LIBS 7008 - Notes

docx

School

University of British Columbia *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MATH 224

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by vishal0676

Module 1: - Philosophy and Critical Thinking Study Questions: 1. Explain the origin of the word philosophy and describe the branches and sub-branches of the discipline. Comes from the word philos – love & Sophia – wisdom, which means love of wisdom History of Philosophy – divided into four periods Value Theory – divided into aesthetics (art), political, ethics Epistemology – the nature of knowledge Metaphysics – the nature of reality Logic – Formal (symbolic), & Critical Thinking (informal logic) Discipline specific – education, language, psychology, history, & law 2. What is conceptual analysis and how does it work? A philosopher is a conceptual analyst, someone trained to conduct conceptual analyses. To analyze a concept is to expose, examine, and clarify the ideas of which it is composed. 3. How does Nosich define critical thinking, and what are some of its prominent features? -critical thinking is reflective -critical thinking involves standards -critical thinking is authentic -critical thinking involves being reasonable Mathew Lipmans definition: critical thinking is skillful, responsible thinking that is conducive to good judgement because it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self correcting. 4. State and explain the three parts of critical thinking, as described by Nosich. Asking questions, good questions, and noticing questions need to be addressed Answer those questions, by reasoning them out., not as simple as just give an answer Believing the results of our reasoning, since we did reasoning, we can conclude in most cases our answer was reasonable 5. What are some of the misconceptions about critical thinking? Critical thinking and negativity - Critical thinking is not negative - It is related to criteria instead - Involves making judgements (judgements can be perceived as negative Critical thinking and emotions - Critical thinking is not emotionless thinking - If your angry or mad, it can affect critical thinking, best to hold off - However, emotions in a neutral state can help with CT Critical thinking and Problem Solving - Critical thinking goes beyond problem solving - More complex than just answering a simple question, ie marriage, long term critical thinking if you want to get married.

Module 2: Arguments and Non-Arguments Study Questions: 1. What is the difference between arguments, opinions, and descriptions? An argument is an attempt to persuade, usually with one or more premises to support it, and provide evidence for, a further claim, which is a conclusion An opinion is a belief. Description is a report that tells us the state of something, not an attempt to persuade, no premise or conclusion. 2. What is the difference between arguments and explanations, and what is the primary purpose of each? Explanation, by purpose offer a way to show why something makes sense Argument defends a position with purpose Explanations are given to clarify a situation by providing information Whereas arguments defend a position using evidence, causal explanations delineate cause- effect relationships. 3. Define the three types of explanations discussed in the reading. explanations by purpose offer an account of why something makes sense by relating it to human motives Another type of explanation is involved when we give the meanings of words, which we typically do by referring to their synonyms causal explanations, which are accounts showing, or attempting to show, how an object, fact or event came to be the way it is 4. Give at least five premise indicators and five conclusion indicators. Premise indicators because since follows from as shown by given that on the grounds that for the reason that as indicated by may be inferred from may be derived from Conclusion indicators therefore thus so hence it follows that in conclusion accordingly proves that indicates that demonstrates that consequently 5. Is the presence of indicator words in a passage a sure sign of the presence of an argument? Explain. No, it can also be an explanation, because explanation also uses indicator words

6. What is the overconfidence effect and how is it related to the confirmation bias? The overconfidence effect and confirmation bias suggest we are too confident of our beliefs, and tend to dismiss the evidence that might change them. Confirmation bias suggests that we favor arguments that confirm the biases and beliefs we already have, ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts them. Being overconfident in our judgements and reasoning, a bias that is also called the overconfident effect 7. How do Groarke and Tindale define ‘argument’? In ordinary language, Argument can mean contradiction, or generally, disagreement Use it in ways like a passionate disagreement, ie yelling match, quarrel Those who study it, understand argument as an attempt to provide evidence or reasons for some point of view Simplest argument only has one premise Define argument as a set of reasons offered in support of a claim 8. Summarise the influence belief systems have on arguments. Element of belief system can have a significant influence on the argument, Best way is to point out flaws in weak arguments, rather than scrutinizing as that will enforce more belief. We cannot remove an arguers belief system in order to prevent its influence. Beliefs can be based on gender, race, religion, education, etc. 9. What, according to Groarke and Tindale, is the difference between a specific audience and a universal audience, and what impact does a particular target audience have on the presentation of an argument? Specific audience can be more susceptible to an argument, or vice versa, A universal audience will be harder to convince, likely won’t be swayed one way or other. Target audience, likely have the same system of beliefs, that can be targeted. 10. Explain the process of dialectic and the roles played by opponents and proponents in this process. In the case of argument, the process of exchange is called dialectic Opponents, may respond by criticizing your arguments, ask for more clarification, this process of exchange is called dialectic Proponents advocating for a theory, the process is dialectic.

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

Module 3: - Types of Persuasive Arguments 1. Define deductive and non-deductive arguments. Which type of argument is stronger and why? Deductive argument is defined by the arguer’s intention. Thus, it’s an argument that is intended by the arguer to be a proof, that is to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion given that the arguers premises are true. Premises intend to provide such strong support for the conclusion, thus the conclusion could not be false, if premises are true. Non deductive argument, premises give support but not conclusive support, to the conclusion. You can accept premises of the non-deductive argument, yet still reject the conclusion, because the conclusion always goes beyond what the premises say. Non-deductive reasoning is probabilistic, rather than absolute. Deductive argument is strong because the premises give stronger support to the conclusion, and if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, you cannot say the same about non-deductive arguments. 2. Using original examples, define every member of the non-deductive family of arguments. Non-Deductive arguments (ARE ALL INVALID) -Inductive Arguments – premises and conclusion based on regularities observed and experienced, conclusion is based on an assumption. Four types of Inductive arguments: Inductive (Statistical) generalization – premises describe a property shared by a number of cases, follows a pattern of making a claim about a target population based on testing that claim on a sample, if generalization to be considered legit, sample must be representative of the target population. Statistical syllogisms (or statistical applications) – reason based on characteristics generally present or absent, within a certain reference class to characteristics likely or unlikely, to belong to proper subsets (including single individuals) Casual Inductive Arguments – conclusion is a claim that one thing causes another Analogical Arguments (arguments from analogy – comparison between two things for clarification or explanation) - by using one case (usually easy to understand), to clarify another (usually less clear), that seeks to justify a conclusion about the second case, based on considerations of the first case Abductive Arguments (IBE – inference of the best available explanation) – a hypothesis is inferred from a set of data, on grounds that it offers the best possible explanation for that data. Hypothesis must be plausible (makes sense in the world), and falsifiable (find out conditions that would make it fail) More than just a plausible hypothesis, premise must be defended in a secondary argument, with three characteristics: most plausible, most explanatory power, & simplest to use. Conductive Arguments (LOR – list of reasons) – pattern of support is convergent. Premises by themselves not intended to be sufficient, but when bunched up together, it provides a strong case. 3. Explain validity and soundness. Validity – - never take you from true premises to false conclusion, - premsies are relation to the conclusion, such that if premises are true conclusion must be true -assuming truth of premises guarantees truth of the conclusion -impossible for premises to be true and conclusion to be false -Does not demand that either the premise or conclusion actually be true -AN ARGUMENT IS ONLY VALID IF THE SET COMPRISING THE PREMISES ENTAIL ITS CONCLUSION. (i a) The premises are TRUE and the conclusion is TRUE (i b) The premises are TRUE and the conclusion is FALSE – only this is not valid (ii a) The premises are FALSE and the conclusion is TRUE (ii b) The premises are FALSE and the conclusion is FALSE (iii a) The premises are MIXED and the conclusion is TRUE (iii b) The premises are MIXED and the conclusion is FALSE Soundness – Two criteria - Argument must be valid - All premises must be true, and conclusion must be true - Only (i a) is sound from above

4. What are the four possibilities of truth-falsity and validity-invalidity identified in the “Critical Thinking— Fundamentals: Truth and Validity” video? Draw a diagram of your own to represent these possibilities. For argument to be sound it needs for premises to be true, and reasoning to be valid 5. Explain why a valid argument with a false conclusion must have at least one false premise. Because it is valid that means if there were all true premises, they must have a true conclusion, thus, if there is false conclusion, there must be at least one false premise. 6. Are invalid arguments weak? Explain your answer. They can be weak because they will not be sound and could have factually false arguments. 7. Define the property of entailment and explain its relationship to validity and soundness. What does it mean for set S to entail sentence A? Entailment basically means, S will guarantee the truth of A. Entailment does not require sentences to be actually true Can exist between a set of sentences, not just a pair of sentences

8. Give original examples of valid arguments that have: (i) all true premises and a true conclusion; [1] To be a novelist one must have written at least one novel. (T) [2] J. K. Rowling is a novelist. (T) [3] J. K. Rowling has written at least one novel. (T) (ii) all false premises and a true conclusion; [1] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart walked on the surface of the moon. (F) [2] All those who walked on the surface of the moon died before the age of 45. (F) [3] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died before the age of 45. (T) (iii) all false premises and a false conclusion; [1] Vladimir Putin was born in Cleveland Ohio. (F) [2] All those born in Cleveland Ohio are allergic to peanuts. (F) [3] All those allergic to peanuts are madly in love with Hillary Clinton. (F) [4] Vladimir Putin is madly in love with Hillary Clinton. (F) (iv) mixed premises and a true conclusion; and [1] Paris is a city in France. (T) [2] All cities in France have the Eiffel Tower. (F) [3] Paris has the Eiffel Tower. (T) (v) mixed premises and a false conclusion. [1] If the sky is sometimes blue, then Justin Bieber has a Ph.D. in climatology. (F) [2] The sky is sometimes blue. (T) [3] Justin Bieber has a Ph.D. in climatology. (F) 9. Explain in your own words Nelson Goodman’s Grue thought-experiment and its significance to induction, as presented in the “Crash Course Philosophy (Episode 3): How to Argue—Induction & Abduction” video. Hypothetical substance called grue. Grue is green before time t Grue is blue after time t Assume we are living in time before t, thus we can assume all emeralds are green, and future ones will still be green, based on inductive reasoning. Inductive, can be contradicting reasoning. Probabilistic reasoning 10. How are abduction, interlocutors, counterargument, and the Socratic Method defined in the “Crash Course Philosophy (Episode 3): How to Argue—Induction & Abduction” video? Deductive – true premises mean true conclusion Inductive – true premises, only mean a likely true conclusion (not certain, based on probability) Abduction – drawing a conclusion based on the explanation that best explains a state of events, rather than from evidence provided in the premises. (inference to best explanation), uses only info available on hand Interlocutors – people participating in a dialogue, debate or conversation, first one advances, second one either accepts it or offers a counter- argument Counterargument – an argument presented to oppose or refute another argument

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

Socratic Method – learning through a dialectic exchange of ideas, rather than a passive transmission of information Module 4 – Study Questions: A Strategy for Standardizing and Diagramming Arguments (ASSDA). 1.What are the three features and thirteen steps of ASSDA? The first is a technique whereby we work as much as possible on the text of the passage itself. The second feature is simultaneous standardization and diagramming, which makes it easier to tackle complex arguments that may otherwise seem daunting. Thirdly, label each statement in the standardized argument in order to indicate precisely the role it plays and the type of support it provides. 2. Explain why background information, editorial remarks, and personal opinions are omitted when standardizing an argument. They make conversations more interesting, but elemiated when we put an argument in standard form. Not interested in it. We are interested in just the position being defended and the reasons offered for it. 3. What is an extended argument? The entire argument – i.e., the main argument together with all subarguments, sub-subarguments, etc. – is called an extended argument. 4. Describe the difference between linked, convergent, linear, and mixed support, and state why deductive arguments are associated with a linked support pattern . Linear is a straight opattern, single line of single arrows from one level to the next Premises that are linked with a + sign are linked 2 & 3 to 5 is convergent, not linked or linear, like a “V” shape Mixed support, is two or more different patterns of support, ie linear with convergent. 5. State and describe the criteria used in justifying the addition of an unstated component in an argument. What is the central point of the passage? What is the underlying position the arguer is supporting? If one had to distill the entire passage into one fundamental claim, what would that be? 6. Explain why an unstated premise will link to one or more stated premise(s) in an argument, and why an unstated subconclusion will follow validly from the subpremise(s) that support it. You might have noticed that every time an unstated premise was supplied, it linked to one or more premises that were already present. There is a clue here: an unstated premise will never support a conclusion or subconclusion in isolation. The reason is that there is no way for an unstated premise to be noticed unless it is part of a deductive argument structure (remember that deductive arguments are associated with a linked pattern of support). When part of a deductive structure is not there, it will disrupt the chain of reasoning in this structure, leaving what will seem like a hole or a gap. 7. Distinguish and give some examples of qualifying expressions and expressions that indicate degrees of commitment. They all seem to be structured similarly. Two of the statements are universal. are all qualified preserve in the standardization – all degrees of commitmentexpressed by an arguer.

8. Are there logical meanings associated with the various qualifications and degrees of commitment? Why is it important to preserve such expressions in the standardization of an argument? To preserve the degree of commitment expressed by the arguer. 9. In what respects do the principles of faithfulness and charity differ, and why are they important in argument analysis? Faithfulness – recommends that we try to set out as carefully as possible exactly what the arguer meant to say. Being faithful to the arguers’ intentions. Otherwise, we may not be dealing with the argument intended, just one that we have made up. Charity – recommends that we take the argument seriously, giving the benefit of the doubt and maximizing the truth and logical connectedness of its parts. To make the argument as strong as possible. 10. What should a critical thinker do in a case where faithfulness and charity come apart? Prioritize faithfulness. Can be cases where one is maximized, and one is minimized. Rule. Faithfulness – you simply can’t change what the arguer had in mind in order to make an argument as strong as possible. The price of doing that is to end up analysing an argument that is altogether different from the one actually being proposed. Module 5 – Language and Expression 1. Outline the difference between using a word and mentioning a word. How are use and mention related to the concepts of object language and meta-language? When using a word, the speaker is using the word to refer to a particular object, concept, or idea in the world. For example, if someone says "The sky is blue," they are using the word "sky" to refer to the physical atmosphere that surrounds the Earth. On the other hand, when mentioning a word, the speaker is simply mentioning the word without using it to refer to anything. For example, if someone says "The word 'sky' has five letters," they are mentioning the word "sky" but not using it to refer to the physical atmosphere that surrounds the Earth. The distinction between using a word and mentioning a word is related to the concepts of object language and meta-language. Object language refers to the language that we use to describe the world and make statements about it. For example, the sentence "The sky is blue" is written in the object language. Meta-language, on the other hand, is a language used to talk about language itself. For example, the sentence "The word 'sky' has five letters" is written in the meta-language because it is talking about the word "sky" as a linguistic entity rather than using it to refer to the physical atmosphere. In summary, when we use a word, we are using it within the object language to make statements about the world. When we mention a word, we are using it within the meta-language to talk about the word itself or the language it is part of. 2. How might emotionally charged language and euphemisms be used to influence the apparent persuasiveness of an argument? Use original examples in your answer. Emotionally charged language and euphemisms can both be used to influence the apparent persuasiveness of an argument by appealing to the emotions and values of the audience. Emotionally charged language refers to words or phrases that evoke strong emotions in the reader or listener, such as anger, fear, or excitement. For example, if someone is making an argument against a proposed policy, they might use words such as "outrageous" or "disastrous" to describe the potential consequences of the policy. By doing so, they are trying to evoke a sense of anger or fear in the audience, which might make them more likely to be persuaded by the argument.

Euphemisms are words or phrases that are used to replace a more direct or blunt term, often to make it more palatable or less offensive. For example, if someone is trying to persuade the public to support a controversial policy, they might use a euphemism such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of "torture." By using a euphemism, they are trying to downplay the severity of the policy and make it more acceptable to the audience. In both cases, the use of emotionally charged language or euphemisms can make an argument appear more persuasive by tapping into the emotions and values of the audience. However, it is also important to keep in mind that these tactics can also be manipulative and undermine the credibility of the argument. 3. Explain the our-side bias and argument by epithet. The "in-group bias" or "our-side bias" is a cognitive bias that occurs when people have a tendency to favor information, arguments, and perspectives that align with their own beliefs and values, while rejecting or discounting information, arguments, and perspectives that challenge those beliefs and values. People tend to view members of their own group as being more trustworthy, competent, and morally superior to members of other groups. Argument by epithet is a rhetorical device that involves using insulting or inflammatory language to discredit an opposing argument or viewpoint. An epithet is a term used to characterize a person or group in a way that is intended to be insulting or dismissive. For example, someone might use an epithet such as "left-wing lunatics" to describe people who hold political views that are different from their own. The goal of argument by epithet is to discredit the opposing argument or viewpoint without actually engaging with the substance of the argument. Both the in-group bias and argument by epithet can have a significant impact on the way that people perceive and respond to arguments and information. The in-group bias can lead to people rejecting arguments that challenge their beliefs, even if those arguments are well-supported by evidence. Argument by epithet can also have a similar effect, as people may be more likely to dismiss arguments that are associated with an epithet, rather than engaging with the substance of the argument. Both of these biases can be barriers to critical thinking and effective communication, and they can undermine the quality of public discourse. 4. What is the difference between semantic ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, and vagueness? Semantic ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, and vagueness are different types of linguistic ambiguity that can arise in language use. Semantic ambiguity refers to a situation where a word or phrase has multiple meanings, and it is not clear which meaning is intended in a particular context. For example, the word "bank" has multiple meanings, such as a financial institution, a riverbank, or a place to store money. In a sentence like "I'm going to the bank," it is not clear which of these meanings is intended without further context. Syntactic ambiguity refers to a situation where a sentence or phrase can be parsed in multiple ways, resulting in different interpretations of its meaning. For example, the sentence "The old man the boat" can be parsed in two ways, either as "The old man [is] the boat" or as "The old man [who is] the boat." The different parsings result in different interpretations of the sentence. Vagueness refers to a situation where a word or phrase is not precise or lacks a clear boundary. For example, the word "tall" is vague because it is not clear what it means for someone to be "tall." The concept of "tallness" is a matter of degree, and there is no clear boundary between being tall and not being tall. Vagueness can lead to confusion or misunderstandings in communication. In summary, semantic ambiguity refers to words or phrases with multiple meanings, syntactic ambiguity refers to sentences or phrases with multiple interpretations, and vagueness refers to words or phrases that lack precision or a clear boundary. 5. Give an original example of the fallacy of equivocation. How is this fallacy associated with a lack of clarity? The fallacy of equivocation is a type of error in reasoning that occurs when a word or phrase is used with multiple meanings in the same argument, leading to confusion or a false conclusion. An example of the fallacy of equivocation is as follows: Person 1: "Do you believe in freedom?" Person 2: "Yes, I do." Person 1: "Then you must support this proposed policy, because it promotes freedom."

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

In this example, Person 1 equivocates on the meaning of the word "freedom." Person 2 may have a different understanding of the word "freedom" than Person 1, and they may not support the proposed policy even if they do believe in freedom. By using the word "freedom" with two different meanings in the same argument, Person 1 commits the fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation is associated with a lack of clarity because it relies on ambiguity and confusion to mislead the reader or listener. By using a word or phrase with multiple meanings in the same argument, the arguer creates confusion and undermines the clarity of their argument. This makes it difficult for the audience to critically evaluate the argument and to reach a well-supported conclusion. 6. Describe and give original examples of the following definitions: operational, ostensive, persuasive, reportive (or lexical), and stipulative. 1. Operational definition: An operational definition is a definition that specifies how a concept or term is to be measured or operationalized in a particular context. The purpose of an operational definition is to make a concept or term clear and specific, so that it can be used consistently and accurately. For example, an operational definition of "intelligence" might specify a set of cognitive tests that are to be used to measure intelligence. 2. Ostensive definition: An ostensive definition is a definition that points to an example or provides a demonstration of what a concept or term refers to. The purpose of an ostensive definition is to make a concept or term more concrete and understandable. For example, an ostensive definition of "red" might involve pointing to a red apple and saying "this is what I mean by red." 3. Persuasive definition: A persuasive definition is a definition that is intended to persuade people to accept a particular point of view or belief. The purpose of a persuasive definition is to shape people's understanding of a concept or term in a way that supports the arguer's position. For example, a persuasive definition of "terrorism" might define it as "violent acts committed by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals." This definition might be intended to support the view that state-sponsored violence is not terrorism. 4. Reportive (or lexical) definition: A reportive or lexical definition is a definition that describes the meaning of a word as it is typically used in a language or culture. Reportive definitions are based on the way that people actually use words, rather than on the ideal or theoretical meaning of the words. For example, a reportive definition of "friend" might describe it as "a person who you like and trust, and who you spend time with." 5. Stipulative definition: A stipulative definition is a definition that is created by stipulating, or specifying, the meaning of a term. Stipulative definitions are often used in scientific or mathematical contexts, where it is important to have precise definitions that can be used consistently. For example, a stipulative definition of "velocity" might specify that it is the rate of change of an object's position over time, expressed in a particular unit of measurement. 7. What is the Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning and what are its shortcomings? The Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning, also known as linguistic pragmatism, is a theory of meaning that is based on the idea that the meaning of a word is determined by the speaker's intentions and the context in which the word is used. According to this theory, words can have different meanings in different contexts, and the meaning of a word is not fixed but is instead a matter of convention or agreement between the speaker and the listener. The Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning is named after the character in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" who famously declared, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean." One of the shortcomings of the Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning is that it can lead to a relativistic view of language and meaning, in which words have no objective or universal meaning, but instead have meaning only in the context of a particular speech act. This can make it difficult to have meaningful communication or to resolve disagreements, as there may be no shared understanding of the meanings of words. Another shortcoming of the Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning is that it can be difficult to determine the meaning of a word in a particular context. If the meaning of a word is dependent on the speaker's intentions and the context in which it is used, then it can be challenging to determine the meaning of a word without access to the speaker's thoughts or the full context of the speech act. This can lead to misunderstandings and confusion in communication.

8. Discuss the cooperative principle, as presented in the twenty-eighth episode of Crash Course Philosophy, and explain how it can play a role in misunderstanding. The cooperative principle is a concept in pragmatics, the branch of linguistics that studies the ways in which people use language in context. The cooperative principle states that people who communicate with each other tend to do so in a cooperative and mutually supportive way, such that each person tries to make their communicative intentions clear and understandable to the other person. The cooperative principle is based on the idea that communication is a social activity that requires the cooperation of both the speaker and the listener in order to be successful. The principle consists of four maxims, or guidelines, that people follow in order to achieve successful communication: the maxim of relevance, the maxim of quality, the maxim of quantity, and the maxim of manner. The maxim of relevance states that speakers should only provide information that is relevant to the topic of conversation, while the maxim of quality states that speakers should only provide information that is true or verifiable. The maxim of quantity states that speakers should provide enough information to fulfill the needs of the conversation, but not more, while the maxim of manner states that speakers should be clear, concise, and avoid ambiguity. In practice, people may not always follow the cooperative principle perfectly, which can lead to misunderstandings. For example, if a speaker violates the maxim of relevance by providing information that is not relevant to the topic of conversation, the listener may become confused or frustrated. Similarly, if a speaker violates the maxim of quality by providing false or misleading information, the listener may become distrustful or skeptical. In conclusion, the cooperative principle plays a role in misunderstandings by providing a set of maxims that people should follow in order to achieve successful communication. When people do not follow these maxims, misunderstandings can occur, leading to confusion and frustration. 9. What is the difference between hate speech and speech that simply offends an audience’s sensibilities, as presented in the twenty-eighth episode of Crash Course Philosophy? As discussed in the twenty-eighth episode of Crash Course Philosophy, hate speech is speech that attacks or demeans individuals or groups based on their membership in a particular group, such as their race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Hate speech is intended to harm and degrade the targeted group, and it often promotes prejudice, discrimination, or violence against them. Speech that simply offends an audience's sensibilities refers to speech that may be considered rude, insensitive, or in bad taste, but it does not attack or demean individuals or groups based on their membership in a particular group. This type of speech may be controversial or unpopular, but it does not seek to harm or degrade individuals or groups in the way that hate speech does. The difference between hate speech and speech that simply offends an audience's sensibilities lies in the intent and impact of the speech. Hate speech is intended to harm and degrade individuals or groups, while speech that simply offends an audience's sensibilities may be insensitive or in poor taste, but it does not have the same harmful intent. In many societies, hate speech is considered unacceptable and may be regulated or banned, while speech that simply offends an audience's sensibilities may be protected by freedom of speech laws. However, the line between hate speech and speech that simply offends an audience's sensibilities can be difficult to draw, and there may be disagreement over what constitutes hate speech and what is protected free speech. 10. The twenty-eighth episode of Crash Course Philosophy defines thick concepts and metaphorical identification. Explain these two ideas using original examples.

Thick concepts, as defined in the twenty-eighth episode of Crash Course Philosophy, are moral or ethical concepts that not only describe an action or state of affairs, but also carry with them an evaluation of that action or state of affairs. Thick concepts include terms like "justice," "honesty," "courage," "compassion," etc. For example, consider the thick concept of "justice." When we say that something is just, we are not just describing a state of affairs, but also expressing a moral judgment that the state of affairs is fair, equitable, and in accordance with moral principles. Similarly, when we describe someone as honest, we are not just describing their behavior, but also expressing a moral judgment that their behavior is truthful and trustworthy. Metaphorical identification, on the other hand, refers to the process of using metaphorical language to understand and describe abstract concepts. For example, when we talk about "grasping" an idea, we are using a metaphor to describe the process of understanding a concept. Similarly, when we talk about "shedding light" on a problem, we are using a metaphor to describe the process of finding a solution. Metaphorical identification allows us to understand abstract concepts by connecting them to concrete experiences and objects. For example, when we talk about "grasping" an idea, we can understand the process of understanding a concept by drawing on our experience of physically grasping objects. Similarly, when we talk about "shedding light" on a problem, we can understand the process of finding a solution by drawing on our experience of using light to see things more clearly. In conclusion, thick concepts are moral or ethical concepts that carry an evaluation of an action or state of affairs, while metaphorical identification is the process of using metaphorical language to understand and describe abstract concepts. Both of these concepts play a role in shaping our understanding of the world and our moral and ethical judgments. Module 6 1.State and explain the ARG conditions of cogency. The three ARG conditions of cogency are: 1. Acceptability: This condition refers to the extent to which the premises of the argument are acceptable or plausible to the audience. In other words, the premises must be free from logical fallacies, contradictions, and other forms of irrationality. 2. Reliability: This condition refers to the extent to which the premises of the argument are reliable or supported by evidence. In other words, the premises must be based on credible sources and must be well-established facts. 3. Ground: This condition refers to the extent to which the premises of the argument are relevant or connected to the conclusion. In other words, the premises must provide adequate support for the conclusion, and the conclusion must be logically entailed by the premises. In conclusion, the ARG conditions of cogency are a set of criteria used to evaluate the soundness of an argument. The conditions require that the argument's premises be acceptable, reliable, and well-grounded in order to be considered cogent. These conditions are important because they help us to distinguish between good arguments and bad arguments, and they provide a framework for evaluating the quality of arguments in a rigorous and systematic way. 2. Summarize Govier’s discussion of deductive entailment, conductive support, inductive support, and analogy. In her book "A Practical Study of Argument," the philosopher Trudy Govier discusses four types of support that can be used to strengthen an argument: deductive entailment, conductive support, inductive support, and analogy. 1. Deductive Entailment: This type of support refers to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises, and the conclusion is said to be entailed by the premises. 2. Conductive Support: This type of support refers to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of an argument that uses examples or cases to support the conclusion. The conclusion is supported by the premises in a conductive argument because the premises provide evidence that is relevant to the conclusion.

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

3. Inductive Support: This type of support refers to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of an inductive argument. In an inductive argument, the premises provide evidence that supports the conclusion, but the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Instead, the conclusion is probable or likely given the evidence. 4. Analogy: This type of support refers to the use of analogies or comparisons to support an argument. An analogy is a comparison between two things that are similar in some respect, and the purpose of the analogy is to provide support for the argument by showing that a similar situation supports the conclusion. In conclusion, Govier's discussion of deductive entailment, conductive support, inductive support, and analogy provides a framework for understanding the different types of support that can be used to strengthen an argument. By understanding the different types of support, we can better evaluate the strength of an argument and determine whether the conclusion is supported by the premises. 3. Give an original example of an argument that passes the A condition, but fails R and G, and another original example of an argument that passes A and R, but not G. 1. Argument that passes A but fails R and G: Premise: All dogs are animals. Conclusion: All cats are animals. This argument passes the A (Acceptability) condition, as both premises and conclusion are well-formed and can be understood. However, the argument fails the R (Relevance) condition, as the premise about dogs is not relevant to the conclusion about cats. The argument also fails the G (Ground) condition, as there is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. 2. Argument that passes A and R but not G: Premise: Some politicians are corrupt. Conclusion: All politicians are corrupt. This argument passes the A condition, as both premises and conclusion are well-formed and can be understood. It also passes the R condition, as the premise about some politicians being corrupt is relevant to the conclusion about all politicians being corrupt. However, the argument fails the G condition, as the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Just because some politicians are corrupt, it does not mean that all politicians are corrupt. 4. Give an original example of an argument that passes all three ARG conditions. An argument that passes all three ARG conditions could look like this: Premise: All apples are fruit. Premise: All fruit contains natural sugar. Conclusion: All apples contain natural sugar. This argument passes the A (Acceptability) condition, as both premises and conclusion are well-formed and can be understood. It also passes the R (Relevance) condition, as the premises are relevant to the conclusion. The argument also passes the G (Ground) condition, as the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The premises provide strong support for the conclusion that all apples contain natural sugar. 5. Explain the relationship between the ARG conditions, validity, and soundness. The ARG conditions (Acceptability, Relevance, and Ground) are used to evaluate the quality of an argument, while validity and soundness are concepts that relate to the logical form and strength of an argument, respectively. Validity is a property of an argument that says that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. An argument is considered valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, regardless of whether the premises are actually true or not. Soundness, on the other hand, is a property of an argument that combines both validity and truth. A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and has all true premises.

The ARG conditions are related to validity and soundness in that they provide a framework for evaluating the quality of an argument. To have a valid argument, an argument must first pass the ARG conditions, which ensure that the argument is well-formed, relevant, and grounded. If an argument passes the ARG conditions, it can then be evaluated for validity. If the argument is valid, it can then be evaluated for soundness by determining whether the premises are true. In short, the ARG conditions are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for validity and soundness. To have a sound argument, an argument must first pass the ARG conditions, and then be both valid and have true premises. 6. Describe in detail how the ARG conditions apply to linear, convergent, and linked patterns of support. Linear patterns of support are arguments that rely on a single line of reasoning to support a conclusion. In this type of argument, the ARG conditions are applied to the individual premises and conclusion to ensure that they are well-formed, relevant, and grounded. Convergent patterns of support are arguments that rely on multiple lines of reasoning to support a conclusion. In this type of argument, the ARG conditions are applied to each line of reasoning individually and then to the overall argument as a whole. The individual lines of reasoning must each pass the ARG conditions, and the conclusion must follow logically from the premises as a whole. Linked patterns of support are arguments that rely on multiple lines of reasoning that are connected in some way to support a conclusion. In this type of argument, the ARG conditions are applied to each line of reasoning individually, but also to the connections between them. The connections must also be well-formed, relevant, and grounded in order for the overall argument to pass the ARG conditions. In each of these patterns of support, the ARG conditions must be satisfied in order for the argument to be considered well-formed, relevant, and grounded. The specific application of the ARG conditions may vary depending on the pattern of support, but the overall goal is to ensure that the argument is logically sound and supports the conclusion in a clear and convincing manner. 7. Why is the truth of the conclusion of an argument not enough to deem the argument cogent? The truth of the conclusion of an argument is not enough to deem the argument cogent because cogency is a more complex notion that involves not only the truth of the conclusion, but also the strength and validity of the reasoning used to support it. Simply having a true conclusion does not necessarily mean that the argument is well-formed, relevant, and grounded, and thus does not guarantee that the conclusion has been reached through sound reasoning. For an argument to be considered cogent, it must satisfy the ARG conditions (Acceptability, Relevance, and Ground), which ensure that the premises support the conclusion in a logically sound and convincing manner. If an argument meets these conditions, it can be said to be cogent, even if the conclusion is not actually true. In contrast, if an argument has a true conclusion but fails to meet the ARG conditions, it may still be convincing to some, but it is not considered to be a logically sound argument and thus not cogent. The ARG conditions help to ensure that an argument is well- formed, relevant, and grounded, and that the conclusion has been reached through sound reasoning, not just because it is true by chance or because it is based on false premises. 8. Showing that an argument is non-cogent does not show that its conclusion is false. Explain. Showing that an argument is non-cogent does not show that its conclusion is false because cogency and truth are two distinct concepts in logic and argumentation. Cogency refers to the strength and validity of the reasoning used to support a conclusion, while truth refers to the actual accuracy or validity of the conclusion itself.

Even if an argument fails the ARG conditions and is deemed non-cogent, this does not automatically mean that the conclusion is false. It simply means that the reasoning used to support the conclusion is weak and insufficient, and does not provide strong enough support for the conclusion to be considered logically sound. The conclusion might still be true, but the argument is not a good one. Conversely, even if an argument is cogent and meets the ARG conditions, this does not guarantee that the conclusion is true. The conclusion might still be false, even if the argument is well-formed, relevant, and grounded. Therefore, the cogency of an argument and the truth of its conclusion are two separate and distinct concepts that must be evaluated separately. 9. What is the confirmation bias and how does it function to influence argumentation? The confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency for people to favor information that supports their existing beliefs, opinions, or values, and to ignore or dismiss information that contradicts them. This bias functions to influence argumentation by shaping the way people evaluate evidence and form arguments. For example, a person with a strong belief in a certain political ideology may seek out information that supports their views and ignore or dismiss information that contradicts it. In argumentation, this can lead to selective attention and interpretation of evidence, as well as an inclination to overlook or dismiss counterarguments. The confirmation bias can also affect the way people evaluate arguments made by others. People are more likely to accept arguments that align with their existing beliefs, and to be skeptical or dismissive of arguments that challenge their views. In sum, the confirmation bias can limit the range of evidence and arguments that people are exposed to and consider, and can lead to narrow-minded and one-sided thinking. This can hinder the development of well-reasoned arguments and compromise the quality of argumentation in general. 10. Identify some steps a critical thinker can take to guard against the confirmation bias. There are several steps that a critical thinker can take to guard against the confirmation bias: 1. Seek out diverse sources of information: Rather than relying on a single source of information, critical thinkers should seek out multiple sources that represent diverse perspectives and opinions. This can help to counteract the confirmation bias by exposing the thinker to a broader range of information. 2. Challenge assumptions and beliefs: Critical thinkers should regularly question their own assumptions and beliefs, and be open to the possibility that they may be wrong. This can help to minimize the impact of the confirmation bias by encouraging the thinker to consider alternative perspectives. 3. Consider opposing viewpoints: Critical thinkers should actively seek out arguments and evidence that challenge their own views. By doing so, they can broaden their understanding of an issue and identify potential weaknesses in their own arguments. 4. Be open to new information: Critical thinkers should be open to new information and willing to modify their beliefs in light of new evidence. They should avoid clinging to their existing views simply because they are familiar or comfortable. 5. Seek out evidence to support alternative perspectives: When evaluating evidence, critical thinkers should look for evidence that supports alternative perspectives. This can help to counteract the confirmation bias by providing a more comprehensive and balanced view of an issue. 6. Engage in debate and discussion: Critical thinkers should engage in debate and discussion with people who have different viewpoints. By doing so, they can test their own arguments and gain a better understanding of the arguments and evidence used by others. By taking these steps, critical thinkers can guard against the confirmation bias and develop more nuanced, well-reasoned, and evidence-based arguments.

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

LIBS 7008 - Notes

Related Documents