
.

it is
affirms us

( common knowledge only

)
and
accepted
.

known
widely

RELIABLE TESTIMONY
'
could also be considered acceptable
A premise
'

reliable
if the arguer
can
provide a

its acceptability
.

to convince us of
testimony

reliable we must :

to be ,

'

For a testimony -

doubting
the person ,
reason for
① Have no
being
unreliable ,
them
no history of
we have
eg
etc and
claim ;
.

the
reason for doubting
② Have no
ele
wildly implausible
.

not
,
is
the claim
eg suitable
-

is
the case
that
to attest anecdotal
③ Be able
be backed up
by
can
ie the claim

evidence .
 UNACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS
FALSE PREMISE IS
CONTROVERSIAL / PRESUPPOSES
THE PREMISE
IS OBVIOUSLY
'

easily see a
premise is false ,

SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL something

If
- '

we can

deem it unacceptable controversial or relies upon it

simply
.

,
reject
-

can is to
premise
'
we
If a
for us

sufficient
" reason
' '
is a cat .

there is
the dog controversial ,
eg

eg C

INCONSISTENT PREMISES
(
,

claims is inconsistent if
' "
a set of
we say " to be
'
'
for them a

impossible to university to get

logically
we
go
it is
claim is
inconsistent this
premise presupposes
true at once .
(A single job training ! ( so have
to be true . ) is controversial !
we

it this
impossible for ↳
if it is however ,
reject it if no
supporting
contradict to ,

grounds
}
carnivorous
' '
they
available )
"
all humans are
other !
eg
.

are
''
each
arguments
vegetarians ARGUMENT
/ CIRCULAR
.

are
humans
"

and some

BEGGING THE QUESTION * this is an example of

a

canonnoetoa 'm!! tohfetnaetprnecmises

' note :
order to find
the
premises when , in
net being
a
"

since i.
the question
occurs
sound argument
.

must have
that Begging to already
consider -
:
need
cogent argument
we

premise acceptable
we
,

unacceptable
a "

A
.

acceptable
are
to be
.
' '

A, therefore
conclusion eg the
the
but fails
function
IS TOO VAGUE
cannot sound
PREMISE arguments
is
so it
' ' ,
''
circular is
! (
* observe any that is , to use " "
condition
sentence A
what
argument )
-

understand a
conventional
cannot
cogent
'

:
-

If
-

we
t) it as a
conclusion not
to the
,
that the
says
( due it to convince others
accept premises
'

us to have
rational for others
will not be
the
person
to
But in a circular argument ,

true !
(
of course , we can
always ask is
right .

the conclusion
is

doubt ) convinced
been
clarify if
in
.

already
 RELEVANCE
IS RELEVANCE ?
WHAT ACTUALLY IRRELEVANCE
TO FIX
RELEVANT? ADDING PREMISES
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE argument
mates mwee.pk five
to an

1-
"
relevant to a
add unstated premises
positively ; relevant
-

we can .

is ,
; we say
a
premise it would support relevance
"
when
make some of
its premise
true to
conclusion when if it were ,
to
to
try
,
we refer the basketball hit him .

it relevance .
"
shouldn't be surprised
to
eg you
. ''

relevant "

negatively
"

philosopher
'

is
He's
premise truth
"

Similarly
a
,
a
the not at all related .

it counts against the 2

premises
seem

A conclusion if
true .
↳ at first ,

the missing premise

it were add
the
conclusion if However, if we
"

of " uncoordinated ,

are
"
if it is
philosophers sense .

make
irrelevant
"

starts to

premise
is
then the argument
Lastly
a
relevant
negatively
.

nor
missing premises
neither positively should only
add

Note that we
the arguer
to think
reason
'

Note that :
have ample
raised
if we
to be them
accept
.

needs would
only charity :

① Relevance
principle of
n#id
the
from
.

is arises
if the argument why ? This
missing premise
onto an

outlandish to
arguer fails
its add an

is irrelevant , If we
admit the
either
② If a premise matter argument , we
their premises ,
or

irrelevance of
-

not
does the
acceptability are
irrelevant , recognise outlandish belief
which
links

if ALL the premises he/she

has an

the conclusion
.

→ dead to
premise
.

is
the argument the offending

IRRELEVANCE
FALLACIES OF
AD HOMINEM

)
when
HERRING
an
occurs
RED
-

An ad hominem fallacy
occurs
when directly ,
instead
herring fallacy arguer
attacks a
person
' "
A red an that person
debate about the claims

an
arguer
starts
to
related of arguing against
not
put forward
is -

which has
issue
irrelevant '
*
he says
about fee tmde '

note
original topic
-
"
believe what :
the
I wouldn't
to
about eg beater
"

feel convicted wife hominem fallacy

- -

how they Hes a an ad

eg
a
politician sayingand addressing
the
character traits are
not *
sometimes a person
's attacks the peirson
a related topic ,
asked
note : ,

and so
might
be
behind argument ;
.

the
argument
were
they relevant to the ,
cases ! )
original question ( But these
are special
considered acceptable

:c: :¥÷÷i÷:i÷÷÷÷
.

'

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷:÷÷:÷÷÷÷÷:÷÷ .÷÷÷÷::÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷:÷ is linked

to another
:
MAN their opponent
's position with negative
STRAW :
associated
when is
fallacy occurs which often
A straw man group ,

another
to refute
trying connotations
-

is
① the arguer then , he i
's view on
some issue ;
''
don't listen to what says "

person 1917
stance on
said issue ,
eg what the Communists did in

misinterpret
their
held
that's exactly 's
② they the one the other person
view other
than
↳ the arguer
is associating
and attribute a
which we
Communists
; and lastly ,

point with the ,

by
that person attacking
position by
' '
this new
may disapprove of
-

refute person
''

③ they the one

the
which is not
this view ,

first place
.

the
held in

where it is
"
abortion should
be illegal
A :
for a woman
notice that the
eg convenience does not
a matter of " arguer
child 's
! original
refute
-
A
not have a
to
viewpoint

}
,

because that
ban abortion and has
can 't
"
so

B :
you victims committed the

would result
in misery for straw fallacy
.
man
..

incest !
4- raped

that any subsequent argument

clearly follows
"

to
It not pertain
it does
irrelevant
as
,

made is

's view .

the other person emotional

in
occurs
* this fallacy often at hand is
note : when the issue
with
especially
.

connection
settings ,
has a deep
something
the
arguer
 Chapter 4:
Formal Logic
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
CONSISTENCY defa ; if it
logically equivalent
'
the
'

all * ''
in
if note the could
is consistent
statements statements are
'

of be true at of sentences Two

diff
'
'

A consistent set
group could a
to have
the group for them
the statements in
is not necessarily true , is
impossible
it must just
be
possible
USEFUL ?
once
sentences
.

be true
to
LOGIC
"

all
"

i. 3 to
group for them
HOW IS
*
note usually use

argument
: we ,

siY whether an
'

"

to determine
together ;
hair } be used
; Logic
.

lots of conclusion
. -

Bob has can the

bald
premises imply
"

eg de Bob is ,

whether
the

( TAUTOLOGY
) is valid ; ie

used to determine
whether

LOGICAL TRUTH
be
'
it cannot tell us
it H cannot
only if
-
and it
if since
-
'

A statement
is
logically
true
to be false
.

an
argument
is cogent ,
''
A
"
condition
sentence the
premises satisfy
that
impossible for ) the
)
"
is -
tautologies whether
/ false
' ' .

sentences true
( we also
call such
and
only if
it
( unless they
are logically
false if
statement is logically
Similarly
a
-

,
sentence to be true .

that
for
is impossible
CONTINGENCY
true false
logically
or ,
neither

CSL)
is
"
sentence
'

If a ' '

LANGUAGE
counting
"

/
.

call them
we

LOGIC
SENTENTIAL
USING BRACKETS
method of expressing arguments to connect groups
is brackets
Sentential logic
"
'

comprehend
a '

we use
to can
.

easier
sentences
they
are
so more
form
.

three or

symbolic of
,
in a

CARB ) & C

SENTENTIAL
VARIABLES eg
notice that
order of the
brackets

}
*
( do
(A & B) statements
for simple matters : these z

" variables are placeholders C ) not mean the same thing !

sentential capitulate CB
'

A &
sentences ( we often use

declarative
.

this ) INTO SL
for
CONVERTING ENGLISH
-

B
A. but
.

"

' '

but dumb
following
'

He is tall Therefore the

:
eg ,
into SL via
B
'

convert any argument

Therefore :
-

we can ;
premise
.

to each
"
variable
"
He is dumb distinct sentential
① Denote a
form ;
into symbolic
( &)
the connectives
AND ② Convert all
symbols
.

that can these

using
"

d
''

is a
connective
③ Rewrite
the argument
symbol the
" "
The and
has

sentences together ,

link two "

and
' '

.
' ' Eg
as B
meaning A and
' ' .

same as
"
the same
is & :
ARB
'

to
'

ie
equivalent
words logically than math

)
* easier
other
Physics is
.

there are
① E :

fettiersutwhrehsiphond
however
et '

"
but , math
although do
, '

eg ,
m : John can

Physics
)
-

do
( V p John can to which
premises
.

OR
( INCLUSIVE ) principles
:
abstract
between
and S John has a sense
"
also a connective ,
:
world
physical
is
-
' "
V
Similarly ,
"
' ' and the
as or
meaning
.

has the same P)

' ' ④ I . E (M
B
"

either A or
TP
.

"
' '
the same as
ie Av B is rs
.

z .

S
NOT ( ) Ma -
3
.

t .

's
'

Therefore
negation symbol
' '
,

to as a

often referred
"
" "

is
T
as
''
not
' '

4 T E .

meaning
.
.

the same
and has ' '
the case
it is not
"

not A
"
or "

same as that A
the
'' " .

ie A is
>

IMPLIES ( )
"

implication symbol
''

the
,

to as
referred
"
'
' '

is "

meaning as
' '

implies .

the same
and has ' '

B
implies
''
.

as
A
same
B) is the
ie (A
coI
.

the
and Be
*
known the antecedent ,

tt is as
 PROOFS FUNDAMENTAL SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTION OF
to whether
"
also SL prove
-

LOGIC
use
we
CLASSICAL
can =
I
valid or not either
is is
argument sentence
.

an ' '
states that every
FSAOCL
eg
-

'

Format : premise true or

false .

l ARB
numbers
.

all the with

list premises
,

① We
"
beside it
C Premise
''
2
and write premise .

would write
)
J
here we

justification
. -
-

( this is
justifications
our '

rules
.

our
our
use
can
we
here
② From ,
n .
ARC
the conclusion .

to
prove

RULES OF INFERENCE CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA

dilemma
"
States that
ELIMINATION constructive
"

& rule of
'
'

- -
The C
( AVB )
.

that B. C then
states
'

and
'
,
elimination A- C
' '

of & if
"
rule
'

The
B is true .

true and
A is A V B

}
true
assumption
eg
aswsumpti onl
m :
ARB is .

a
would write
ie we n .

-
e
prove
C
- -

n .
ARB - -

this is our
"
A .

& elimination ]/ justification

"

T n ,
A ,
for this step O -

promise
.

aswsuempp!!!
number ' 2 "

}
this is the
premisewe assumption
.

number which B
for
rule p .

applied our .

- . .

B C -

& INTRODUCTION C
"
"
states that q .

dilemma
'

rule of & introduction constructive

The o
p q
-

m n -
,
,

ARB is true .

r . C
A is true and B is true

would write
ie we
REPETITION
A
' '
that
-

states
-

M
repetition simply
"

→
-
:
The rule of
true
premise restate A is -

know A is true we can

numbers if
'

. .
we ,

→
n .
B
introduction
'

m ,n & ie m .
A
ARB
*
note how
the justification
A m repetition
formatted
,
n
is
.
.

MODUS PONENS V - INTRODUCTION "

that
slates
introduction
'
'

that v -

states of
"

The rule
'
'

modus
'

ponens
'

The rule of
B is the AVB is true for any
then
-

then
and A true A is true
if A B is true ,
is ,
if ,

write statement B -

ie we
would
A
B ie m
introduction
'

A ✓ -

m m
AV B
.

n
A
.

N .

modus ponens
ELIMINATION
/
m n
,
B
NEGATION
-
77
DOUBLE
that
PROOF states
CONDITIONAL
"

elimination
' '
"
rule of 77
'

& The
-

SUPPOSITION C> A ) is
also true .

if A is true then -

( PROVING ) ,

want
' ' ''

'

statements involving , we often - n

A
ie n
pwning
- .

when antecedent is true ,

the
assure elimination
that if we m -
.

to m
prove also true .
O .
a ,

is
then the consequent
( EXAMPLE)
) we
( assumption ,

:
when we make a
supposition depend
on it
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
which
2
the lines
and a"
indent it - '
States that
Disjunctive syllogism
-

A is true
proof then
.

true ,
'

in our B is
AVB true and >
result holds if is ,

have showed our

SL :
÷ we this using
'

Then ' once result

3 we can write our we can
prove premise
for the assumption ,

B
wndihd A V
-

I
Premise
'

being and
as *
notice how this step TB
it 2
that rely on
Assumption
.

all the others

y A
Eg -
-

assumption are indented ! 3 .

A
A
3, repetition
m .

. 4 .

this what
-

is we

B write when we
5 Assumption
^
/ have B
-

proved
'

m n
conditional proof conditional result -
6 .

→ A Assumption
B mum
-

,
A-
7- .

B
5, repetition
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM 8 '

n B 2 ,
repetition
"
re " "
proof
"
'

absurdum 9 reductio
reductio ad g
"
:
it A f
.

→
-

A
-

true ,
,

statement was
that if a
something
pwning 10 A elimination
.

( ie proves q, n -

it
to
contradiction
leads a
dilemma
false ) constructive
-

& A z -4, 5- to
.

true 11 1
simultaneously
'

,
must be

assumption
' '

eg A
M .

✓ -

A is true ,
assure
notice if we
true
and
simultaneously
,

B ←
B & - B are

must be false .

/ A
-
-

so

- B L notice the

I format !
M
-
O reductio .

o . 7 A ,
 PROVING INVALIDITY
case
argument
is a

for
"
an
counterexample
'
"
'

A but
are true ,
in which all of its premises
the conclusion is false .

has no
valid iff it
argument is
'

Then , an

counterexamples
-

invalid , we

argument
is
'

show that an
So , to
to it
counterexample
.

need to find a

RECKONING )
"

' '

( AKA DEAD
METHOD &, V,
and - :

characteristic truth table for

note the

AVBT
:
First ,
'

ARI AIB
Be
A- T T
F T
T T F
F
F
T F T
F T
F T T
F T F
F F T

across the
conclusion
list all the premises & "

Then , operator
'
"

' '
the main
under
I
" "

page
.
Write a
" ''
under
the
''
main operator
and a F

of each premise -
, -

of the conclusion .

too )
operator
.

main
''
"
above each
l
( write a

' R' s
l Q R F
eg P Q
T
T

for the operator

.

the truth table

look at that
statements
Subsequently
' "

constituent
"
,

of its
truth values
Find the that it does ,

truth value
it have the
make statements .

these
the truth values for
and fill in
2 1 2
I 2
21 p R
@ R
cont .
P O F F
eg T F T
T T
I
~ is
the same
''
case
"

note since this

*
the same truth
have
the sentence letters
value
invalid !
.

is
until argument
counterexample
: ,
step ~
previous
-

the ( since
Repeat
a

have
been filled ; or
exists ,
truth values
① all the
true & false
simultaneously
.

be valid
\ argument
must
-

is
② something
counterexample
can

( no

exist -
)
Z Z
l
3 2
2 I 3 I
P R
P a Q R
cont 2 F
eg F T F
Typ
.

T T T T

T
true & false !
Q must be simultaneously
exist , proving
counterexample
can
Hence no

the argument
is valid -

2 I 2
2 I 3
3 I 2

'
a PVR
p
eg @ ✓ R
F F F
F F T F
F T
this is a

no
contradictions ,

* since there are

this
hence

counterexample to
the argument ;

argument is invalid
.

are

point where
we
reach a

Note : if we
value to any
to assign any particular have
not forced we

sentence in an argument ,

different
particular and consider
2

"
our reasoning
split
"

to
2 2 are
cases we
: I
notice

y
,
to assign
"
Z l R forced
"

s P ✓ not
a • !
p F F F truth value to Q
Eg T any
F T

case ) :
( and evaluate each
From here , we
split
counterexample
)
Z l 3 3 I 4
2 12 valid
P Q PVR
argument
is
a s (so the
F T T F F F
T T T invalid ) .

2 I 3 2
I 2
3 I 4
P Q • s PVR
F T F F F F
F T Tor F
 PREDICATE LOGIC
system of QUANTIFIERS ( I, V)
predicate logic
is a more
powerful
SL
logic least K
' '
one
'

than .

( Ix ) Px means there is at

"

Px true
for which
TERMINOLOGY
is .

"
' '

Psc is true
for any x
SINGULAR TERM ( the ) Px
.
'

means ,

"
to
"

term
refers
'
" a
A singular
-

1
object DISCOURSE ( UD )
particular OF
'

UNIVERSE what
Dave etc
need to
specify
.

dog
, we
eg my , '
"
when using quantifiers ,

this the
to ; we call
they are referring
PREDICATE "
or UD
discourse
.

"
when
'

:
''

predicate
"

is what results universe of ,

A
"

people
"

\ sentence UD = .

declarative
might say
'
with ie
begin we
a
we
occurrences
( or more )

replace
one
And
blanks SCOPE
by
- "
''

the part
.

term
of one singular '
'
'

The scope of a
quantifier is

quantifier
' '
'
tall
'
is the
"
→ which
formula
.

the
. .

of
.

tall
' '

is
eg Dave
1- to
T
expression applies
-

predicate
declarative
original ( notice the blank) .
is ( the ) PK
sentence ,
) ( they px scope
eg is ( Ise ) Bc .

2) ( I >c) Px v Ox scope
-

term makes a
If particular singular
QUANTIFIERS
a

predicate true ,
we
say
that term satisfies NEGATION OF

that
:
that :

predicate .
Note
( the) Tpx ;
and
① n ( Ix ) Psc (
T

TOOLS OF PL there does

'm
not exist an x for
is
all
not
x
,

true
PK

Pic is true
such that

REPRESENTING PREDICATES ② ncyxypx ⇐ ( Ix) - Px .

T T
blank
"
' '
'

to indicate a Pk Pk is not true for

of that
-

using
:
Instead not true
. . .

it is
1
for at least one value
a"
"
variables : is true for
predicate
in use
a
,
we of × .

italic letters -

in small
particular ,
we use

W etc
eg K 7
.

, y, , ,

italic letter to
capital
'

Similarly ,
we use a

itself and we
stand for the predicate ,

the blank
indicating
.

by the variable
follow it

Az
Ty
-
-

,Ix(
,
,
eg ,

predicate variable

LOGICAL CONNECTIVES
'
'

:
we use all of the same logical connectives
as SL and we have to specify meanings
,
terms we

predicates & singular

for the formal
have to use .

variable
Barb - specify
b :

eg
} specify predicates
is tall
Tx : K →

Cx : x is a cop
'
'

meaning
"

has the same as SL ;

(b Tb ] →
ie if Barb is a
cop ,
then Barb is tall .
 REASONING INFERENCE RULES FOR PL
CATEGORICAL
EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN 7- AND f
UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIONS
claim of of
justifications
"

is a
the
:
affirmation
''
- -

An universal we can use

TCVK) L ]
"

that is is also to
-
- i
and
]
'

form equivalent
'

[
-

the
- -

① )
- . -

every
-

( > . .

x
.
. . .

}
everything ② to ( Tx) TE ]
VD
[ ] equivalent
'

( Ix )
'

eg
-
=
>
. .
.

definitions and
Y '

rose between 7-
switch
proofs
Rx is a
: ×
in our to
smells sweet

GENERALISATION
Sx : x

for any thing

Sx )
→
ie ,

EXISTENTIAL States
( the ) ( Rx if it is
"
a rose
simply
generalisation
,
"

sweet existential
it is also :
The rule of
-

exists an x for
then there
DENIALS / NEGATIVES if Pd is true ,
UNIVERSAL
true
' '
claim of the which Px is .

universal denial
' '

is
'

a
An "

is not ! Pd
generalisation
- - -

that n
"
is ie
existential
'

form
- -
-

every . . .
n ,

( Ix) Px
everything
INSTANTIATION
UD =

eg
rose UNIVERSAL
is
stakes
a
Rx :
x
to
equivalent simply
' '

* this is universal instantiation

note
''

bad
of
'

:
smells The rule
Bx : x
true
! Pd is

) BK )
.

Rx & then
( x )( Px true for all ×
if
'
> is
Bx)
( tx ) ( Rx n

Ctx ) Px
ie n

AFFIRMATIONS
.

universal instantiation
PARTICULAR
n
pd ,

the
"
is a claim of
particular affirmation
'

' "
"
A and
that
.
.
. .

such

INVALIDITY
. .
.

least
"
one
at
form there is
. .
.

SHOWING
}
every
third
V D= invalid '
eg PL is
definitions .

,
To show an
argument
in
' '

x is a cougar "

counterexample
Cx : with a

white ie there exists an x we need to come up

x is that
Wx : such
Wx)
y for which ↳ and with an VD and predicates is false
& conclusion
.

( c,
.

( Wx both true and the

are
the
are would be
.

the
premises A counterexample
Bx )
PARTICULAR NEGATIVES eg
i .
Ctx ) Cmx up =
integers
odd
Mx is
Bx )
: x
"

is claim of the
( Ix) ( Kx
particular negative
a
i. i. "" 2 Kx : × is even
A
.

Such that but It - ' '

-
number
least a
'

is
'
' '
'

one
.

at Bx ×
Therefore
:
there is
.

form
. .

& Mx)
( Ix ) (
Kx .

}
U D= animals 3 .

eg
Dx : x is a dog definitions
is brown
Bsc : x
there exists x
ie an

Bx )
→ for which Dx is true ,
( Ix ) ( Dx & n

Bsc
but
not .

THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

'
'

is method of
opposition
' ' a
"
The square of
of statements in
visual ising the 4 types

categorical logic .

E
A universal denials
universal affirmations nyx)
Yx) Ctx ) ( Xx
( the > ( Xx
r
TCI >c) ( Xx & Yx)

:¥nIE%w
or

Eeg:D :*:#
lives of

L O
denials
particular affirmations particular
YK) 7C -Vx)( Xx Xx )
( Ix ) ( Xx &
or ( I >c) ( Xx & Tbc)

CONTRARIES if they
are
contraries
statements
'

Two
'

same
time ,
at the
be true
cannot time .

at the same
but can
be false ''
not
" all men are
bald and
' '
are "

all men bald

eg .

statement the form of

'' '

is in A
Note that if ;
a

then
''
' '
E
and another is in the
form of ,

other
contraries of each .

they are

SUB - CONTRARIES
'

are sub - contraries if they

statements
'

Two
time , but cannot
true at the same
can be

both be false .

"

' '
is handsome and bald
at least one man
eg "

' '
is handsome and not bald .

and at least one man

"
' '
I
the form of
if statement is of
Similarly
a
,

they
' '
"
O then
and another is of the form of ,

are sub - contraries .

would be
*
if
"

x
"
exist ( which means they
exception : no
-
contraries instead . )
 Chapter 5:
Induction and Scientific Reasoning
CORRELATIONS
that
SAMPLES
"
is claim
correlation any
"

A
asserts that there exists a
specific
numerical relationship between two -
"
.

A
' '

sample
"
is a smaller , manageable
that
( or more ) variables .

version of a larger group

'
'
married more likely than unmarried men
the same
characteristics
eg men are
( contains
70
' ' in theory )
to live
past age
.

its
parent population
.

as

TERMINOLOGY TRIAL
select
POPULATION
a
-
:
"

trial
"
is when we
A
and
For correlation , the member of the population
any given
"
the group among add it to our
sample .

population
"
is

correlation exists
RANDOMNESS
.

which the

VARIABLE t VALUE is
"
random
"
if every
A sample has an

property member of the population

general
'
' ' "

A variable is a
selected on

population equal chance of being

which all members of the

have each trial

must
.

because it
'

variable must have Randomness is desirable

Moreover , each
about
"
to draw conclusions
values
' '
allows us
at least two different .

with fair degree

marital status
the
population a

variable :

eg unmarried of confidence .

married
.

Values : of

'

the values of the variables FREQUENCY

Additionally ,

value of
of
' '
" '
a
both
'

frequency
-

must be .
The
to be
① exclusive ; & a variable is defined
members of the POPE of the value
.
ie no 2 # of observations
-
than value
freq = i

have more one

# of trials

② exhaustive .

.
ie every
member of the Pope
has
SIZE OF SAMPLES
for each variable " better than smaller samples
value
.

are

Larger samples
one '

population
'

about the
make inferences
PROPORTION because we can

if the sample
of error
margin
"

proportion
' '

the smaller
:
for a
given property ,
with a

population
with said property is
large
of the
.

the formula ERROR

is
given by MARGIN OF
# of members in
popa with the property "

of a sample
of
''

proportion
'
= - error
# of members in pop ?
The margin
time ,
.

is such that 951 .

of the
*
proportions often expressed
as
percentages
property
are
.

in a

the distribution of a

the
SUBPOPULATION popa will be in the range
of

part margin of
"
is of the error
subpopulation
'
' '
:
A a
± the
observed frequency
original population
which takes some

error for various sample

of
'

of the Common
particular value of one
margins
sizes :
variables -

trials ( 251 .

the
subpopulation of married men .
-
25
eg 101
trials (

CORRELATED
.

e 100

POSITIVELY 2
•
500 trials ( =) 51 .

X & A of l
'

: that two values zooo trials C 2

-

we
.

say
"

correlated
positively l
"

2=7 l -

are toooo trials .

variables
.

different with X
of the subpopulation
when the proportion STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
than the proportion of
greater
"

A is
that has -

that has A ;
:
"

A correlation is
''

statistically significant
without X variable
subpopulation value of
"

the of
a
'

each
'

if the ranges
)
"E
Pcxtx I a=A ) frequency ± margin of
error

a=A ) > ( observed

.

ie
PCx=X I another
T
-

with one
" do net overlap
with K
-
X
prop of pope w/o x=X
of popa
- .

prop
.

= A
has
.

A which also
which also has a >

NEGATIVELY CORRELATED
A of 2
'
X &
'

values
Similarly ,
two
correlated
"

negatively
"

different variables
are

A)
Pcxtxl a-
if p(x=x1a=A ) C
.

UNCORRELATED
"
values X & A of 2 different
-

Lastly ,
two
if
"
"

Variables are uncorrelated

A)
A) Pcxtx I a- .

PCx=X I
=
a-
 COMMON STATISTICAL ARGUMENTS
CLAIMS
SIMPLE STATISTICAL BIAS
"
statistical claims are
arguments ' '

sample is a sample
simple biased
"

; A
obviously
of the form that demonstrably and

S
property P was observed
the population
'

1 .
In sample ,
misrepresents
the
with
frequency f .

will make
A biased sample applicable
S is ( probably ) representative from
it not
drawn
Z -

Sample conclusions
and hence

general population
W
of population .

to the
,

them
will

Therefore , )
any argument referencing
P W is ( probably
3 . The proportion of in
be vna .

f- IME SAMPLING
STRATIFIED
.

CORRELATIONS sample
"
is
ABOUT
" a

CLAIMS stratified sample

' ''

selected in such
way
that significant
arguments
'
a
correlations are
'

Claims about
characteristics within the population
of the form
of P are ( approximately ) proportionally represented
S, the observed frequency
I . In sample within it
non Xs .

whilst
-

among
Xs is f, among

it is g
.

of
Z sample S is (
probably ) representative
w
population
.

Therefore ,
[ tvelyl rely / not ] correlated
(
probably)
-

3 .
P is
w
being
X in
population
.

with an

CAUSAL CLAIMS FACTORS

" assertion CAUSAL
claim is any P'
causal
'

A
relationship
'

For
given
effect
E of a
Population *
might
that there exists a
"
any
C
"

for E is
note :
any given effect
factors !
a

such that one a causal factor causal

two events to have than one
between
the other characteristic of P which is thought
-
more
-

is the effect of .

whether member of P
directly influence a

ie a claim of the type

would happen ' E not
"

happened
then
y has or
.

if × ,
"

etat
"

positive
'

being E
'

effect
.

other is
'

all
things C of an

g factor
-

A causa ,

the chances that a member

if having
C ns
E ;
of the
population has
cancer
lung
.

causes
Eg smoking mum
" "

'

causal factor C of an effect E is

negative
Similarly ,
a
member
the chances that a

if having C decineases
has E ;
of the
population
prevents pregnancies .

eg contraceptives

EVIDENCE FOR CAUSAL CLAIMS

OF CAUSAL FACTORS
METHOD
STRENGTH
. . " causal
of
..
''

strength
a
C
'
want to test whether one
thing -
.

we can determine
the

; suppose we
' ' "
between
P
population distances
" "

E relative
else in
by
.

the
factor
a
causes something
diet intervals
( =
high fat the confidence )
eg
margin of
error
±
E = breast cancer
( ie the observed frequency
E and
X that had
women of
p
proportion
=
of
-

the
2 samples of P E
had
to produce of K that
proportion
Then we want the
-

, between

such that the onlyrelevantfce the the distance,

the
stronger the

that
*
larger
the samples is
the first
' '

teal
x
''

causal factor -

members of
① all the
C and
group X have ;
COULD GO WRONG
THINGS THAT
" "
=
the second ¥
members of that such
② all the .
:
There are several potential flaws
have C
tf
-

do not have
group experiment might
:
an
be representative
statistically significant ① × and/or K might not
if
'

Then there is a
,
K at large ;
the proportions of X and
of the population
difference in
be other relevant differences
C
that ② there might
that have E
,
it suggests K besides
whether they
E between X and
causal factor for
.

is a

have C or not ; or

not be

③ the observed difference might

significant
-

statistically
 DIFFERENT SORTS OF EXPERIMENTS
RANDOMISED
experimental design
'
'

In a randomised ,

randomly selected from

X and K are

P
population
.

the
"
X and
imposed
"
on
C
'

Then is
,

"
' '
K
prevented in .

PROSPECTIVE
select X
In prospective experiments ,
we

from the
proportion of the
population
the
that has C and K from
,
=
without C
population
.

the
proportion of

potential flaws :

{
be random
.

not
might
,

① Sampling
be other relevant
② There might
most members of a

factors that
do
not ;
and the other
share
group
as random

So , to make the sampling ' "

approximate
'

to
might try
as possible ,
we

would
we
selection ; ie
the random ' '

variables
for
'

control
' .

to
attempt
RETROSPECTIVE
the X group
'

In a retrospective study ,

is selected from the

population
who has
E ,

who do not have E

population
.

and K from the

of each of
'

Then we see the proportion

,

that have C .

these
groups then
have C we
X ,

If more people from

C is a causal factor
evidence that
have

for E
*
.
' '

factors
"

to ensure
that all other again ,
we need
* we need
the same ; to control our

X and K are
between
between them is variables .

ie that the only difference not

another does
.

and the
that one
has E,

*
note : randomised studies are
the
slyest ,

and then
followed by prospective ,

retrospective .

EVALUATING CAUSAL HYPOTHESES

'

study which attempts to

when evaluating any
causal relationship go through
establish
,
a

these steps :

① Find the key parts of

the
study ;
X K P and the
ie C E ,
, , ,
,

experimental design
.

randomised
② If the study was :

conducted
i) was the experiment
on non -
human animals ?

needed
'
a
further argument is

be drawn
before conclusions can

for X & K
ii ) was the sampling process
randomised ?
sufficiently
C into
iii ) the for introducing
did process
create relevant
X but not k other
?
differences between the
groups

③ If the
study was
prospective or
retrospective :

other relevant variables

i) there
were any
the results
that might explain away
?
observed in the study

such variables controlled for ?

ii ) were
 SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
OPERATIONALISATION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
in which
MANIPULATION
the process
"
"
" is
Operational isation
'

a n# everyday
concept is
RESEARCH
"

by BY
a

DEFINITION
' '
" "

to and measured
compared PERSUASIVE
analogue
precise OPERATIONALISATION
-

mee and

operational
see
if
-

arise
typically
"
"

intelligence is
persuasive definition can
'

:
A
eg test term is used
IQ .

rationalisation of a

of
by ope
an an
scores
claim about
make
misleading ( false
term to a

However the operational ised

,
" ' '

the term itself .

the full story

not reflect
might OF FACTS
term
which can
CAREFUL SELECTION
of the
original ,

be
conclusions fact
"

might
'
' '

misleading
'

s
to instances a
.

lead In other ,

one factor another less flattering fact .

hiding
measures
eg
IQ
only
OF
"
of intelligence
"

A LIFE
.

FACTS MAY ACQUIRE

SOCIAL SCIENCE IS NOT

""
THEIR OWN
with noevidne ,
or has
""
' "
Sometimes fact
THE FACTS
. a
,
life
JUST ABOUT acquire
a

debunked might
already been ,

be popularised
and spread .

FUNDING
AGENCIES of its own ; ie

values AIDS
reflect
might measles vaccine gives
.

studied the
The issue
for
the eg
held
by agencies responsible
funding of
the study .

be
methods might
'

Hence ,
the study
these values .

altered to reflect
-

be economic
*
the interests might
political
or .

PERSONAL VALUES
' " a scientist might
In some instances ,
lead them
values that
have personal
to either or
a special way ;
an issue
i) define
others
certain facts and riot .

ii ) look for

ethical views
scientist 's
eg a

''
""

THEORETICAL COMMITMENTS
have
'
'

Sometimes a scientist might made

might
,

that
' '

' '
theoretical commitments
certain
what facts are

shape their view of

the interpretation
" ''
and then warp
significant ,

of said facts .

" "

scientist has a
certain perspective
eg if a

their
research .

throughout

PROBLEMS WITH QUESTIONNAIRES,

POLLS & INTERVIEWS
NOT PROPERLY FRAMED
QUESTIONS ARE
'
'

Conclusions drawn from a

questionnairepoly interview
not
unreliable if the
questions are

might be
properly framed
.

ambiguous
.

are

eg if the questions

FRAMED TO ELICIT
QUESTIONS ARE

A CERTAIN RESPONSE
be
"
'

In other instances, the questions might

certain response
.

written to invoke a

emotional language
order of questions .

eg
,
 Chapter 6:
Other Types of Arguments
ARGUMENTS BY ANALOGY
STRUCTURE INDUCTIVE ANALOGY
argument by analogy form of
'

In
special
, "
an

analogy is a
''
inductive
'

at An
there are two main subjects ,
where the analogue
play : an
argument by analogy revolves
and
life
"
ie real
subject ;
something in
'' ,
① The primary is
between the
concerned similarities
the subject we are
around the factual
and
argument : and subject
.

the
with in

atom
analogue primary
the structure of an
certain substances
eg effects of
" "
ie a
subject eg relating the
the effects
② The analogue ;
on animals ( eg mice ) to
than
that is better known ( understood substances on humans .

which we use of these

the
primary subject ,
be
analogy may
'

to inductive
subject that
-

to
compare
the primary Note an

does not
"
ie it
faulty
''
"
is ;
if it
solar system flawed
" .

mini
eg by
a

"
match
"
the structure of an argument
'

the basic structure of

Then ,

these
arguments
is as follows :

analogy .

has features
The analogue
ANALOGY
I

CONSISTENCY
-

X Xn i
, , Xz ,
. . .

also has i
analogy
"

is another special
primarysubject
'
'

2 . The A consistency
where
features X
, ,
Xz , - ' '

i
Xni
form of an
argument by analogy
similarities between
also has feature 7 : lists the
3 The analogue the
arguer and
analogue
.

and the ,

I .
The features X, ,
Xz ,
. . .

,
Xn are relevant
the primary subject that
these
to claim
able to infer that the analogue said similarities
being
to uses with
alike
regarded
as
also be be
should
subject Z
can
and the primary cases
characteristic
to Z to be inferred
with respect to the -

respect
-

,
to be similar )
expected Z -

has
that
show
we
the analogue
and
they are sufficient
to
( and so
suggests
than me !
it of pie
expect bigger piece
'
"
can he
eg got a
" "

too
Therefore I'm .

son ,
That's not fair your
, -

5 The
primary subject is also likelytoho.ve# conclusion : parent ought
to
give
.

→ unstated
to all of their
feature
Z .

an
equal piece of pie

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY children

AN
.

WHY
INVALID
'

flaws with consistency arguments :

MIGHT BE Potential

AND PRIMARY SUBJECT ① Faulty analogy

ANALOGUE the structure of an

COMMON FEATURES ie does not follow

SHARE
-

DO NOT
by analogy
by analogy might fail if argument
argument
'

An
not fallacy
'
' "
do
the analogue
and
primary subject ② Two wrongs
with one
another .

we treat the analogue

share common features .
the
arguer presumes
by inconsistently
primary subject
occur is and
this might
'

One
way
equivocation ③ fallacy
"
"

slippery precedent
.

"
is like a loadedpistol lines of
spouse the
eg my "

says
something along
arguer
•

when she's drunk .

because their
this
X for person
" ,
do

THERE ARE RELEVANT DIFFERENCES I should

but if I do it will set a

claim is justified ,

THE PRIMARY SUBJECT

precedent that others without justified
BETWEEN so
many
down
door expecting me

claims will be
pounding my
AND ANALOGUE do X too !
"

to
also fail they
are
by analogy might differently
'

:
argument two cases
-

An
,
treat
between
•

fallacy
:
if you
differences is no
relevant and so there
if there dissimilar ,
relevantly
are
that
subject
and analogue treat them
similarly
primary obligation to
.

the
take into
to
the
has failed
arguer
account .

BETWEEN THE
THE SIMILARITIES
ANALOGUE ARE
PRIMARY SUBJECT &
GROUNDS
IRRELEVANT / NOT SUFFICIENT
HAS Z
TO SUSPECT THE PRIMARY SUBJECT
might fail
'
'

'

Another reason an
argument by analogy
listed similarities between the primary
is if the
irrelevant do not
analogue
are or
the
subject
,
and

provide sufficient evidence that the

primary subject
that the has
characteristic analogue
.

has another
 CONDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
argument
' '

argument
" " is an

A conductive
,
" ' '
ie
are convergent ;
whose premises conclusion
the
evidence for
they give
premisescounter considerations
inHg f
' -

y
On Om
② ③ ③ co
- .

Oa
-

*
THEY conclusion
the the
premises
all
imply
themselves !
by -

'

Note that often a

conductive argument
counter considerations -

will include many we can

conclusion ; however ,
towards the
to show the

always
construct our
argument
' '
"
the

pro
- considerations outweighs
counter -
considerations .

CONDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
A
EVALUATING
use
steps ( strategies
we can
' " the
Here are

conductive
when analysing and evaluating

arguments .

by itself
out whether
each premise , ,

① Work
to the
and relevant
is acceptable
argument .

ensure
each premise
want to
② We also
conclusion
.

the
Suppoits each
to make sure
want
③ Similarly ,
we
and
counter -
consideration
is acceptable
evidence
relevant , as well as
provides
the conclusion
against
.

"

good
"

out all the

④ After we
have filtered
need to
the bad , we now

points from reasons

proposed good
" "
the remaining
weigh the counter considerations
.

for the conclusion against

do this :
to
several ways
⑤ There are ' '
"

be decisive ;
considerations might
i) some
the other points signify .

ie they outweigh side

conclude the
we can
In this case , "
"
wins the
decisive considerations
with these
are done .

and we

argument ,

in terms
the considerations
also order
ii ) we could us

and this might help

of pn¥ght ,

in
analysis
.

our

that there
must also consider
iii ) Additionally ,
we
that the
relevant considerations
be other
may about that might
has not thought
arguer considerations significantly .

the balance of
change