Final Project(PHI 108)

docx

School

Stony Brook University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

108.04

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateElementYak24

Final Project Jaeheon Kim Professor Jennifer Carter May 16, 2023 Part 1: Today, we engage in numerous debates covering a wide range of topics. When it comes to arguing and persuading others, logic plays a crucial role. Logical arguments possess a strong persuasive power. Surprisingly, even highly intelligent individuals, such as presidential candidates, often fall prey to logical fallacies. In this discussion, I aim to explore why we easily make logical errors during arguments. I believe the first reason behind this is our tendency to make premature predictions or generalize things. This inclination is best exemplified by fallacious reasoning. For instance, arguing that alcohol and cigarettes are beneficial for health because one's grandfather lived for a hundred years while smoking and drinking. This is a clear logical fallacy. The second reason is our inclination to assign value. We tend to assign value to everything, including work, products, and people. Consequently, we prioritize valuable things and invest more time in them. This focus on value often leads us to make logical mistakes due to incorrect valuations. In some cases, we even disregard morality. A classic example that illustrates this phenomenon is the trolley problem. Personally, I would choose not to change the track to sacrifice one person, as I believe it is not my right to take an innocent life, even if it means saving five others. However, my stance would completely change if those individuals were

people I knew. In that case, I would prioritize their lives over the moral principle or the rights of the one person. This inconsistency highlights the logical mistake I made, as I initially argued against taking someone's life, but my response changed simply because of my personal connection to the people involved. To delve into further questions, it is worth considering how we can prevent these logical mistakes. In my opinion, employing argumentative methods such as deductive and inductive reasoning can be helpful. Additionally, it is crucial to examine why we make these logical errors and take steps to prevent them. Understanding the root causes of the problem is essential. Part 2: 1. Elsby, Charlene. “Chapter Seven: Fallacies” Clear and Present Thinking, Second Edition: A Handbook in Logic and Rationality.” Northwest Passage Book, 2017, pp.131-142 In this chapter, the author aims to provide an explanation of the concept of fallacy. Additionally, they outline several types of fallacies commonly encountered in arguments. Examples of such fallacies include the fallacy of division, fallacy of composition, straw man fallacy, and hasty generalization fallacy. Each fallacy is thoroughly described and accompanied by an illustrative example. For instance, the hasty generalization fallacy occurs when individuals draw conclusions based on insufficient information, such as relying on a statistical chart without considering all relevant data. The author presents an example: "I don't believe that global warming is happening. After all, the last five years have been cooler than usual." This instance demonstrates the flawed reasoning of concluding that global warming is not occurring solely based on a five-year period

of cooler temperatures, while disregarding the overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of global warming. The author further elucidates that fallacies arise due to two primary reasons: assuming the conclusion has been proven and assuming there is stronger evidence for a particular conclusion. It is important to note that fallacies do not necessarily render the conclusion false. At this juncture, I would like to emphasize that fallacies arise fundamentally because of our tendency to make assumptions. I believe this chapter validates my initial point concerning the reasons behind our logical errors. Our predictions mislead us into arriving at entirely incorrect conclusions. As I read through this chapter, as previously explained, fallacies like the hasty generalization fallacy occur because we make predictions based on a single, potentially unique case. If an elderly man from Korea lived beyond 150 years, can we assert that all Korean men will live beyond 150 years? Certainly not. Another example, the fallacy of division, is illustrated by the author's example: "This machine is very heavy. Therefore, all the parts of the machine will be very heavy too." The fallacy of division erroneously assumes that every part of a whole will share the same characteristics as the whole itself. The author's example perfectly encapsulates the fallacy of division. Are all parts of the machine heavy simply because the machine as a whole is heavy? No, they are not. Some parts may be heavy, while others, such as rubber or nails, can be quite light, yet still constitute components of the machine. Numerous fallacies could be explained, but what they all have in common is that they involve making predictions. Although they may be grounded in factual information, they remain predictions. This chapter effectively reinforces my initial point regarding why we fall into logical mistakes. 2.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Elsby, Charlene. “10.4 Thought experiments” Clear and Present Thinking, Second Edition: A Handbook in Logic and Rationality.” Northwest Passage Book, 2017, pp.194-195 In Chapter 10.4, the author presents several philosophical problems that have been explored and discussed by philosophers. These include the trolley problem, the cow in the field, the Chinese room, the brain in a vat, and the teletransporter. Rather than simply asking us to make a choice, these problems aim to stimulate our thinking about philosophical questions. For instance, the trolley problem focuses on ethics and poses the question of whether it is morally acceptable to sacrifice one innocent life to save five others by changing the direction of a runaway trolley. This chapter primarily revolves around philosophical thought problems. While many of the questions are unrelated to the topic I want to discuss, I find the trolley problem particularly relevant to my second point about making logical mistakes. As I mentioned before, the concept of value varies from person to person. Each individual assigns different values to time, work, products, and relationships. One person may prioritize work over relationships, while another may consider relationships to be of utmost importance. Even within the realm of relationships, people have different values and priorities. Some may value their family above all else, while others may prioritize their romantic partner. The reason I bring this up is that we sometimes fall into a logical error in our reasoning. In the case of the trolley problem, when I consider that I don't know anyone on the track, I personally chose not to intervene because I believe it is not my right to take the life of an innocent person, even if it means saving more lives. However, if I modify the scenario to involve my family members on the track, my response changes completely. I would choose to save my family, disregarding the rights of the one innocent person, even though it would be considered murder. It is true that making a decision is not easy even when we have no personal connection

to anyone involved. I grappled with moral considerations and questions of value. I also questioned whether I had the right to make a decision that could cost someone their life. Upon reflecting on this, I strongly argued that I do not have the right to sacrifice the life of that one innocent person. I believed that I cannot choose who to save. I concluded that I would let the situation unfold as it is. However, when the condition changed and someone from my family became the person on the track, my choice was entirely different. Despite my strong belief that I would not make any changes, I changed my mind and decided to divert the trolley to kill the innocent person because my family is incredibly important and valuable to me. I made a logical mistake. The weight of value can alter people's thoughts. This is why I consider the trolley problem to be a compelling example that illustrates my second point about people committing logical mistakes. Part 3: Question 2: In my opinion, two habits that hinder proper thinking are peer pressure and intellectual laziness. Firstly, peer pressure can disrupt one's ability to think critically and make sound decisions. When faced with pressure from a social group or friends, it becomes difficult to make independent choices. Even if I believe option 2 is the correct one, I often succumb to the group's decision due to the fear of social repercussions. This has resulted in me questioning the importance of my own thoughts, as I tend to follow the majority without considering whether I truly agree. Secondly, intellectual laziness is another detrimental habit. There are occasions when certain questions require thoughtful consideration before answering. However, intellectual laziness arises when I avoid thinking deeply about complex matters out of sheer laziness. Instead of exerting effort, I simply give up on finding an answer. These negative habits contribute to

flawed thinking as they impede proper reflection and lead to premature abandonment of critical thinking. If one fails to engage in thoughtful and diligent thinking, the quality of their thoughts is compromised. On the other hand, I believe courage and patience are positive thinking habits. Personally, I consider courage to be the most vital aspect of thinking. People often resist change out of fear, preferring to maintain the status quo. However, progress begins with courageous thinking. Thinkers who challenge conventional wisdom and dare to question the norm have the power to transform the world. Additionally, patience plays a crucial role in thinking. It is well- known that anger can cloud judgment and lead to regrettable mistakes, such as saying hurtful things to friends. Personally, I refrain from speaking or making decisions when angry, as negativity permeates my thoughts. Patience allows for thorough and meticulous thinking. These two habits facilitate reliable conclusions as they promote extensive and accurate thinking, shielding against negative or erroneous thought patterns. Question 9: I would select four fallacies: the false dilemma fallacy, hasty generalization fallacy, false cause fallacy, and fallacy of division. Initially, the false dilemma fallacy occurs when only two opposing choices are presented, often using the phrases "either...or." For example, it is stated as either kissing your girlfriend or hating your girlfriend. This fallacy leads to errors by oversimplifying choices and falsely implying that not choosing one option automatically means choosing the other. It disregards personal opinions and misrepresents the outcome. Just because someone doesn't do one thing doesn't mean they would automatically do the other. It's crucial not to predict or prematurely conclude the result. The second fallacy is the hasty generalization fallacy, which involves drawing conclusions based on insufficient information or limited statistics. For instance, if a friend ate lots of chocolate and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

got good grades, it is concluded that chocolates are very helpful for studying. This kind of reasoning is misleading because it relies on insufficient data. Generalizing from a single case or observation is not a valid approach. Another example would be assuming that all Koreans like kimchi just because one Korean individual does. People have diverse preferences, and it's erroneous to generalize without proper information. The argument should not be concluded based on inadequate evidence. The third fallacy is the false cause fallacy, which involves attributing causation based on the sequence of events. It assumes that if event A occurs before event B, then A must be the cause of B. For instance, assuming that washing a car causes rain because every time the car is washed, it rains. This fallacy misleads by assuming causation based solely on temporal relationships. The argument should not be based solely on the occurrence of events. The last fallacy is the fallacy of division, which involves assuming that a characteristic or property of a group applies to every individual within that group. For example, assuming that every part of Samsung phones must be from Korea because Samsung phones are made in Korea. This assumption is incorrect since not every component of the phone necessarily originates from Korea. It's important not to make unwarranted assumptions or generalizations based on a single aspect. I believe it is important to refrain from making predictions or estimations as these tendencies can lead to committing these fallacies. The four fallacies share a common aspect of predicting outcomes or causes. Hence, it is essential to verify every fact and avoid falling into these fallacious patterns. The trolley problem presents a scenario where you have control over a runaway trolley that is headed towards five people tied to the tracks. You have no means to stop or divert the trolley,

except for a switch that would redirect it to another track where only one person is present, who would then be killed. The question asks for your decision in this situation, challenging whether you have the right to save five lives at the expense of one. By choosing to do nothing, one person will survive due to your inaction. However, switching the track to save more lives raises ethical concerns as it involves actively causing harm to one person to save others. In my opinion, I do not possess the right to change the railway track, even if it means saving four additional lives. Doing nothing is the morally correct course of action, as one person's right to life holds greater importance than maximizing the number of lives saved. Even if five people end up dying, no one would be held responsible for their deaths. The crux of the matter is that the person on the alternate track has a right to life that is as significant as the other five individuals. This decision is not solely a matter of morality; it encompasses respecting someone's fundamental right to life. I firmly believe that disregarding that right, even for the sake.