1

Critical Thinking PHIL 201 Notes

Chapter 1- Deductive Argument
DEFINITIONS
 Antecedent: The first factor, upon which the second factor depends; the thing to which the "if" is
attached.
 Assert: To present some claim as if it were true
 Assertions: Telling each others facts as we see them (Doesn’t include “why”)
 Arguments: Presentation of reasons
 Premises: Provide rational support
 Conclusion: argument is premises given in support of conclusion
 Conjunctive statement (Conjunction): A sentence with two or more statements (conjuncts) that are
joined by conjunctions such as "and" or "but."
 Consequent: The factor that will result, depending on what happens with the antecedent; the thing to
which the "then" is attached.
 Denying the antecedent: An invalid argument in the form " If P then Q (premise 1). It is not the case that
P (premise 2). Therefore, it is not the case that Q (conclusion)." This invalid form is easily confused
with the valid form Modus Tollens.
 Disjunctive Statement: A sentence in which the composite statements are presented as alternatives. The
word "or" can be used either inclusively (one or both of the statements is true) or exclusively (only one
of the statements can be true).
 Disjunctive syllogism: The valid argument form that goes "Either P or Q (premise 1). Not Q (premise 2).
Therefore, P (conclusion)."
 Inference: The thinking process through which premises lead us to conclusions
 Soundness: A quality that an argument possesses when it is valid and when it does, in fact, have
premises that are all true.
 Validity: When an argument meets the structural requirement that the conclusion is absolutely certain to
be true provided all of the premises are true.
NOTES
 Two ways of approach the study of arguments and arguing;
1. Argumentation is a rational practice: we aim to show the reasonableness of an assertion. Can be means
of explanation or education (EFFECTIVE)
2. Arguments are linguistic or logical objects: A good argument is defined as sound. It means that it is
valid and all the premises are true. (DOESN’T MATTER IF ANYONE BELIEVES IT)
 Logic is not a universal received system of rules
 2
 “Laws of Thought” by Aristotle- Classical Logic
1. Law if identity: P if and only if P
2. Law of Non-contradiction: Not both P and not P
3. Law of Excluded Middle: P or not P
 Fallacious Argument: An argument that is not well-founded; the flaws in this sort of argument may not
seem immediately obvious, but careful reasoning will reveal the fallacies.
 Explanations: Distinguishable from arguments in that they involve calling on related facts to clarify or
fortify a claim being made, as opposed to making the claim on the basis of a set of premises.
 Valid Argument Forms
 Conditional reasoning: If P then Q
 Hypothetical Syllogism: If P, then Q (premise 1). If Q, then R (premise 2). Therefore, if P, then R
(conclusion).
 Disjunctive Syllogism: Either P or Q (premise 1). Not Q (premise 2). Therefore, P (conclusion).
 Method of Counter-example (To check validity): An approach that can be used to test an argument for
invalidity. If you are able to come up with a situation in which the premises of the argument would be
true, yet the conclusion would be false, then you determine that the argument is not valid.
 Simplification: P and Q Therefore P
 Conjunction: P, Q therefore P and Q
 Addition: P therefore P or Q
 Constructive Dilemma: P or Q, If P then R, If Q then S. Therefore R and S
 Destructive Dilemma: If P then R, If Q then S, Not R or Not S. Therefore Not P or not Q
 Sequential Arguments: A more complex argument in which premises lead to intermediate conclusions in
the process of arriving at a further, primary conclusion.
 Conditional statements: a statement in the for of “ If P then Q” is true unless P is true but Q is false
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 Can an invalid argument be sound? If an argument is unsound, does that mean it must be invalid?
Answer: An invalid argument cannot be sound. Two conditions of a sound argument are: 1. It is valid 2. All the
premises are true. An unsound argument does not mean it must be invalid. An argument can both be valid and
unsound. The argument's validity depends on the possibility that all the premises are true, but the conclusion is
false.
 Is being a mammal necessary for being a cat? Is it sufficient? Answer these two questions, and
then explain necessity and sufficiency using this cat/mammal example.
Answer: Being a mammal is necessary for being a cat, it is however not sufficient. All cats are mammals.
Therefore, since necessary conditions means that certain aspects can't be true without the condition to be
 3
satisfied, it is then necessary to be a mammal if one is a cat. On the other hand, it is not a sufficient condition
for being a cat. Meaning, many other animals are mammals (such as dogs, rabbits etc) and not specific to the
cat.
 Explain the difference between an assertion and an argument, and provide an example of each.
Which of these is more likely to be convincing, and why? 
Answer: An assertion is when one declares an opinion or belief, either with a positive or negative connotation,
and does not give any supporting evidence. Example of Assertion: I have put my every effort to complete this
quiz" An argument is the piece of reasoning given to justify the assertion and rationalize it. Example of
Argument: I studied every night from 5-11pm. I have put my every effort to complete this quiz. The argument is
more convincing since it displays what the efforts were and displays them for the listener to acknowledge.
 What are two basic differences between a disjunctive statement and a conjunctive statement? 
Answer: Disjunctive statement is a sentence that the composition of the statements are presented as alternative
using "or" to connect them. If there is at least on true sentence then the entire sentence is true. Conjunctive
statement is a sentence that has 2 or more conjuncts\statements and are joined by words such as "and" and\or
"but". All the conjuncts MUST be true at the same time for the conjunctive statement to be true.
 A ‘Hypothetical Syllogism’ is a valid argument and it is structured like this:If P then Q.
If Q then R.Therefore, If P then R.Provide an example (different from those given in the textbook
and the course material) of a hypothetical syllogism that has a true conclusion.
Answer: 1. If I do not wake up, then I cannot do the exam. 2. If cannot do the exam, then I will fail. 3.
Therefore, if i do not wake up, then I will fail.
 4
Chapter 2- Evidence Adds Up
DEFINITIONS
 Ampliative argument: An argument in which the conclusions go beyond what is expressed in the
premises. This type of argument may be cogent even if it is unsound.
 Analogy: Finding relevant similarities between a familiar, undisputed case and another case that is being
argued; drawing useful parallels between the two cases.
 Cogency: This is a quality of arguments that is less technical than validity and soundness, but which
entails that the reasoning put forward makes sense and seems to support the conclusion
 Defeasibility: The quality of ampliative reasoning that leaves it open to amendment. Even if inductive
arguments are cogent (solid), they are still defeasible, meaning they may have to be revised or rejected if
new information comes to light that doesn’t support the conclusions.
 Inductive argument: Drawing upon what is known about observed cases to make conjectures about
unobserved cases, when similar premises seem to apply; taking what is known about specific cases in
order to come up with general conclusions.
 Mill’s method: Five methods developed by John Stuart Mill to explore the various levels of causation
and correlation: method of agreement; method of difference; joint method of agreement and difference;
method of concomitant variations; method of residues.
NOTES
 An argument is cogent just in case it makes its conclusion rationally credible – rationally believable.
 Logical Fallacies: An argument that is structurally invalid because its premises do not suffice to
logically determine the truth of its conclusion; error in reasoning; faulty argumentation.
 Deductive argument: A process of reasoning (syllogism) in which conclusions, or particular truths, are
inferred from premises or accepted general truths; you are thinking deductively when you follow clues
that lead you to a logical conclusion.
 Inductive reasoning: Drawing upon what is known about observed cases to make conjectures about
unobserved cases, when similar premises seem to apply; taking what is known about specific cases in
order to come up with general conclusions.
 Enumerative argument: Taking a pattern that seems to emerge in x number of observed cases, and
carrying it forward to make inferences about subsequent unobserved cases. (rose 1,2,3 are red…
therefore all roses are red) (Obeserved to unobserved , therefore even if the premises are true, the
conclusions is not)
 Differences between Deductive and Inductive arguments
1. Deductive arguments: Satisfy the definition of validity. Do not become more valid\sound by degrees. If
sound, remain sound no matter what other premises might be added
 5
2. Inductive arguments: strictly deductively invalid, being Ampliative. Lend only a degree of support to
their conclusion: the degree can vary. Are sensitive to subsequent information that may be added
 Ampliative reasoning is DEFEASABLE
 Abductive reasoning: Pulling together facts, making sense of them and arriving at conclusions based on
what they seem to suggest as a set.
 Context of discovery: The situation in which the formulation of the hypothesis happens, whether
through intent or by accident.
 Context of justification: Where the evidence that lends support to the hypothesis is taken into
consideration.
 It is important to separate the question of where the idea for a claim came from and what the evidence
for it is.
 For example:
 If a scientist had the original idea for a theory after taking drugs and being told the outlines of the theory
by a hallucination of a floating dolphin, this affects only the context of discovery.
 It does not affect the justification for the theory.
 What evidence there is for or against an idea is independent of the origin of the idea.
 Causal Reasoning: Having to do with cause and effect relationships; consideration of how one thing
leads to another, or results from another.
 Mill’s methods:

If there is only one factor F in common between two situations in which

Method of agreement:
effect E is observed, then it is reasonable to believe thatF causes E.

If E is observed in situation S1, but not in S2, and the only relevant
Method of difference: difference between them is that S1 has factor F and S2does not, then it is
reasonable to believe that F causes E.

Joint method of agreement If in a range of situations E is observed when and only when F is present,
and disagreement: then it is reasonable to believe that F causes E.

If the degree to which E is observed is proportional to the amount

of F present, then it is reasonable to conclude that F is causally related
Method of co-variation:
to E. (We cannot be sure is F causes E, E causes F or there is a common
cause for both of them.)

Methods of residues (this If we know that G causes D (but not E), and in all cases where we
applies to cases where we see G and F we see both E and D, then we can conclude that F likely
 6
cannot isolate F all on its
causes E.
own):

 Defeasibility: believing the proposition P is true then it means that not-P is false
 Proving a negative: It is often said that you cannot prove a negative. There is really no good reason for
this.
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 Give an example of an abductive inference for some claim (this should be significantly different from
any examples used in class). What further information might strengthen the argument? What further
information might undermine it? 
Answer 1. I hear a toddler crying 2. I smell something nasty 3. Therefore I conclude I must change his diaper.
Information to strengthen the argument: The Toddler is continuously touching his diaper. Information that
might undermine it: the night pacifier is on the floor.
 7

Chapter 3- Language, Non-Language and Argument

DEFINTIONS:
 Burden of proof: When the audience is obliged to look for evidence against a claim rather than the
speaker providing evidence in its favour.
 Enthymemes: Arguments that are technically invalid because they have premises that are implied but not
explicitly stated.
 False presuppositions: Implicit propositions that are granted or assumed to be true, but which are
actually false.
 Lexical ambiguity: When a word or expression has more than one meaning or interpretation.
 Misquote: Saying that someone said something when they didn’t.
 Naturalistic Fallacy: Making references to alleged facts about nature when a moral question is under
discussion. This is misleading because it gives the false impression that there are good naturalistic
grounds backing whatever moral conclusion is proposed.
 Polysemy: Ambiguity between related meanings of an expression.
 Universal quantifiers: "All", "every" and "each."
 Rhetoric: The study and use of effective communication, including cogent argumentation; the technique
of using words to achieve a calculated emotional effect.
 Sorites reasoning: Characterized by a lack of sharp boundaries; admitting cases that are neither one thing
nor the other.
 Weasel Words: A vague word that can be inserted into a claim to make it easier to escape from if it is
challenged; words such as "quite", "some" and "perhaps."
NOTES
 Speech acts:
1. Imperative mood: take out the trash
2. Interrogative mood: did you take out the trash?
3. Indicative mood: You took out the trash
 Rhetorical questions: the effect of putting the premise in the form of a question is to oblige the audience
to look for evidence against the claim, rather than the speaker providing evidence in its favour.
 Implicit: not written out but implied
 Conversational implicature: Indirect ways of expressing premises or conclusions in conversation; when
the meaning of what we say goes beyond the literal sense of the words we use.
 Presuppositions: A proposition that may not be explicit in some statement but which must be granted if
the statement is to be meaningful or felicitous.
 8
 Rhetoric: the study and use of effective communication, including cogent argumentation.
 Rhetoric is distinguished from strict considerations of truth, accuracy, validity, and soundness.
 Ways of speaking or writing intended to persuade independently of the strength of the speaker’s
argurment
 Rhetorical devices:
 “ but” similar to “and”
 Rhetoric can be a matter of choosing between words that would loosely be regarded as synonyms.
 Formal language “mom” vs “mother”
 Insertion of a word not necessary from a truth-conditional perspective but that imposes an attitude or
presupposition nonetheless
 “interjections” “expletive” terms are profanities or insults (negative attitude)
 Vocal emphasis suggests and insinuates what important in the sentence
 Qualifiers: “fairly” “greatly”
 Quantifiers: “many” “full size” “most” “plenty” “lots”
 Weasel words: words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading “ helps” “better”
“almost all”
 Vagueness: imprecision, usually raised by weasel words
 Sorites reasoning: A man with 1 hair on his head is bald. If a man with 1 hair on his head is bald, a man
with 2 hairs on his head is bald. If a man with 2 hairs on his head is bald, a man with 3 hairs on his head
is bald. C. A man with 100,000 hairs on his head is bald.
 Homonomy vs. Polysemy
 If lexical ambiguity involves two meanings that are not closely related, it is called homonomy.
 When the two meanings are closely related, it is known as polysemy. Polysemous uses can often set
up equivocations.
 An equivocation is a fallacy, which plays on an ambiguity.
 Ambiguity: Imprecise statement or indeterminate
 Syntactic ambiguity: a sentence has a structure that can be read in more than one way
 Lexical ambiguity: multiple meanings for a single expression
 Direct quotation: using actual quotation marks, letting the quoted person speak for herself
 Indirect quotation: Gist of someone’s utterance is presented. it can be made sensitive to an utterance.
(EX: indirect quote to mike’s sister: Larry said your brother is a good guy. EX: indirect quote from
someone who dislikes mike: Larry said that the biggest idiot in town is a good guy)
 9
 Misquotes: misrepresentative form of direct quotation
 Misattribution: one speaker’s words are attributed to another
 Enthymeme: an argument having implicit premises. Best reserved for cases in which the implicit
premises of an argument are particularly significant (implausible or invalid)
 When trying to recognize an actual argument in practice, it helps to be able to identify premises and
conclusions. These are not meant to be exhaustive lists. 

Premise indicators: For, since, because

Conclusion indicators: Therefore, so, thus, hence, clearly, it follows that

 Types of reasoning\arguments
 Moral arguments: Fallacies (ch.4)
 Comparative and individual reasoning
 Individual reasoning: The process used in situations that call for the singular evaluation of a single thing
or case.
 Comparative reasoning: The process used in situations calling for the comparison between two things
 Decision theory: the formal study of how to weigh competing choices in the most rational way
 Visual argument: communicating with pictures
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 Explain what a weasel word is and give an example of a sentence that uses such a word. Why would
someone use a weasel word intentionally in an argument? 
Answer: A weasel word is a word that is vague and ambiguous such as "quite" and "perhaps". Example: He was
running quite fast. Someone could intentionally use a weasel word to limit of restrict some claim. It would be
used to avoid making outright assertions that could be useful to get out of a confrontation.
 What is the difference between vagueness and ambiguity? 
Answer: Vagueness is a lack of precision in a statement. Such as; what time is the exam? It is early. Ambiguity
is an imprecise statement or word that could be interpreted in more than one way. This includes Syntatic
ambiguity, which is how a sentence can be read differently (ex: i fed her cat food), and Lexical ambiguity,
which is different meaning from the same word (ex: match)
 Evaluate this argument. In order to do so, identify the fallacy in the passage, and explain why the
argument succeeds or fails.
Evolutionary biology shows that long ago women were gatherers and men were hunters. The women
would stay behind, gather food, and tend to the households and children. While men would travel outside
of the village and go hunting for animals before returning home. This shows us that it is natural for
 10
women to stay at home, tend to the household and raise children, while men ought to go out into the
world in order to make a living and bring food home for his family. 
Answer: The fallacy in the passage is of naturalistic fallacy since the speaker is stating facts about "evolutionary
biology" which relates to nature and how it directly impacts the moral question of men and women in public\
private spheres. This entire argument fails since it misleads the listener as it gives a false impression of what is
considered a "good naturalistic ground" in comparison to the moral conclusion proposed. By making the past as
close to the natural way of things then it justifies the point of view that deals with moral questions.
 11

Chapter 4- Fallacies
DEFINTIONS
 Ad hominem: Choosing to attack the person making the argument rather than addressing the points
raised in the argument itself.
 Affirming the consequent: An invalid argument in the form "If P then Q (premise 1). Q is true (premise
2). Therefore, P is true (conclusion). This invalid form is often confused with the valid form modus
ponens.
 Defeasibility: The quality of ampliative reasoning that leaves it open to amendment. Even if inductive
arguments are cogent (solid), they are still defeasible, meaning they may have to be revised or rejected if
new information comes to light that doesn’t support the conclusions.
 Denying the antecedent: An invalid argument in the form " If P then Q (premise 1). It is not the case that
P (premise 2). Therefore, it is not the case that Q (conclusion)." This invalid form is easily confused
with the valid form Modus Tollens.
 Equivocation: A fallacy that involves changing the definition of terms in different premises or
conclusions of a single argument.
 Evidential fallacies: An argument that fails to show its conclusion to be reasonably likely because the
state of information is too weak to support the conclusion.
 Fallacies: Unreliable methods of reasoning (either accidental or intentional) that result in faulty
argumentation.
 False dichotomy: The fallacy of suggesting that there are only two options when, in fact, other options
may exist.
 Genetic fallacy: Basing an argument on irrelevant facts about the origin of a claim rather than on the
evidence for or against it.
 Implicit: Implied, but not stated outright; what is suggested without being said or written
 Logical fallacy: An argument that is structurally invalid because its premises do not suffice to logically
determine the truth of its conclusion; error in reasoning; faulty argumentation.
 Modus tollens: This is the term used to denote the valid argument form "If P is true, then Q is true
(premise 1). Q is not true (premise 2). Therefore, P is not true (conclusion)."
 Post hoc ego propter hoc: The superstitious or magical line of thinking that if one thing happens after
another, then it happens because that other thing happened first.
 Quantifier scope fallacy: he mistake of inferring a specific statement from its unspecific version;
misordering a universal quantifier and an existential quantifier, resulting in an invalid inference; the
 12
mistaken reasoning that what is true for all/every/each of something is also true for some/a/the/one of
that thing.
 Straw man fallacy: Failing to apply the good practice of charity in interpreting an opposing viewpoint;
misrepresenting an argument or a view in order to refute a dumbed-down version of it.
NOTES

Logical and quasi-

Evidential fallacies: Procedural or pragmatic fallacies:
logical fallacies:

Failure to make conclusion A matter of how rational exchange is

Diagnosed in terms of
reasonable even in inductive or conducted, if it is to be reliable,
argument structure.
heuristic terms. fertile, etc.

 LOGICAL FALLACIES
 Conditional fallacies;
1. Affirming the consequent: a) If P then Q b) Q Therefore c) P
2. Denying the antecedent: a) if P then Q b) it is not the case that P Therefore c) It is not the case that Q
 Arguments having these forms are invalid
 Scope fallacies: ex: every person shops for clothing at one store in town. There is one store in town at
which every person shops for clothing. 2 implies 1 but not vice versa.
 Quantifier scope fallacy: an argument that infers a specific statement like the second one from its
unspecific version like the first one.
 Universal quantifiers (all, every, each)
 Existential quantifier (some, a, the, one)
 Fallacy of Equivocation: disguising the invalid inference by using single expression in two different
ways
 EVIDENTAL FALLACIES (Logically unsound)
 Argument from ignorance: we have no evidence that P therefore It is not the case that P (invalid)
 Not the argument from ignorance: we have excellent evidence that P therefore P (does not validly
follow from the fact that we have excellent evidence
 Argument from missing evidence (non fallacious instances): arguments that share-defining features
with the fallacy but are cogent nonetheless.
 Overgeneralizations: drawing a general inference too strong for the specific evidence in hand
 Hasty generalizations or sweeping generalizations: heard something twice, saying it ALWAYS happen
 Conspiracy Theories: all evidence for the existence of something is shielded
 13
 There is no evidence that P. No evidence is exactly what we should expect, it P is true. Therefore, P
 Vicarious authority: Source of authority to make a claim
 Genetic fallacy: evaluating a claim on the basis of irrelevant facts about its origins, rather than on the
basis of the evidence for it.
 Appeal to popular opinion: It is widely believe that P therefore P
 It is an aggregate of the worst possible arguments of authority “they said so”
 Fallacies of causal learning: seeing a correlation where none exist
 Post hoc ergo Propter Hoc: in effect meaning After, therefore because (I passed under a ladder and
then sprained my ankle. Therefore I sprained my ankle because I went under the ladder)
 Multiple Endpoints (sharpshooter fallacy): Correlation does not mean causation. Creating
connections
 PROCEDURAL AND PRAGMATIC FALLACIES
 Distractors: fallacies of relevance those introducing irrelevant factors to the real issue under discussion
 Red Herring: talking about things that are related to but not relevant to the topic discussed
 Straw man fallacy: misinterpreting an argument or a view in order to refute a dumbed-down version of
it.
 Ad hominem: argument against the man. When you dismiss the argument based on personal traits of the
arguer
 Poisoning the well: to dismiss the argument with the claim the arguer is conditioned to think this way
taints everything the person will say afterwards.
 Mirs. Lincoln fallacy: ignoring clearly relevant factors then treating subsequent inferences as significant
 Confusions: setting up the argument poorly
 Begging the question or circular argument: “ I know that Jill was telling the truth. She told me herself”
 Conclusion of an argument is also one of the premises
 False presuppositions: Propositions that one must grant or assume in order for the statement to make
sens
 Fallacies of definition and connotation: Slanting language: speaker describes some situation in terms
that already entail or suggest the desired conclusion (abortion is immoral right from conception, because
a baby has a right to life!)
 Persuasive definition: pro-life, anti-choice, anti-life, pro-choice
 No true scots fallacy (all true scots eat bananas, McGregor doesn’t eat banana, he’s not a true scot) First
statement is presented as an empirical truth
 OUTLIERS
 14
 Fallacies of Composition and Division:B oth fallacies are a matter of the relation between a whole and
its parts.  The fallacy of composition occurs when we reason:  The parts each (or mostly) have
property X; therefore, the whole has property X. The fallacy of division runs in the other direction: The
whole has property X; therefore, its parts have property X.
 Fallacy of false enchotomy (false dilemma, false dichotomy): the assumption that there are only a
certain number of possibilities when in fact there are more. (p or q. not q therefore p)
 Reasoning from simplifications or clichés
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 Both arguments from ignorance and conspiracy theories begin with the idea of a lack of evidence,
yet they come to opposite conclusions. Why is this? What is the difference between the argument
from ignorance and conspiracy theories that explains this? Compare the two, provide detailed
explanations and use examples.
Answer: Argument from ignorance is the assumption of a conclusion based primarily on lack of evidence to the
contrary . ( ex: To this day scientists have not been able to create life from non-living things, therefore life
comes from divine intervention.Conspiracy theory revolves around how the truth is hidden or destroyed by
another group of individual. (ex: cancer cure has been discovered but since doctors don't want to lose money
they hide it.) In the ignorance theory, none of the statements can be proven. And the conspiracy, is putting the
blame on an improbable explanation.
 Identify the fallacy in the following argument, and explain the problematic reasoning behind it.
“Either it was the fast food that made you sick, or you have the stomach flu. One of these has to be the
cause!”
Answer: It is a false dichotomy since the options presented are not the only ones available. There are actually
many options to explain the situation, however the argument makes it look like there are only two.
 “Last week the level of the mercury in the barometer was high and the weather outside was sunny.
Today the level of the mercury in the barometer is low and the weather is cold and wet. So if I
pour some extra mercury into the barometer to raise the level back up, then the weather outside
will turn sunny again.”
What is the fallacy involved here? Explain your answer.
Answer: The fallacy of post-hoc ergo propter hoc is involved. The weather may be relevant to the barometric
pressure but it cannot get the conclusion that there is a connection between them by simply observing the
occurrances one after the other. Another fallacy involved is the fallacy of causation. Correlation does not mean
causation (cause is the weather, causation is level of mercury. Not other way around)
 15
 Does someone’s uttering an insult during an argument always mean they have committed the Ad
Hominem fallacy? Why or why not? Be sure to explain the concept of the Ad Hominem fallacy as
part of your answer.
Answer: No not always, since Ad Hominen fallacy means choosing to attack the person by making an argument
rather than addressing the points raised in the argument. If the insult uttered is relevant to the argument then it is
not fallacious.
 16

Chapter 5- Critical thinking about numbers

DEFINITIONS
 Mean: One of three interrelated types of averages, the mean is calculated by adding up the values of a
sample and dividing the sum by the number of elements in the sample.
 Median: One of three interrelated types of averages, the median is the midpoint in the distribution of a
group of data points.
 Ordinal Numbers: Numbers used to show the order of sequence (i.e. first, second, third, ...).
 Percentage: Rate per hundred; x number out of one hundred.
 Percentile: A term used to numerically rank values by how they compare to other values.
NOTES
 Quantification of facts, situations or data: using numbers and numerical concepts to characterize things
 Fundamental problems: interaction of the phenomena of innumeracy (equivalent to illiteracy) and the
belief that innumeracy is intellectually acceptable.
 Percentages: (out of 100).
 A way of considering ratios in terms of common standard (able to compare on the same standard)
 Problems: the loss of information with the data- loss of important contextualizing information that was
carried in the absolute numbers we started out with.
 Combining and comparing percentages: add all the percentages and dividing it by the number of
percentages. ISSUE: combining as if they were all equally significant
 Rates and percentages: percentage used to express rates of change
 Useful to keep tracks change of rates
 Interpreting Representative Numbers 
 Percentages 
 Percentiles 
 Ordinal numbers
 Averages
 In all cases, the crucial questions involve: 
 Lost information.
 Misleading suggestion.
 Whether the metric, or underlying measurement, is intelligibly mathematized.
 17
 Reasoning error: simple claims about rates are subject to ambiguity.
 Linear projection: assumption of constant rates: evidential fallacy Linear projection
 Species of hasty generalization that assumes that a rate observed over some specific duration must
extend into unobserved territory (moon is receding at 3.8 cetimeters per year, does not mean it
ALWAYS receded at such rate)
 Ratings and rankings
 Percentage versus percentile: percentages are not raw and absolute scores unless the raw data is 100
 Percentile is a term that often uses to numerically rank values by how they compare to other values. (90th
percentile on a test is to have a score 90 percent better than the rest of the class)
 Hard test with 65% you could still be in the 90th percentile, it just shows your position compared to
classroom
 Significance of numerical rankings and rating
 Ranking people using definite numbers can be unprincipled and highly misleading
 Representative number with a loss of information that it implies. (reduced to ordinal numbers 1st, 2nd,
3rd)
 FALLACIES OF NUMERICAL REASONING
 Pseudo-precision: The practice of stating a numerical claim in exaggeratedly precise terms and, by doing
so, misleading the audience into assuming that the claim has been much more carefully investigated than
is actually the case.
 AVERAGES AND REPRESENTATIVENESS
 Average Ambiguous between the concepts of mean, median and mode.
 Mean is (# \ #= #)
 Median is the midpoint of distribution (1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7 = median is 4)
 Mode of these numbers is 4 since they occur twice
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 In Eastville, 20% of the population is over 65 years old. Whereas the percentage of the population
aged over 65 in Westville is just 10%. So for the combined population of both Eastville and Westville,
the percentage of people older than 65 is 15%.
Do you agree with the conclusion of this passage? Explain your answer.
Answer: I do not agree since without knowing the population of each city, it is impossible to figure the
percentage of individuals older than 65 in the combined population. Only the absolute numbers allow the
addition and division at this instance. As an example: if the population in eastville is 10,000 and westville
 18
10,000, then 2000 and 10000 people are 65y.o. Percentage of people over 65 os (2000+10000) \
(10000+100000)= 10.9% rather than the mentioned 15%
 If a student gets a 75% on the first exam which lands them in the 95th percentile but 95% on the
second exam which lands them in the 75th percentile, what does this evidence suggest if we were to
compare the two tests? Explain your answer.
Answer: Percentages are representative of the score obtained in an exam while percentiles represent how well
you did in the class compared with classmates. The full marks obtained for an exam is 100 and the student gets
75 points on the first and 95 points of the second. 75% in a 95th percentile, (top 5%), shows a difficult exam
while 95% in a 75th percentile (top 25%) shows an easier exam.
 19

Chapter 6- Probability and Statistics: Reasoning from Incomplete information

DEFINITION:
 Confidence interval: The range of values within which we can be statistically confident (to some
specified degree) that the true value falls.
 Conditional probability: A conjoint probability of dependent events where P(A|B) is read as "the
probability of A given B."
 Intuitionistic logic: An alternative formal system of logic that allows for more vagueness at the
boundaries, but is more stringent in another way: this system does not accept the law of excluded middle
which allows the disproof of not-P to stand as proof of P.
 Standard deviation: A representative number that shows the spread in the sample data.
NOTES
 Representative sampling: reveal correlations and causes among various event and conditions. There is an
average height of Canadians, but determining that height involves taking a (relatively small) sample of
Canadians and determining their average height.
 Two broad ways of getting an unrepresentative sample:
1. having a biased selection technique and getting unlucky.
2. Biased sampling does not entail deliberate bias. 
3. Any means of gathering data that tends toward an unrepresentative sample (relative to the property
being measured).
 Confidence and Margins of Error
 When we draw (non-deductive) inferences from some set of data, we can only ever be confident in the
conclusion to a degree.
 Significance is a measure of the confidence we are entitled to have in our probabilistic conclusion. It is,
however, also a function of how precise a conclusion we are trying to draw.
 Confidence is cheap. We can always be 100% confident that the probability of some outcome is
somewhere between 0 and 1 inclusive - at the price of imprecision.
 The more precise we want our conclusion to be, the more data we need in order to have high confidence
in it.
 So when we are told the result of some sample, we need to know both the margin of error – that is, how
precise the conclusion is – and the degree of significance.
 20
 This is why poll reports have, for example, “a 3% margin of error 19 times out of 20”. Roughly, this
means that if we conducted the very same poll repeatedly, we would have .95 (19/20) probability of
getting a result within 3% (on either side) of the reported value.
 We could, if we wished, convert our .95 confidence into .99 confidence, but nothing is free; we would
either have to increase the margin of error or go out and get much more data in order to do so.
 So what does it mean if a poll reports a 3% difference in the popularity of two political candidates when
it has a +/-3% margin of error at 95% confidence? 
 The difference is at the boundary of the margin of error.
 This does not mean that the difference is nothing.
 It does mean that we cannot be 95% confident in the difference. 
 In short, a set of data typically permits you to be confident, to a degree, in some statistical conclusion
that is precise, to a degree. 
 Understanding a statistical claim requires knowing both degrees. Using fixed standards of significance is
the most common way of simplifying the interpretation of a statistical claim.
 Another kind of representative number: standard deviation. 
 Roughly: the average difference between the data points and the mean. 
 This reveals information about the distribution of the data points. 
 Two distributions can be normal without being identical; a flatter curve has a larger standard deviation,
while a taller curve has a smaller standard deviation.
 There are two broad kinds of mistake we can make in reasoning from a confidence level: Type I errors
(false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives).
 In a Type I error we have a random result that looks like a significant result.
 In a Type II error we have a significant result that does not get recognized as significant (or, more
strongly, is categorized as random).

 Errors in judging whether a correlation or  What is independently true (or what further
condition exists investigation would reveal)

 The condition does  The condition

not hold does hold

 What we judge,  Judge that the  CORRECT  TYPE II ERROR

given our state of condition does
information not hold
 21
 Judge that the
condition does  TYPE I ERROR  CORRECT
hold

 Probability, Risk and Intuition

 The goal of probability theory is to know how confident we can reasonably be about the truth of some
proposition, given an incomplete state of information.
 Virtually all of us are, by nature, really bad at this. 
 The problem is not, in general, that we are bad at arithmetic. The problem is that we are not naturally
good at recognizing how various bits of information are relevant to the truth of a proposition.
 Basics of Probability
 Probabilities are quantified on a scale from 0 to 1.
 A necessary event has a probability of 1; an impossible event has a probability of 0. 
 Events that might or might not occur have some probability in between. The chances of a randomly
flipped fair coin coming up tails is .5, for example. 
 The probability of an event e can be written as ‘P(e)’. 
 We will use "¬e" to mean ‘not-e’; that is, the event does not occur.
 Two Basic Laws of Probability

1. 0 ≤ P(e) ≤ 1

 The probability of any event has a value somewhere from 0 to 1, inclusive.

2. Where S is the set of all possible outcomes, P(S) = 1.

 Think of this as telling us that, necessarily, something or other happens. Alternatively, it says that there
are no outcomes outside S.
 If S is not well-defined, then any probabilistic calculations you might perform using S are suspect and
perhaps meaningless.
 Rule (2) makes it possible to perform very useful reasoning based on what will not occur.
 That is:

 P(e) = 1 – P(¬e)

 The probability that e occurs is 1 minus the probability that it does not occur.
 Two Basic Laws of Probability (Cont'd)
 For most applications, the probability of an event is given by:
 22
number of relevant outcomes
--------------------------------------------
total number of possible outcomes

 (It is enough to note that infinite domains need, and get, different treatment.)
 Complex Events (Considering More than One Event at a Time)
 For disjoint events (at least one event occurring) we use ∪ to mean, roughly, ‘or’.
 For conjoint events (all the specified events occurring) we use ∩ to mean, roughly, ‘and’.

P(A∪B) = P(A) + P(B) – P(A∩B)

 The probability that either A or B occurs is the probability that A occurs plus the probability that B
occurs, minus the probability that both A and B occur.
 Think of the simpler case in which A and B are mutually exclusive. That is, they cannot both occur.
Then P(A∩B), the probability that they occur together, is 0. So the last part of the equation can be
dropped for this special case. We end up with:

P(A∪B) = P(A) + P(B)

 The outcome (A∪B) occurs just in case either one of A or B occurs. So P(A∪B) is just the probability
of A plus the probability of B.
 Adding the probabilities is not only correct, but can be made intuitive. Which is likelier: that A occurs,
or that any one of A, B or C occurs?
 In the more complicated case where A and B might occur together, we need the whole formula P(A∪B)
= P(A) + P(B) – P(A∩B).
 All that the last term means is that we should not count outcomes twice. If A and B are not mutually
exclusive, then some A-outcomes are also B-outcomes. Starting with P(A), if we simply add P(B) we
are counting some A-outcomes a second time, namely those that are also B-outcomes.
 So we subtract those overlapping cases,  P(A∩B), to avoid this.
 Conditional Probability
 The chances that an event will occur given that another event occurs.

P(B|A) = P(A∩B) ÷ P(A)

P(A|B) = P(A∩B) ÷ P(B)

 Hence the likelihood of conjoint dependent events involves conditional probability.

 Dependent conjoint probability:
 23
P(A∩B) = P(A|B) x P(B)P(A∩B) = P(B|A) x P(A)

 We multiply the probability of A by the probability of B given A (or the probability of B by the
probability of A given B; it comes out the same thing).
 The likelier it is that B occurs if A occurs, the closer P(A∩B) is to just being P(A).
 The likelier it is that B does not occur if A occurs, the closer P(A∩B) is to zero. 
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 Besides sheer bad luck, identify a way one might end up with an unrepresentative sample. Provide an
example of how this could happen.

Answer: Biased selection technique is another way one might end up with an unrepresentative sample. As an
example, a company wants to conduct a poll by home phones to ask what style will be popular in Fall for
teenagers. The issue is that people no longer use home phones but rather mobile phones. Having home phones
suggests an older population with no knowledge of teen's opinions. Therefore, the poll's result cannot provide
correctly the teen's opinion for fall style.
 If a poll has a 2% margin of error 19 times out of 20, and the poll puts politician A ahead of
politician B by five percentage points, can we say with 95% confidence that A is more popular
than B in the target population? What if the difference is only 1.5%? Explain.
Answer: Yes, A is ahead of B by 5%, the 2% margin of error means that with 95% confidence A is ahead of B
by 3%-7%. There, A is always ahead of B but slightly altered. However, if the difference is 1.5%, then No, we
can't say with 95% confidence since the 2% margin means that A is ahead of B by 3.5% of B is ahead of A by
0.5%
 Explain the difference between a well-researched statistical claim and a pseudo-precise statistical
claim. Illustrate, using an example, what this difference could look like. Why would someone use
pseudo-precision in making a statistical claim? 
Answer: A well-researched statistical claim gets its result from appropriate designed studies and data analysis.
Pseudo-precise statistical claim gives numbers with many decimal places that can be hardly known. ex: one
says" it takes me 1.4809 hours to finish an exam". It is unlikely someone will calculate such specific time.
Pseudo-precise statistical claim may sound more valid and seem more convincing
 24

Chapter 7- Biases within reason

DEFINITION
 Cognitive biases: Biases that influence such cognitive processes as judging, thinking, planning, deciding
and remembering
 Confirmation biases: A wide variety of ways in which beliefs, expectations or emotional commitments
regarding a hypothesis can lead to its seeming more highly confirmed than the evidence really warrants.
 Self-fulfilling prophecies: The way that predicting that something will happen can actually make it
happen; a process through which prediction gives rise to an expectation that a prophesied event will
occur, with this expectation then leading to actions that bring about the event.
 Spin: A term used to refer to the way that media makers use framing effects in presenting information to
the public.
NOTES
 Critical issues of biases
 Argumentum Ad Baculum: argument from threat of force: believe that P or suffer the consequences
 Perceptual biases: perceptual illusions that show how our senses can be misleading
 Low-level biases: Hollow face illusion: your eyes captures information in the input and your visual
system simply jumps to the perception of a face (or other). Since the sides are not what it should look
like when you move away then the face must be turning to look at you (biased-information processing)
 McGurk Effect: a multi-modal illusion (involves more than one sensory system) recording of a word,
person saying another word on mute. You will hear both a different sound and the person will say a
different word entirely. The brain reaches a compromise solution below the level of conscious
awareness on the data that doesn’t fit.
 Top-down effects on perception: perception can be partly determined by what we already believe,
desire, expect or remember.
 25
 Having read, heard or just thought about the secret message, you are primed to hearing the message even
if you don’t believe in it.
 Inattentional blindness: when you are concentrated on one task, and events occur infront of you , you
may not notice it. (ex: look around the gorilla, became gorilla-blind)
 Cognitive biases: Concerned with the activities of judging, thinking, planning, deciding, remembering
 Confirmation biases: beliefs, expectations or emotional commitments regarding a hypothesis can lead to
its seeming more highly confirmed then the evidence warrants
 Creating evidence: confirmation biases are more typically considered to involve the acquisition and
interpretation of evidence rather than its manufacturer. (situational or structural biases: affect the
availability of evidence for or against the hypothesis. Attentional biases: affecting the degree to which
we examine and remember evidence even if it is available. Interpretive biases: affecting the significance
we assign to evidence that we do examine and remember.)
 The accessibility of information: situations can be structurally biased to deliver only information that
supports or information that undermines a hypothesis
 Noticing evidence: a belief can push us to overlook evidence that would count against it
 Remembering evidence: (deja vue)
 Interpreting and assessing evidence: the existence of an expectation or motivation leads one to place
disproportionate credence in evidence supporting a belief or hypothesis
 Self-fulfilling prophecies: predictions that come true simply because the predictor foresees how events
will unfold, but because the prediction itself has an effect on how things unfold. That effect can apply to
the events themselves or to the perception of the events in a related sort of case.
 The self-fulfilling case, the prediction gives rise to an expectation that the prophesied event will occur,
and this expectation leads to actions that bring about the event.
 Egocentric biases: we have a tendency to read special significance into the events that involve us and
into our roles in those events.
 Self-serving attributions: A preference for explanations that reflect positively on oneself. Explain
success internally but failure externally
 Optimistic self-assessment: “all the children are above average” – People tend to rank themselves above
average with respect to certain virtues.
 Hindsight bias: the error of supposing past events were predictable and should have been foreseen as the
consequence of the actions that precipitated them
 Biases of language and communication
 Continued influence effects: information continues to influence our judgements even after we know
enough to conclude that it was actually a misinformation.
 26
 Framing effects: lexical choices can have strong effects on the judgements we reach and the contents of
our memories. The way a situation is described has a strong influence on our thinking about it
 Biases of memory: memories of traumatic or famous event are known as flashbulb memories. Memory
is frail and the nature of the frailty is that the reliability of memories may be at odds with their vividness
and intuitive accuracy
 Repetition: one important factor determining a subject’s likelihood of ranking a statement as true is how
often the statement has been repeated to the subject in the past. The repeated claim can come to just
“seem true” or strike us as reasonable if we have heard it again and again.

QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS

 Most people think that advertising works in general (why else would companies invest so much
money in it?), but that it does not work on them in particular.
"It works on most people, but it does not work on me."
What biases might be behind such a belief?
Answer: One bias is optimistic self-assessment. The people who hold such thought overestimate their abilities
and probably overlook the countervailing evidence which shows the opposite. Another bias would be perceptual
bias and how seeing some advertising work impact the emotions of the viewer. Confirmation bias*
 "I just knew the Stingers were going to come back, being down 3-1 against the Redmen!"
This is an example of a hindsight bias, and a debiasing strategy against it would be to bring the person
saying this to consider what they would have said if the Stingers had not won.
Explaining what a hindsight bias is and how it functions, discuss how this strategy would work in
exposing and challenging this person’s hindsight bias.
Answer: Hindsight bias is the error of overestimating their earlier belief of events unfolding a certain way as
they actually did, and seeing the events as predictable. They simply say " I knew it" and minimizing the entire
event. By using the debiasing strategy will allow them to change their perspective and mindset into observing
the situation from a different unfolding of events.
 Daira was watching her favorite show Ghost Hunters. The host explained that the ghost hunting
team had found an old recording in an abandoned hospital. When the team played the tape
forward it seemed like a regular old tape, however, as the host explained, when they played the
tape backward they could clearly hear “HELP ME, HELP ME”. The host then played the tape
and Daria couldn’t believe her ears! She had really heard the backward voice saying “HELP ME,
HELP ME”.
What kind of bias is at work in this example? Explain.
 27
Answer: This is an example of top-down expectation bias. The fact that Daria knew what the tape was supposed
to be saying affected and impacted her perception on what she was hearing. Even though Daria might not
believe what the host is saying, the fact that they announced it, just having the words in mind, is enough to
affect her perceptions.
 Explain, in your own words, what the continued influence effect is. Give an example, different
from the ones in the book or notes, of this effect. 
Answer: The continued influence effect is that once you believe in something, even if the reasons for believing
it is faulty are uncovered, you are still more inclined to believe it than you would if you did not have the faulty
reasons. For example: I go see an acupuncturist every now and then. Although there are many sources that
disprove such practice, I still hold the belief that it works
Chapter 8- The more we get together
DEFINITIONS
 Bandwagon effect: Joining in with popular beliefs, opinions or attitudes; the tendency for our beliefs to
shift toward the beliefs we take to be widely held by those around us.
 False consensus effect: The tendency to incorrectly assume that other people are in agreement with
one’s own opinions and beliefs, or at least to pay little notice to the discrepancies between their
viewpoints and one’s own
 False polarization effect: Exaggerating the distinction between one’s position and the opposing
viewpoint by taking the views of others to be of the most stereotypical or strongest sort on their side of
the issue, and by overestimating the difference between the opposing viewpoint and your own.
 Fundamental attribution error: A bias in favour of explaining someone’s situation or behaviour in terms
of that individual’s personality, character or disposition while overlooking explanations in terms of
context, accidents or the environment more generally.
 Leveling: The process through which the elements of a story that are perceived as minor or less central
tend to get minimized or omitted over successive retellings.
 Sharpening: Enhancing certain details in a story, or changing the significance or connotation of aspects
of it, with the result that the story becomes exaggerated and less accurate over successive retellings.
NOTES
 Social cognition: The existence of other people in a reasoning context and the nature of our relations
with them apply to our judgments and inferences in two broad ways:
   1. Reasoning about other people.
   2. Reasoning influenced by them.
 28
 Social stereotypes: is a cluster of associated characteristic attributed to people of a particular sort.
Beliefs or perceptions about a person of that sort (gender, race, hair colour, height) can activate the
automatic assumption that the whole cluster of characteristics applies to that person.
 Fundamental attribution error: their motives and character generally mean at least as much to us as the
consequences of their actions. Explaining someone’s situation of behaviour in terms of their personality,
character, or dispositions while overlooking explanations in terms of context, accidents, or the
environment more generally.
 False polarization effects: the tendency to overestimate two things: the extent to which the views of
other ressemble the strongest or most stereotypical positions of those sorts, and the difference between
one’s own view and the view of someone who disagrees. Overestimating the differences between one’s
own view and the view of someone who disagrees by interpreting the other person’s view as closer to
the “polar opposite” than it actually is.
 Jumping on the bandwagon: social context affect our judgement. The tendency for our beliefs to shift
toward the beliefs we take to be widely held by those around us. The appeal of certainty and the costs of
holding an unpopular opinion.
 Optimistic self-assessment: We are very quick to conclude that we have all kinds of positive qualities,
and it takes a mountain of evidence to convince us that we have any faults
 False consensus effect: common tendency to overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs
and attitude. Doesn’t consider if others could hold a different view
 Seeing ourselves through the eyes of others: there is a gap between what one reasons about others, and
what one expects to reason about themself.
 Leveling\ sharpening: Subjects were shown detailed drawings of “busy” scenes and situations and were
given time to memorize the details. Then they had to summarize the drawings verbally to a second
person. That person in turn reported the drawings to a third person...and so on, five times. Over the
course of the re-tellings, details of the stories changed...not randomly, but explicably in light of the
perspectives of the subjects.
 Levelling – leaving out information perceived as minor, unimportant when retelling a 
 story. 
 Sharpening – emphasizing information perceived as more important when retelling a story. 
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 We commonly overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs and attitudes. What is the
name of this tendency? Provide an example (different from those you encountered in the course)
 29
of a situation in which this common tendency may occur. How did this come to be the case and
what does this say about what we think about others? 
Answer: The name of this tendency is False consensus effect. For example; after seeing a movie that you rate as
excellent and believe everyone else will rate it as much (overestimate the percentage of how many people
would rate it likewise). One believes their own opinion is the same as others and disregards the discrepancies
between the viewpoints. We believe everyone thinks alike and that is a bias of its own.
 Octavia and Margaret are discussing the ethical implications of eating and using other animal
species for human needs. After a very brief conversation, 30 seconds at most, they both leave
abruptly. Octavia goes one way mumbling about how "Margaret is SO extreme, she thinks
EVERYONE who eats meat is a horrible person!", while Margaret goes the other way saying that
"Octavia simply does not care at all about any environmental issue or the suffering of other
species!".
What kind of poor social reasoning is at work here? Explain.
Answer: It is the false polarization effect; people overestimate the differences between their own view and the
view of others who disagree with them. Octavias and Margaret's view may be more moderate than their
descriptions. Such as using words liek "not at all" or "everyone". They interpret the other's view towards the
extreme polar opposite than it actually is. Also, when false polarization effect occurs, the other's viewpoints will
get reduced to a stereotypical position.
 In the textbook, Kenyon discusses fundamental attribution error and negative stereotypes
concerning poor people.
What role does fundamental attribution error play here?
Answer: Fundamental attribution error is the bias that people attribute other's situation or behaviour to their
personality and overlook and external or uncontrollable factors as to explain such behaviour\situation. People
with bias impact view poor people as lazy individuals who want to feed off society which creates negative
stereotypes of people who are financially struggling and maybe even have been let down by the society.
 30

Chapter 9- Critical reasoning about Science

DEFINITIONS
 Falsifiability: The view that in order for a statement to be scientific, it must be possible for that
statement to be judged false based on specifiable observations and experimental outcomes.
 Verifiability: Having the quality of being able to be verified by evidence.
 Pseudo-science: A set of beliefs, claims and practices presented as scientific, but which depend upon a
mixture of prejudged conclusions, sloppy methodology, irreproducibility and an unwillingness to give
up a relevant conviction in the face of countervailing evidence; non-science that masquerades as science,
invoking the authority of scientific discourse. without possessing its virtues
 Scientific Method: The steps that are widely accepted as "best practice" procedure for scientific inquiry
NOTES
 The problem of finding a definition that precisely distinguishes science from non-science is often known
as the demarcation problem.
 Just the facts: science is distinguishable from non-science by its practice of starting from the facts rather
than introducing doctrinal or theoretical commitments right from the outset
 It’s true that a fundamental aspect of scientific endeavours is typically to explain some phenomenon or
other. Impossible to depict science as proceeding from facts in a theory free of commitment free fashion.
 Scientific method (defining characteristic of science): 1. Observe a phenomenon 2. Hypothesis 3.
Observational consequences 4. Test the hypothesis by observation and experimentation 5. Evaluate
hypothesis 6. Repeat to 5, modifying the hypothesis
 Naturalism
 31
 Science is limited to methodological naturalism (rejection of appeal to supernatural entities or processes
of explanation). Contrast with metaphysical naturalism: the view that there are no supernatural entities.
Methodological naturalism is the view that whether or not there are no supernatural entities, science
cannot implicate them in its theories.
 Verifiability: distinguishes science from non-science. Being able to verify the claims
 Falsifiability: can be judged false. When you test it you just observe so and so.
 Experimental design
 Distinction between treatment group (test group):one which some test is performed
 And control group: test is compared to distinguish test-relevant effects from other effect
 Placebo effect: people who believe they are receiving treatment often feel better as a result and
sometimes recover
 Single-binding: the subjects cannot know whether they are genuinely being treat. Information given to
the subject is therefore compromised
 E-bias: in the context of an experiment or observational study, when the beliefs, attitudes, or emotional
commitments of the experimenter influence the data recorded and the conclusion drawn from it.
 Double-bind: when a possibility exists for the experimenters to consciously or unconsciously nudge the
outcome in a particular direction, by letting the group member know in which group they are , by
interpreting data in light of expectations or any similar process.
 Theoretical unity: theories fit together (all science fits)
 Predictivity: A property closely related to falsifiability, predictivity us the virtue possessed by a
scientific law, theory or hypothesis when it enables us to say specifically and accurately what will occur
under the circumstances to which is relevant.
QUIZ ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
 Define the demarcation problem and explain why this problem arises. Mention and explain how
verifiability and falsifiability help establish such a demarcation. 
Answer: Demarcation problem is the issue that people try to find a precise definition of science to separate it
from non-science. It is difficult to achieve since science in itself is quite complex. Verifiability and falsifiability
are two categories that can help define what is considered scientific. Falsifiability means the ability to judge the
theory false through observations and experimentation. Verifiability is being able to replicate and give the same
information or outcome of the evidence. These two concepts are important for scientific studies and to define
science.
 What is methodological naturalism? What could you respond to someone who claimed this
position was just as dogmatic as any theological position? 
 32
Answer: Methodological naturalism is the basic approach of science. It is defined as the rejection of appeal to
supernatural explanations. Unlike theologies, methodological naturalism is less dogmatic because it does not
claim the existence of supernatural entities, which is different from theologies which tend to claim the existence
of supernatural entities.
 Explain the purpose of the control group. If a medication is being tested, why is it important that
the control group will be given a placebo? Explain your answer. 
Answer: When trying to test the effect of an independent variable, it is crucial that we know what will happen
when independent variable presents and when it doesn't. The control group without the independent variable is
used to compare with the test group with the independent variable. Using placebo is to make sure that the
control group will not behave differently physically and psychologically from the test group. The different
result will be due to the effect of medication and not other factors.