Philosophy 105/105G Thursday 5th, 2.

15pm
Multichoice exam section A 10qs 1 mark each, section B 10qs 2
marks each, section C 10qs 3 marks each, section D 10qs 4 marks
each

Part 1 the basics

Critical thinking
Critical thinking is the systematic evaluation or formulation of
beliefs or statements by rational standards
Statements that support the conclusion are called premises,
taken together these are arguments this process of
reasoning is called inference
What is not a premise? Questions or commands
What is not an argument? Explanations these are statements
asserting why or how something is the case
Rational illusions situations where most people come to the
wrong concl, but eventually get the right concl
Obstacles to critical thinking that arise because of how we
think
Occurs due to psychological factors
Self-interested thinking when things get personal, emotional
investment avoid by ensuring inclusion of all evidence (dont
be selective)
Group pressure eg peer pressure, appeals to popularity,
appeal to common practice; can result in narrow mindedness
avoid by proportioning acceptance of a claim to the strength
of the reasons
Egocentrism idea that your own knowledge or experience
counts more than others (eg Dunning-Kruger people rate
themselves above average when they are below) avoid by
being aware and charitable
Confirmation/selection bias only seeking confirming
evidence and ignoring any evidence against you, results in
fooling oneself avoid by being aware and looking beyond
striking or memorable evidence
Obstacles to critical thinking that arise because of what we
think
Occurs due to our philosophical ideas and worldview
Relativism belief that beliefs are coherent, or that convincing
and agreement is best however, relativism cant capture our
1

actual practices and beliefs (eg. we can be mistaken, we can

disagree)
Types of relativism cultural (culture), subjective (person),
social (society) results in subjective fallacy, societal
infallibility
Skepticism we know much less than we think we do (or
nothing at all) because knowledge requires certainty, results
in philosophical skepticism
Deep disagreements problems seem irresolvable (facts are
difficult to establish or complicated) most are resolvable with
a rational argument
Burden of proof in critical thinking we look for good reasons
to think, a demand for proof is often unreasonable

Argument forms
Deductive

intended
to
provide logically conclusive
support if it succeeds in
providing logical support it is
valid/sound, if not (if the concl
does not logically follow from
the premises) it is invalid
Valid/sound
deductive
arguments these arguments
are truth preserving because of the guarantee of truth in the
premises and concl (no counter examples ever note: counter
examples can be invalid or false)
Inductive intended to provide probable support if it
succeeds in providing probable logical support it is
strong/cogent, if not it is weak
The structure of an inductive argument cannot guarantee the
concl is true if the premises are true, but it can be rendered
probable and worthy
Charity
Always analyse the strongest form of an argument and repair
minor flaws
Fix poor choices of words, add missing steps, treat others as
intelligent, give the benefit of the doubt, avoid
misinterpretation basically dont be a dick
Why? You want to make a better argument, you are better
off attacking a strong version of the counter-argument, you
want a quality debate

Suppressed premises and disguised conclusions search for

premises or conclusions that are not explicitly included, and
make them explicit and valid
Implicit premises search for a credible premise to furnish the
link between premise/s and concl

Diagramming arguments
Underline indicator words and number the statements, find
the concl and draw a wavy line under it, locate the premises
and underline them, cross out extra material
Draw the diagram, connecting premises and conclusions with
arrows showing logical connections (include both dependent
and independent premises)

Premises
Independent premises offer support without help from other
premises
To show an independent argument is bad, you need to show
that each premise on its own fails to provide enough support
for the concl
Dependent premises premises rely on each other (if a
premise is removed it undermines the rest of the support)
To show a dependent argument is bad, you need to show that
all dependent premises together do not provide enough
support for the concl
Reasoning trusting and doubting claims
Good reasons to trust a claim its based on personal
experience or expert opinion only trust if theres no good
reason to doubt!!!
Good reasons to doubt a claim if it conflicts with background
info (well-supported beliefs that inform our behaviour), if it
conflicts with other claims we have good reason to accept (eg.
expert opinion), when experts disagree about it, when the
claim is by news reports or ads
Defence against misleading claims use reasonable
skepticism and a critical approach (look for slanting or false
emphasis, examine resources and facts)
If there is a claim we can neither accept nor reject, we should
proportion our belief to the evidence

Part 2 fallacies and persuaders

3

Formal fallacies
Antecedent the first statement in a conditional premise (if)
Consequent the second statement in a premise (then)
Affirming the antecedent/ponens (valid) if x, then y. X.
Therefore, y.
Denying the consequent/tollens (valid) if x, then y. Not y.
Therefore, not x.
Hypothetical syllogism (valid) if x, then y. If y, then z.
Therefore, if x, then z
Affirming the consequent (invalid) if x, then y. Y. Therefore, x.
Denying the antecedent (invalid) if x, then Y. Not x.
Therefore, not y.
Disjunctive syllogism (invalid) either x or y. Not y. Therefore,
not x.
Informal fallacies irrelevant premises (premises dont
relate to the concl)
Genetic fallacy arguing that a claim is T or F solely because
of its origin
Composition arguing that what is T of the parts must be T of
the whole
Division arguing that what is T of the whole must be T of the
parts
Tu quoque rejecting claims b/c arguer fails to practice what
they preach
Red herring deliberately raising an irrelevant issue
Straw man distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying a
position so it can be easily attacked
Two wrongs make a right arguing that doing something
morally wrong is justified because someone else has done the
same/similar thing
Equivocation using a word in two different senses
Appeal to the person attacking the person rather than the
claim itself
Appeal to popularity arguing truth merely because lots of
people believe it
Appeal to authority arguing truth because an authoritative
person says it is
Appeal to tradition arguing truth because its part of a
tradition
Appeal to ignorance arguing that a lack of evidence proves
something

Appeal to emotion the use of emotions as premises to

arouse feelings (eg. appeal to pity, apple polishing/flattery,
scare tactics)

Informal fallacies unacceptable premises (premises dont

relate strongly enough to the concl)
Begging the question establish the concl by using that concl
as a premise
False dilemma asserting that there are only two alternatives
to consider when there are actually more than two
Decision-point fallacy (Sorites paradox) arguing that because
a distinction cannot be drawn at any point, then there are no
differences in the process
Slippery slope arguing without good reasons that taking a
particular step inevitably leads to a further undesirable step
Hasty generalization inadequate sample size to draw concl
about a group
Faulty analogy the things being compared are not sufficiently
similar
Informal fallacies rhetorical persuasion
Innuendo suggesting something denigrating without
explicitly stating it
Euphemisms / dysphemisms words used to convey pos or
neu attitudes in place of neg ones / words used to convey neg
attitudes in place of pos or neu
Stereotyping unwarranted concl or generalization about a
group
Ridicule use of derision, sarcasm or mockery to disparage a
person or idea

Part 3 arguments
Deductive reasoning propositional logic (truth tables)
Deals with logical relationships among statements, dif types of
connectives
Conjunction (&/and) two simple to form one compound,
conjunct components both need to be T for the whole
conjunction to be T
Disjunction (V/or) disjunct components only one needs to
be T for the whole disjunction to be T
Negation (~/not) the denial of a statement, the ~ symbol
indicates the reversal of the statements truth-value if a
5

statement becomes F, an F statement becomes T (note: be

wary of double negatives)
Conditional (->/if-then) if x, then y if x is T and y is F then
the statement is F, otherwise it is T
Conjunction; disjunction; negation; conditional

Checking for validity double check if any circumstances of the

truth table have any affairs that have T premises and a F concl,
which would then mean the argument is invalid
Deductive reasoning categorical logic
Deals with the relationship between the subject and the
predicate
Categorical statements make simple assertions about
categories of things, vary in characteristic of quality
(affirmative or negative)
Quantifier (quantity universal or particular) -> subject term
-> copula (linking word are or are not) -> predicate term
AEIO system for forms all x are y = univ affirm (A), no x are y
= univ neg (E), some x are y = partic affirm (O), some x are
not y = partic neg (O)
Translating statements identify the terms and reword to
standard form
Venn diagrams x indicator, the area where the circles
overlap indicate that both x and y are present, the shaded
area means the area is empty note: venn diagrams only
describe situations where the premises are true
Categorical syllogisms three categorical statements (two
premises and a concl) that are structurally linked middle
term appears once in each premise, major term appears in
one premise (major premise) and concl (predicate), minor
term in other premise and concl check validity with a 3-circle
venn diagram
Inductive reasoning enumerative, analogical and causal
induction

Enumerative argument about (relevant property) some

(proportional quantifier) members of a group (sample) to a
generalization about the entire group (target) can result in
hasty generalization or non-representative biased sample
the variation between the values from the sample and from
the whole group is called the margin of error (higher MoE =
weaker concl = weaker argument)
Analogical since two or more things are similar in some
respect, they must be similar in further respect evaluate
according to number of relevant similarities/dissimilarities and
diversity among the cases
Causal argument with a causal claim in the concl JS Mills
method of agreement (one factor of occurrence is common =
cause) and method of difference (factor present and not
present at relevant times = cause) errors incl misidentifying
or overlooking relevant causal factors, or confusing cause with
coincidence or order crucial to identify necessary conditions
(required) and sufficient conditions (guaranteed)

Part 4 explanations
Inference to the best explanation (IBE) inductive, not
strong
Deciding the best explanation for a situation by reasoning
from premises
Usually abductive reasoning backwards reasoning (effect to
cause)
Inference to AN explanation premises state a phenomenon
has occurred, and concl is a hypothesis about how or why that
phenomenon occurred
Inference to the BEST explanation states that a phenomenon
has occurred, lists various hypotheses for how or why,
demonstrates that one is most likely true, and concludes that
the chosen hypothesis is true
Rival conclusions answers that compete to be the best
explanation decide which by examining the strength of the
support (depending on the context) and make judgements
Non-trace data (NTD) makes one or more rival seem
stronger, they dont explain anything but they make opposing
data seem less likely
Lots of issues with IBE (easy to fool yourself, varies based on
starting beliefs, some answers ruled out immediately), but
weve got nothing better :)
7

Consistency
Internal consistency free of contradictions within itself logic
says a theory lacking IC predicts everything is true
Note: internally inconsistent theories can be ok if there is
nothing better
External consistency consistent with data and other
supporting theories logic says a theory lacking EC cant be
true if the data is
Criteria of adequacy (to judge plausibility in relation to
competing theories)
Testability is there some way to determine the truth of a
theory?
Fruitfulness how many novel predictions are made?
Scope how many diverse phenomena are explained?
Simplicity how many assumptions are made? How easy is it
to understand?
Conservatism how well does the theory fit with existing
knowledge?
Testing theories the TEST formula
1) state the Theory and check for consistency
2) assess the Evidence for the theory
3) Scrutinize alternative theories
4) Test the theories with the criteria for adequacy

Part 5 applying critical thinking

Science
Science seeks knowledge and understanding it is not a
worldview
Pseudo-science ideas that are presented as science but
dont follow the scientific method results in belief in
authority, unrepeatable experiments, handpicked examples,
unwillingness to test, disregard of refuting info
The scientific method identify the problem, devise a
hypothesis (must be falsifiable), derive a test implication and
perform the test (test must be independently replicable),
accept or reject the hypothesis
Testing and judging scientific theories to minimize errors,
scientist uses control groups, make studies double blind,

include placebos, and seek replication of their work judge

based on the criteria of adequacy
Science utilizes IBE to assess weird theories and common
place explanations
Mistakes with weird theories wanting to believe, failure of
imagination, infallibility of senses, logical vs. physical,
tradition, special status
Common mistake in science forgetting that we shouldnt
accept evidence provided by personal experience if we have
good reason to doubt it

Morality and law

Ethical theories meta-ethics enquires about the objectivity or
subjectivity of our moral judgements; normative ethics
determines what makes actions right or wrong; applied ethics
applies morality to real-life problems
Moral statements statement asserting that an action is right
or wrong
Reasons for moral statements utilitarianism (moral
righteousness achieves happiness for everyone), deontology
(conforming to rules), virtue/ethics, egoism, subjectivism,
relativism (culture)
Moral arguments standard moral arguments have at least
one premise that asserts an implicit and general moral
principle, at least one premise that is a non-moral claim (these
do not assert right or wrong, they just describe a state of
affairs), and a concl that is a moral statement
Note: moral arguments can be deductive or inductive, but
treat as deductive, then supply plausible premises to make
the argument valid
Moral premises finding the truth involves examining the
support they get from other moral principles, moral theories,
and considered moral judgements assess by finding counterexamples
Moral theories these attempt to explain what makes an
action right or wrong test consistency with considered moral
judgements, consistency with our experience of the moral life,
and workability in real-life situations
Legal reasoning courts determine what the facts are in cases
through inductive reasoning; reasoning by analogy applies
when judges decide cases in light of previously settled cases;
burden of proof can be highly unequal in legal reasoning