Study Guides (275,895)
CA (151,039)
Carleton (5,144)
PHIL (121)
PHIL 2003 (23)
Study Guide

PHIL 2003 Study Guide - Comprehensive Final Guide: Euphemism, Ignaz Semmelweis, False Dilemma
Premium

54 Pages
28 Views
Fall 2016

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHIL 2003
Professor
Ken Ferguson
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 54 pages of the document.
Waterloo
PHIL 2003
FINAL EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Introduction to Critical Thinking
Paterson hall floor 3A, fb - Carleton University Philosophy Society (peer mentoring)
Purpose of course:
To help students develop and cultivate the skill of eective critical thinking
What is critical thinking?:
Process or activity
Uses methods and skills
Goal oriented
Eective critical thinking:
Analyzing
Interpreting
Criticizing
Evaluating
Airport Security Analogy:
CT is not just negative in helping you to avoid false details but should include
creative/constructive thinking that allows you to search further into things
Why forming true beliefs can be dicult (external v. internal forces):
The world (reality) can be complex
We are constantly being thrown information that can be hard to process quickly/easily
There are forces intent on deceiving us (marketers, politicians, the media)
We may already be caught up in false beliefs
Defects within our own minds as belief formers
Belief Formers, Cognitive Weaknesses:
Prone to influences that ay interfere with clear thinking: emotions, bias
Reluctance to change/update beliefs in light of experiences and evidence
Too influenced by authority or tradition
Lack of background information
Tendency to commit certain types of logical errors: fallacies of reasoning
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Cognitive biases: when quick thinking you may follow certain rules that may not be
what you would actually do if you had more time (defects of reasoning), from evolution
Ex. actor-observer bias: I describe what I do dierently than I would describe someone
else doing the same thing. I fail a test: I would say “I didn’t have time”, if it was
someone else who failed I’d say “He/she was too lazy to study properly"
Defects of observation and memory
CT is not:
Incompatible with emotions
Not just finding fault with people
Not being argumentative (arguing for the sake of arguing)
Not just being skeptical of everything, you need information to decipher
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Waterloo PHIL 2003 FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE find more resources at oneclass.com Introduction to Critical Thinking Paterson hall floor 3A, fb - Carleton University Philosophy Society (peer mentoring) Purpose of course: To help students develop and cultivate the skill of effective critical thinking What is critical thinking?: Process or activity Uses methods and skills Goal oriented Effective critical thinking: Analyzing Interpreting Criticizing Evaluating Airport Security Analogy: CT is not just negative in helping you to avoid false details but should include creative/constructive thinking that allows you to search further into things Why forming true beliefs can be difficult (external v. internal forces): The world (reality) can be complex We are constantly being thrown information that can be hard to process quickly/easily There are forces intent on deceiving us (marketers, politicians, the media) We may already be caught up in false beliefs Defects within our own minds as belief formers Belief Formers, Cognitive Weaknesses: Prone to influences that ay interfere with clear thinking: emotions, bias Reluctance to change/update beliefs in light of experiences and evidence Too influenced by authority or tradition Lack of background information Tendency to commit certain types of logical errors: fallacies of reasoning find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Cognitive biases: when quick thinking you may follow certain rules that may not be what you would actually do if you had more time (defects of reasoning), from evolution Ex. actor-observer bias: I describe what I do differently than I would describe someone else doing the same thing. I fail a test: I would say “I didn’t have time”, if it was someone else who failed I’d say “He/she was too lazy to study properly" Defects of observation and memory CT is not: Incompatible with emotions Not just finding fault with people Not being argumentative (arguing for the sake of arguing) Not just being skeptical of everything, you need information to decipher find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Critical Thinking Barriers Pg 19 exercises, #1-15 What is a “barrier” to CT?: Anything that has a tendency to interfere with or undermine the process of evaluating our beliefs objectively Barriers: Lack of background information Refusal to change beliefs Self-interested thinking Lack of independence Too differential to authority Group pressure Bias and stereotyping Influence of ideologies or world views Lack of background information: Processing information is always relevant People are sometimes completely unaware that they lack information (we don’t know what we don’t know) Refusal to change beliefs: Reliable belief formation sometimes needs us to let go of our old beliefs once new evidence is given Cognitive dissonance: refers to the discomfort people experience when uncertainty is introduced into their belief system and therefore don’t know what to believe Willingness to change beliefs still have to be balanced, you don’t want to believe any new thing that you hear (belief formation becomes chaotic) Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men Egocentric thinking: Is a cognitive defect or weakness: allowing your own interests or situation to interfere with reliable belief formation based on objective evidence (everyone suffers from this limitation to some extent) Wishful thinking: believing that something is true because you want it to be find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Saving face: believing or disbelieving something just to protect yourself from criticism Self-deception: as a defense mechanism to protect your self-image Just because someone feels passionate about the issue doesn’t mean that they are being egocentric Angry Man (from the movie Twelve Angry Men assigned for hw): Juror #10: thinks about the case in relation to his bad relationship with his son Too influenced by authority: When you follow someone blindly your beliefs are not really your own Another mistake is to ignore or reject the opinion of actual experts just because they are so Juror #5 Milgram Experiment: to see how much people will just follow orders regardless or their morals/ethics, designed to test how much people will just follow orders Subjects T were told be E to administer electric shocks to L: most obeyed without question Overpowering emotions: Emotions can sometimes interfere with clear thinking Shown in 12 Angry Men when jurors allow sympathy for the victim or victim’s family to override the need for evidence against the accused Social influencers: The need to conform to a group is a powerful influence that affects not only behaviour but also beliefs In 12 Angry Men: when only Fonda voted ‘not guilt' Group thinking: In the movie, an attitude dominated the group of jurors as a whole Juror #8 Bias, prejudice, racism and stereotypes: Biases or preconceptions prevent us from assessing the evidence for/against a belief in an objective way Many of the jurors in the movie were influenced by the stereotypes of an “M slum kid”, “a kid like that”, which led them to assume he was guilty The jury is all white and male: is this on purpose to make a point? or just because it find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com was filmed in 1950s? Limitations in abilities or experience: Lack of background info Poor reading, analytical or other skills Inability to see another’s point of view Lack of experience, close-minded Inability to make connections between ideas/beliefs Mental habits: Being disorganized or careless Too defensive, can’t take criticism Tendency to make inappropriate assumptions Being too impulsive Being too indifferent, lazy, uninvolved Being too cautious Being narrow-minded Influence of world views or ideologies: Worldview: a set of fundamental ideas/beliefs that help us make sense of the world Fundamental: the extent to which they guide our formation of other beliefs Ex. religions, political ideologies, conservatism, socialism, Marxism, philosophical theories Worldview can act as a lens or filter, the lens can give us a slanted or distorted view of things Philosophical theories that can interfere with critical thinking: Philosophical scepticism: we know much less than we think we know or maybe even nothing at all Subjective relativism: the view that truth depends only on what someone believe, that truth is relative to the individual Social relativism: the view that truth is relative to societies or groups, also known as Cultural Relativism Philosophical Scepticism: Moderate: impossible ever to know anything with complete or absolute certainty Extreme: impossible to even have evidence to justify our beliefs, evidence that makes them likely to be true Moderate scepticism may be true but is still compatible with CT find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Extreme scepticism is a problem for CT: if we can’t ever justify our beliefs then there is no point in trying to evaluate and criticize them (CT assumes that objective evidence is possible) For the purpose of this course we will assume Extreme scepticism is false Subjective relativism: Conflicts directly with goals of CT If you think your beliefs are true there would be no reason to criticize them Subjective relativism ignores common sense: it entails our beliefs can never be mistaken but we all know we’re sometimes wrong about things Subjective relativism is self-defeating: how are we to assume that subjective relativism is the one objective truth and not just relative to the individual like it suggests? Social relativism: The sociological/anthropological observation that "different groups believe different things” is correct Rooted historically as a desire to understand and be respectful towards other cultures One problem with social relativism is that it implies societies are infallible: does it believe that no society has ever been wrong about something? It’s self-defeating: for culture that reject it, it is false, but if the doctrine is suppose to be objective then not all truth is relative to culture How big must the social group be? Social relativism confuses the equal moral work of all societies with he assumption that they possess equal knowledge find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Analyzing and Reconstructing Arguments Reading 2 in course book, reading 3 on syllabus (includes online material) Exercise: pg 20 #1-10, pg 22-24 (does the exercise contain an argument?) Reading 5, pg 24-27 Definition of Argument: Term in logic and reasoning does not mean a quarrel or fight or disagreement Argument definition 1: is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition Argument definition 2: a set of two or more statements or claims, one which the conclusion is intended to follow from or be supported by, the others which are premises Not just a contradiction Inference: A claim that one thing makes another thing likely to be true Have to have at least one inference in an argument A ‘criterion’ if you will, for identifying an argument Statements: Statements by themselves are not an argument (there is no inference) Doesn’t matter how many times it is repeated, it is not an argument Arguments can be: Good or bad, strong or weak Can be as complex as you like: no limit of the number of premises Reconstructing Arguments: People don’t often clearly give an argument Reconstructing arguments definition 1: it is often necessary to do a lot of work to know what argument the person is presenting 5 Steps to Reconstructing Arguments (not always done in this order): Reconstructing arguments: determining whether an argument is being presented find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Distinguishing argument fro non-argument in the discourse question: Ex. which parts of what the person is saying is part of the argument or just parts of speech Identifying the premises an conclusion of the argument Reformulating the premises and conclusion where necessary Doing a structure diagram for the argument Identifying Premises and Conclusions: A single sentence may contain more than one premise A single sentence may have more than one premise, a premise or conclusion may be expressed in more than one sentence The conclusion may be presented at the beginning, middle or end of the discourse Logical/Inference Indicators: Words or phrases that indicate logical relationships Often these words function as indicators sometimes they have a difference meaning Conclusion Indicators: Conclusion indicators: indicate that the phrase or claim following them is the conclusion of an inference Ex. therefore = conclusion “I think therefore I am" Thus, hence, consequently, so, accordingly Premise Indicators: Premise indicators: indicate that the phrase or claim following them is meant to be the premise of an inference Ex. because = following part is the premise of an inference “Steve was definitely at the party because I saw him there" Since, as, for, provided that, given that, assuming that Example (see CULearn slides for more): "Euthanasia is the international killing of an innocent person and hence is morally wrong." 1. Euthanasia is the intentional killing of an innocent person therefore 2. Euthanasia is morally wrong Unstated Premises: find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com What if there are no indicators and the arguer doesn’t tell us the premises or conclusion? Use common sense “Smith is guilty. His fingerprints were on the murder weapon and he was seen fleeing for the crime scene”: the 2 claims in the second sentence are intended as premises and the fist sentence is intended as a conclusion. Usually it is best to identify the conclusion first, then look for reasons for accepting the conclusion as true Rules of Thumb: If a claim is one that people would accept it is probably a functioning premise If a claim is one that many ow;d not accept, then is is more likely to be the conclusion Distinguishing Argument from Non-argument: Not all of what people say or write is part of the argument Those parts of discourse are referred to as non-argument Non-argument can still be helpful in understanding what argument is being presented Common Types of Non-argument: Background info Disclaimers Commentary Counter-arguments Repetition Background Information: Information that is provided to create the setting for the argument and to help the reader understand the argument being presented Disclaimers: Statements about what is not being claimed Helpful in that to know what is being claimed it is good to know what isn’t being presented Commentary: Comments or statements about the argument, that are not part of the argument Ex. "My argument will have three premises..." find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Counter-arguments: Make sure not to counts these as part of the original argument Repetition: Do not include premises or conclusions twice Unstated Premises or Conclusions: Enthymemes: arguments with unstated premises or conclusions Ex. “Whales aren’t fish because they don’t have gills.”: Arguments are - 1. whales do not have gills, 2. all fish have gills, 3. therefore, whales are not fish What happens is that the arguer assumes it will be obvious to people that part of the argument has been left unstated In reconstructing arguments we try to make explicit any unstated parts of argument How to determine what is left unstated: Ask what additional premise(s) are needed to infer the conclusion For missing conclusions the simplest answer is whatever the stated premises entail find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Recognizing Arguments Exercises: pg 19-20, pg 31-32, pg 28-29 (set 2.4) #1-20 + set 2 #1-10 Things that look like arguments, but aren’t: Reports Unsupported claims Conditionals (other compound statements) Disjunctions Illustrations Explanations Reports: Some passages will only describe things or events: ex. newspaper articles These are not arguments because no claim is being made as a reason to believe another other claim, there is no inference Unsupported Claims: A passage presents a claim without providing support Compound Statements: Contain two or more other statements The complexity can make them look like arguments but they are not, they are just complex claims Ex. 1: if P is true, then Q is true Ex. 2: either P is true or Q is true Ex. 3: P is true if and only if Q is true Conditional Statements (If P, then Q): P, therefore Q: we are claiming the P is true and that the truth of P supports Q, therefore making Q true If P, then Q: we we are saying that if P is true then Q is true, we are only saying something about the relationship between P and Q Disjunctive Statements (Either P or Q): Either P is true or Q is true: we are not making any inference, only a claim (therefore no argument) find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Illustrations: Provide support for an argument (but is not a argument) Providing some support that demonstrates what you’re looking at is not the same as showing that what your claim happens in ALL cases Explanations: Easy to confuse with arguments Language used that can be confused includes: because, for, so Ex. The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg Explanation —> single claim = The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg —> Hitting an iceberg is what cause the Titanic to sink (just a statement/claim, no actual inference) Difference between explanations and arguments: Explanation says: why it is the way it is, what caused it, how it came about Argument: trying to show or prove that that is the case Ex. explanations v. argument: The Titanic sank because it hit a iceberg v. The defendant is guilty because his finger prints were on the murder weapon The explanation in the example: we are trying to show what made it sink, not whether or not it did The argument in the example: we are trying to show that the defendant is guilty not what makes him guilty Terminology: Explanandum: refers to the thing or phenomenon being explained Explanans: refers to the thing, condition or event in terms of which the explanandum is explained Ex. (the Titanic example): the sinking of the Titanic is the explanandum, its hitting the iceberg is the explanans Note: We can give an argument to show that a explanation is correct The explanatory statement can be the conclusion of the argument We can still evaluate explanations (the evidence or whether it is correct): science is most concerned with this (evaluation and criterion) Tests to decipher explanations and arguments: The common-knowledge test find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com The past-event test The author’s intent test The principle of charity The Common-knowledge Test: If what would be the conclusion (explanandum) is something most people would know already then it is probably an explanation being given It makes not much sense to argue for claims people already accept as true The Past-event Test: If the thing identified as the conclusion (explanandum) happened in the past then it is most likely an explanation (could possibly be an argument) The Author’s Intent Test: Ask whether or not the author is trying to prove the thing in question or say why it is the case The Principle of Charity: Accept the interpretation that makes the most sense of the phrase(s) If it was an argument it wouldn’t be very strong, whereas if it was an explanation it would be a plausible claim - then it is most likely an explanation (or vice versa) find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Structure Diagrams for Arguments Exercises: CuLearn doc., course pack pg 32-34 set B Structure Diagrams: All arguments have a logical structure: there is a certain way that the premises of the argument combine in order to support the conclusion Hence, structure diagrams or argument trees Steps in Constructing Diagrams: Number all statements or claims Identify logical indicators Identify the premises and conclusion Identify and cross out any parts of the passage that are not part of the argument Draw the diagram Conventions for Diagrams: Premises are always put above and conclusions below The direction of inference is downward Claim 2 is being inferred from claim 1 When the lines descending from premises meet up before reaching the claim, it means they should be taken together in order to accept a conclusion When lines lead separately to the conclusion, each premise provides adequate reason to accept the conclusion Initial Premises and Intermediate Premises: Initial premise: there is a line leading down from the premise but no line above leading down to the premise itself, no support is given to this premise Intermediate premise: there is a line leading to the premise and a line leading down from it to the claim below, an argument is being given for this premise and the premise is given as support for another claim Summary of Instructions for Diagramming: Try to identify main conclusion first Look for logical indicators and then draw conclusions Remember that premises and conclusions must be complete statements Remember that one sentence may have more than one claim find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Remember that conditional statements and disjunctions are single claims, not arguments Diagram repeated statements only once Omit material that is not part of the argument find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com midterm: define validity (argument is valid iff..), how to tell between deductive and inductive Exercise: pg 35-36, set 3.2, 36-37, set 3.3 The Definition of Validity: Means that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false The two definitions are equivalent The Concept of Validity: In everyday “valid” means plausible or true, this is not the case in logic Distinguish between Validity and Truth: To say an argument is valid means that the premises are true (not necessarily the conclusion) ... Soundness: To say an argument is sound means that it is valid and all of its premises are true All sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound Deductive Argument: The premises are intended to logically entail the conclusion To make it certain the conclusion is true Their intention is to make sure their argument is valid Ex. all swans are white —> X is a swan = X is white Inductive Argument: The premises are not intended to entail the conclusion Premises are intended only to make it probable that the conclusion is true ... Ex. X is a swan and is white —> Y is a swan is white —> no non-white swans have been observed = all swans are white, or the next swan I observe will be white find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Terminology for Inductive Arguments: Strong inductive argument: the truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely to be true Weak inductive argument: the truth of the premises does not make the conclusion probable Cogent (sound) inductive argument: is one that ... Why is the difference between inductive and deductive arguments important?: Because the two types of arguments have to evaluated differently It wouldn’t be relevant to ask if the premises provide good empirical evidence for the conclusion in a deductive argument It wouldn’t be relevant to ask if the conclusion... While deductive arguments are valid or invalid, inductive arguments are strong or weak Valid Argument Forms: If P then Q —> P —> Q Modus tonens: if P is true then Q is true —> P is true —> Q is true Modus tollens: if P is true then Q is true —> not Q (Q is false) —> not P (P is false) Hypothetical syllogism: if P then Q —> if Q then R —> if P then R Disjunctive syllogism: either P or Q —> not P —> … Invalid Argument Forms: Affirming te consequent: if P then Q —> Q —> P Denying the consequent: ... find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Exercises: pg 63-69 Also a .doc on CuLearn Fallacies: Mistakes or errors in reasoning Committed frequently Psychologically appealing Difference Between Formal and Informal Fallacies: Formal fallacies: depend on logical form or structure of argument Informal fallacies: depend in part on the content of the argument (what the premises or conclusion are) Types of Informal Fallacy: Fallacies of relevance (F of R): premises are true but not relevant to conclusion Fallacies of ambiguity (F of A): double meanings are involved in the mistaken reasoning Fallacies of presumption (F of P): premises are relevant to conclusion but are illicit because they involve unwarranted assumptions Inappropriate Appeal to Authority (F of R): When someone has a reason to believe another because of their authority, this can be a fallacy when: The person in question is not an expert on the subject There is a disagreement between experts There are no experts The experts are corrupt or have a conflict of interest Genetic Fallacy (F of R): Consists of arguing that a claim is true or false because of origin The arguments fail because they reject a claim based on where it comes from, not its merits Who developed or used it in the beginning Ex. "Russell’s idea about tax hikes came to him in a dream, so it must be a stupid idea." Ad Hominem - “against the person” (F of R): find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Criticizing the person who gives the argument (or claim), rather than the argument (or claim) itself Tu Quoque - “you too fallacy” (F of R): Appeals to the fact that a person is being hypocritical as a reason to object their claims Special case of ad hominem Appeal to Popularity - argumentum ad populum (F of R): Arguing that a claim is true because a lot of people believe it Pattern of the fallacy: “everyone believes X, so X must be true" Sometimes popular opinion is relevant Appeal to Tradition (F of R): Believing a claim is true because it’s a part of tradition Tradition can be wrong Illicit Appeals to Emotion (F of R): Using emotion to persuade audiences to believe or accept something, when emotions aren’t relevant to whether it’s true or not Some appeals to our emotion are made to motivate us to act rather than have us believe something They are fallacious because they appeal to our emotions but have no other concrete support Appeal to Ignorance/ Arguing From Ignorance (F of R): Inferring something is true because there is no evidence that it is false Inferring something is false from the fact that there is no evidence to prove it is true Lack of evidence can neither prove or disprove a claim, it just reveals our ignorance Burden of Proof (F of R): The weight of evidence pr argument required by one side of a debate Problems arise when the burden is places on the wrong side Background belief Comes from “appeals to ignorance" find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Ex: Red Herring (F of R): Using an irrelevant (but possibly true) claim to take attention from the real issue Some of the previously discussed fallacies are “red herrings” but this term is reserved for distraction that don’t fall into the other categories Straw Man (F of R): Misrepresenting someone’s argument in a way that makes it easier to criticize or not accept Equivocation (F of A): Using a word or phrase with two different meanings to make it appear that something is true or plausible when it’s not Happens when a word has one meaning in one premise and another meaning in another premise or the conclusion Ex. (1) feathers are light, (2) what is light cannot be dark, therefore (3) feathers are not dark Fallacy of Composition (F of A): States that because a part of a thing has a property the thing itself has that poverty Inferring that a number of individual things has a proper the collection of things itself has that property Ex. all the parts of a machine are light, so the machine must be light Division (F of A): Arguing that because a thing has a property, all the parts must have the property as well find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Involves inferring that a collection of things has a certain property to each member of the collection has it too Ex. physical objects are hard, so the atoms they are composed of are hard as well Begging the Question (F of P): Giving an argument where the conclusion is actually a premise: the reasoning is circular One way fallacy is committed: the premise and conclusion are different ways of saying the same thing Another way the fallacy is committed: the support that could have been offered for one of the premises is the conclusion False Dilemma (F of P): Assumes: P or Q is true, or P is not true so Q must be true; when P or Q are not the only options Situation that presents two (usually unattractive) alternatives Slippery Slope (F of P): Argues that although a practice is okay we should not partake in it because the consequences that may follow are not acceptable (without providing evidence for the assumption) Ex. we should not legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD and crack cocaine Hasty Generalization (F of P): Inferring that a generalization is true on basis of inadequate evidence Provode evidence that is relevant but isn’t strong enough to justify a conclusion Ex. when applied to groups of people, HG’s tend to involve stereotyping Faulty Analogy (F of P): When an argument is based on misleading or inaccurate comparisons Draws a comparison between two things, suggests they are alike in a less obvious way Fallacy occurs when they are compared with insufficiently relevant ways False Cause (F of P): When you conclude on the basis of inadequate evidence that one thing is the cause of another find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Illicit Rhetorical Devices Exercises Pg 70-78 (4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4.8, 4-9) Rhetoric v. Argument: Rhetorical device: attempt to use language in a way to make it seem more attractive or persuasive Ex. repetition, alliteration, metaphors Some are illicit: they violate rules of discussion or rational debate Illicit Rhetorical Devices: Attempts to make a view seem more/less plausible than it is without providing evidence to show that it is Also called “slanters”: they present a distorted view of something/someone Rational Arguments: Should be guided by: reason, logic or evidence Difference Between Rhetorical Devices and Informal Fallacies: Rhetorical devices don’t involve any direct sense of reasoning Rhetorical Devices That Are Often Illicit: 1. Appeal to emotion 2. Euphemisms and dysphemisms 3. Rhetorical definitions or comparisons 4. Stereotypes 5. Innuendo 6. Loaded questions or descriptions 7. Paralipsis 8. Weaselers or weasel words 9. Downplayers 10. Ridicule, Sarcasm, Horse Laugh 11. Hyperbole 12. Proof Surrogate Appeal to Emotion: find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Is illicit when it replaces evidence in an argument Pathos You may not actually deny why you did something or give evidence as to how couldn’t have done it but you say some sad story that led you there to gain people’s attention and affection Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: Euphemism: a way to refer to something which makes it sound better (ex. “escort” instead of “hooker”) Dysphemisms: a way of refer to something which makes it sound worse (ex. “pigheaded” for “resolute”) They can be good and avoid obscenity or be bad an misleading, without having any evidence of it Rhetorical Comparisons or Definitions: Rhetorical comparison: used to influence attitudes without providing evidence Rhetorical definition: a way of defining something that is mean to influence attitudes about it without providing evidence They are illicit when they are used to gain acceptance foe a conclusion without evidence Ex. “abortion is the murder of an unborn child." Stereotypes: Assumptions about a group that are simplified, misleading or inaccurate Usually meant to convey a negative image of the people Ex. men are afraid of commitment Persuasive Stereotyping: We seem to rely on stereotypes instinctively We meet poepie of a certain race, religion, etc., and associate their characteristics with the entire group Innuendo: Implying something about someone indirectly that is derogatory but without stating it explicitly Not stating it explicitly avoids the need to support it with evidence Innuendo “lies between the lines" Ex. “Bill was “working late” at the office again last night." find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Loaded Questions or Descriptions: Askin a question in a way that makes an assumption for which there is no good evidence This can encourage acceptance of the assumption even though it may not be true and there is no evidence Sort like the fallacy of “begging the question" Ex. “Have you stopped beating your wife?”: yes —> implies you used to beat your wife, no —> implies you are still beating your wife Paralipsis = “to leave to the side": A technique of saying that (because you are such a good person) you won’t talk bad about someone else When you say that you won’t talk about something or make an issue of it, you have in effect done so (similar to Innuendo) Ex. used in political speech all the time (Trump) Weaselers: Words or phrases in a statement that hedges or qualifies the claim (ex. perhaps, up to, like, may) Similar to innuendo in that it succeeds in making a claim but the author can still deny that it was ever made Ask: is the author adding a reasonable qualification? is it a bit of an innuendo? Ex. “Listerine fights bad breath.”: it fights not stops Downplayers: Understating, or diminishing the importance of something Uses words like: merely, only Lawyers or politicians may use this Ex. “he’s only been a Senator a mere 5 years." Ridicule/ Sarcasm/ Horse Laugh: Trying to make someone’s claim seem implausible by laughing or making fun of it without providing argument to support your assessment Ex. “Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.” - O. Wilde Hyperbole: Exaggeration find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Often to make something seem more impressive than it is We live in an age go hyperbole, because of: media, many things are competing for peoples’s attention Hyperbole is not the same as figure of speech Hyperbole v. figure of speech: “That’s the best idea I ever had.” v. “He has tons of money" Proof of Surrogate: Implying that a statement is true or obvious without providing an argument It “illicitly takes the place of an argument" Ex. “Everyone knows that Conservatives are corrupt." Conclusion: Watch for rhetorical devices Be sceptical of them find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com Evaluating Sources of Belief *Exercises pp. 53-58 Issues: Premises must be acceptable Premises should be a good reason to accept the conclusion Belief and Truth: Epistemology Sources of Belief: Background belief: common knowledge Reason or logic: priori truth, self-evident truth Perception: personal experience (introspection, memory) Testimony: includes info f
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

You've reached the limit of 4 previews this month

Create an account for unlimited previews.

Already have an account?

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit