SSH 105 Study Guide - Winter 2018, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Modus Ponens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Modus Tollens
12 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
SSH 105
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Fall 2018
Lecture 1 SSH105
Terms and concepts
Statement/clam: an assertion that something is or is not the case
- “Today is Friday” “It is not raining” “She will win the race”
Proposition: the specific thought or idea that the statement expresses
- It is possible for different statements to express the same proposition. Consider “it is
snowing”, and “ill-neige” and “het sneewt”
- It is possible for the same statement to express different propositions, depending on who
states it, when and where etc.
Premise: a statement that is offered in support of a conclusion
- The reasons or evidence stated for accepting a conclusion
Conclusion: statement that is held to be supported by one or more premises
- This is what the speaker want you to accept or believe
Argument: set of statements, one in which the conclusions is taken to be supported by the
remaining statements (premises)
Inference: process of reasoning from a premise to premises to a conclusion, based on those
premises
- Steps you take from premises to conclusion
Steps of argument analysis
1. Figure out if it really is an argument or not
2. Reconstruct the argument
3. Evaluate the argument
About step 0
- Not all texts contain arguments
a. Some texts are just descriptive (narrative of events, description of a thing)
b. Some texts might be an author’s opinion without reasons to support it
c. An “if-then” statement, by itself if not an argument (if it is raining, then the party will be
cancelled”
d. Explanations by themselves are not arguments: they simply tell us why or how something
is the case
Step 1.
- Arguments are not always presented/written/stated in the clearest way
Step 2.
- This is not evaluating its literary merit or rhetorical power
- This is evaluating the rational strength of an argument
Literary merit: argument that uses verbal eloquence, flowery language, original, interesting and
well-written
Rhetorical power: an argument that can persuade or convince- a person who speaks clearly, has a
strong manner and honest appearance has rhetorical power but that does not mean it is a good
argument
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Rational strength: when the premises offer good reason to think the conclusion is true
Critical thinking: systematic analysis or formulation of arguments by rational standards
- It is systemic because it involves distinct procedures and technical methods (not just gut
feelings)
- It is used to analyze existing arguments and to formulate new ones
- It evaluates arguments in terms of how well their premises support their conclusions; in
other words, their rational strength
Ways people deal with arguments
Credulous person: overly generous, need strong reason not to believe something
Person of contradiction: wants to prove you wrong, always trying to say something opposite of
you
Dogmatist: very rooted in beliefs, thinks everything he believes is true
Skeptic: does not believe anything
Relativist: person who insists in controversial cases everyone is right
Rational thinker’s abilities
- Distinguish genuine evidence and reasons from other things
- Understand and interpret arguments
- Evaluate arguments
Factors that affect good argument analysis
- Lack of an adequate vocabulary (not knowing the right terminology) to describe the
strengths and weaknesses of an argument or even to think of the arguments clearly
- The desire to be tolerant and open-minded (not to be confused with the right to have an
opinion)
- Missing the point of argument analysis (rational strength vs. rhetorical power vs. literary
merit)
- Misconceptions about truth and rationality (no truths just opinions to things)
- The use of argument stoppers (cutting off an argument)
Knowledge
Three types
1. Knowledge by acquaintance “I know my friend”
2. Knowledge- how “I know how to ride a bike”
3. Propositional knowledge (knowledge-that) “I know that today is Friday”
Three key ingredients in knowledge
- Belief: if you know something, at the very least you must believe it
- Truth: if you know something, it must be true
- Justification: need good reasons to believe something
Declarative sentences: express propositions, used when describing a sentence “I fed the dog”
Imperative sentences: used when we are commanding an order “shut the door”
Interrogative sentences: used when we ask questions “could you close the door?”
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
When people declare something is the case. No beauty, taste, ethics etc. can be atheist realist, agnostic realist etc. I don"t think there is any objective facts this may be an attractive position because. Nihilism about everything is self-defeating- saying there are no truths and furthermore that statement is true is contradicting. Relativism (about truth in some subject area) i. ii. That"s true for me / that"s my truth . It"s true for me that calculus is easy, but it is true for you that it is hard . That"s true for us / that"s our truth . If i get an a, then i pass ssh105: p 2. Deductively weak an argument can be weak (for a person at a time) in three ways. 1. its invalid: not r/j/r to believe one or more of the argument"s premises based on available evidence, all of the above.
