PHI 2100: Review for Exam 2

 

See this link for “practice” review questions.  Actual test questions will be derived from the review information below and/or from the practice review questions in this link.

 

General Contents:

  1. Chaffee, chapter 11 (Informal Fallacies).  See esp. this link:  http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/fallacylist.html and Houghton-Mifflin’s link on fallacious argumentation keyed to Chaffee’s text at http://college.hmco.com/english/chaffee/critical_thinking/2e/students/tools/ch07.html
    1. Generalizations:

                                                     i.     Not mentioned in Chaffee’s text.  One type of generalization that is actually deductive in nature is called a “perfect induction.”  This is one in which all the members of a class are available for observation and a definite, certain claim is made about them.  For example, if a woman says that all of her children are boys, and assuming she knows all of the children she has, she has made a perfect induction.

                                                    ii.     Inductive generalization is a process of giving a generalized conclusion based on a sample of things in a given class or group.  The use of this type of generalization is required when:

1.     the class is large or scattered and examination of all the members is impossible or impractical

2.     the class constantly grows in number, so it would be impossible to observe all the members

                                                  iii.     Inductive arguments are generally strengthened by increasing the sample size, but ONLY IF the sample is representative.

                                                  iv.     A representative sample is a fair sample of an entire class.  An interesting factor regarding samples is that it is impossible to know for sure when a sample is fair since we don’t know the whole class of things, and if we did know the entire class, we would no longer need a sample at all.  Ask yourself whether the sample is large enough, whether enough members of the sample have been examined, and whether the sample is random.

    1. Small and Unrepresentative Samples (fallacies).  A small sample commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion when a conclusion is reached on the basis of an insufficiently sized sample.  An unrepresentative sample may be small or large, but the point here is that if the sample is not representative of the population about which a conclusion is reached, then the fallacy committed is irrelevant reason.
    2. Informal Fallacies in general:  some additional information

                                                     i.     See Flew, chapter 4, p. 66 for commentary in 4.14 on the genetic fallacy (a form of argumentum ad hominem)

                                                    ii.     See Flew, chapter 4, p. 73, para 4.34 for his take on Begging the Question (Circular Argumentation)

                                                  iii.     See Flew, chapter 4, p. 74, para 4.36 for his commentary on the “Domino” fallacy

 

  1. Chaffee, chapter 6.
    1. Meaning

                                                     i.     Semantic meaning = denotation.  This is also called “extensional meaning,” but it is not strictly “meaning” since it concerns reference and not the use of words.

                                                    ii.     Perceptual meaning = connotation = “meaning along with” – has “emotional meaning” or emotive force.

                                                  iii.     Syntactical meaning

                                                  iv.     Pragmatic meaning

    1. Vagueness and Ambiguity

                                                     i.     Vague – non-specific, general

                                                    ii.     Ambiguous – meanings in context

1.     The fallacy of equivocation occurs with ambiguous words.  This is also called “semantical ambiguity” and is to be distinguished from syntactical ambiguity (caused by bad grammar).  An example of syntactical ambiguity:  Mr. Smith went outside and watched the fireworks go up in his pajamas.

    1. Slang
    2. Jargon
    3. Influential Language

                                                     i.     Euphemisms

                                                    ii.     Emotive Language

    1. Addition:  Five types of definition (derived from Gerald Runkle’s Good Thinking)

                                                     i.     Stipulative – defines a new term.  A person in a science “stipulates” how a new term is to be used by defining it.  This type is neither true nor false, but services the directive function of language in that the person who does the defining is determining the way in which the term is to be used.

                                                    ii.     Lexical – no new terms are involved.  They serve to eliminate ambiguity and increase vocabulary.  These are dictionary definitions.

                                                  iii.     Precising – used in specialized fields in which an ordinary term is used differently from any of the current lexical uses. ‘Force’ in physics, upon the first appearance of the term in that field, was a précising definition since it transcended the meaning commonly in use.  Precising definitions are designed to eliminate ambiguity.

                                                  iv.     Theoretical – examples in philosophy.  A theoretical definition is said to define terms such as “beautiful,” “good,” and “justice.” Also called “analytical definitions” because they transcend normal use.

                                                   v.     Persuasive – serve to influence attitudes and perform the expressive function of language.

    1. Addition:  The functions of language (discussed in class on 3/6/03):

                                                     i.     Declarative – informational – can be true or false.

                                                    ii.     Interrogative – questions – are not either true or false.

                                                  iii.     Imperative (directive) – orders, commands – no truth or falsehood

                                                  iv.     Exclammatory (expressive) – emotive, to express surprise, dismay, etc. – no truth or falsehood

 

  1. Flew, chapter 4. “Motives and Grounds”
    1. p. 62:  Note on the confusion in producing a proof and persuading a person.  A “reason is a ground for holding that (a) proposition is actually true” while another sort of “reason” is “a motive for persuading oneself” or others of the truth of a claim.

                                                     i.     Pascal’s Wager was used in class to show the distinction between offering rational reasons for the acceptance of a claim and offering motives to accept a claim.  Be sure you know something about Pascal’s wager.  If you’d like to see it online, go to this link:  http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/pascal.html

                                                    ii.     Flew’s claim regarding Pascal (p. 63):  “what Pascal was saying was that, although we have no sufficient reasons (grounds) for believing the teachings of Roman Catholicism are true, we do have the very best of reasons (motives) for trying to persuade ourselves that they are.”

                                                  iii.     See above, section 1, c, i-iii for elements of Flew’s chapter 4 relevant to Chaffee, chapter 11.

 

  1. Flew, chapter 6. “Figuring” – much of this chapter is closely related to the sections of Chaffee’s text, chapter 11, on generalizing.
    1. See . 96, para 6.4 for the care that should be taken in using statistical information.
    2. See p. 105, para. 6.26 for the fallacies of “composition” and “division”
    3. See p. 109, para 6.38 for “post hoc”
    4. See p. 111, para 6.42 on the care that should be taken not to misidentify fallacies

 

  1. Flew, chapter 7. “A Chapter of Errors”
    1. See p. 116, para 7.3 on “complex/leading question” as a fallacious form of reasoning/speaking.
    2. See p. 122, paras 7.17-7.19 on the “Black IS White” fallacy and the Genetic Fallacy

 

  1. Flew, chapter 5.This chapter is a companion to Chaffee’s chapter 6 on Meaning. 
    1. For the distinction between vagueness and ambiguity, go to Flew, pp. 81-83.
    2. Combine Flew’s comments on p. 87, para. 5.30 regarding definition with 2.g.i-iv, above.

 

  1. Immediate Inferences in Traditional Logic.  See this link:  http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/tlsymbols.htm and this link: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/formlogas1fall02.html (note: this is for PRACTICE only)
    1. Conversion:  Process of re-statement in which the subject and predicate of a proposition change positions.  So, for example, the converse of “All men are mortal” is “All mortal (beings) are men,” but obviously they are not equivalent in meaning.  Any categorical statement can be transformed as a converse, but that doesn’t mean that all processes of conversion are equivalent.  E and I form propositions have equivalent converses.  A forms convert “by limitation” to I form statements.  O form statements don’t convert even by limitation.
    2. Obversion:  Process of re-statement in which the quality of the proposition changes (i.e., an affirmative is changed to a negative and the reverse) but its quantity stays the same and the word “non” (the complement) is added to the predicate.  ALL categorical statements have equivalent obverses.
    3. Contraposition:  Contraposition is officially a form of immediate inference, but it is actually a combination of conversion and obversion.  The general process of restatement is that the subject and predicate change positions and both the subject and predicate terms are “complemented.”  A and O form statements have equivalent contrapositive reformulations; E form statements contrapose “by limitation” and I forms have no equivalent or limited transformation with contraposition.
    4. Square of Opposition:  A simple process of noting the relationships that hold between categorical statements.  See Layman’s The Power of Logic site for exercises in the use of the square of opposition.  Go here:  http://www.poweroflogic.com/cgi/2e/MC/mc-fixed.cgi?exercise=5.2A and an external link to a powerpoint presentation on the Square of Opposition and conversion, obversion and contraposition here:  http://forums.rh.cc.ca.us/acarrillo/logic112/CH%20IV%20Square.ppt .  See also http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/immedinf.html
    5. Basic Symbol System for TL (see link to “tlsymbols.htm” – above)