Women and Sexism MODR study notes 10/24/2013 3:58:00 PM
Intuitive thinking – rational thoughts aren’t given, non-verbal, instinctual
Poetic thinking- song lyrics, felt sense that instigates thoughts and
Critical/Rational thought- logic, rational thoughts, arguments
Empirical thinking - scientific thoughts
1. type of discourse – oral or written
2. with a certain structure – premise(reasons) – conclusion
3. certain purpose - to persuade
Types of claims acting as a reason in arguments
1. Actual statements: figuring out whether its truth (observable research) or
false (assumed thoughts) founded by empirical research
1. Evaluative reason: can not be tested empirically. Mostly a personal
Relevance - means that the reasons, each of them should have baring on
the philosophy… (determined between the premises)
Sufficiency - the amount of support/evidence it provides. Do all the
evidences add up to be enough for the conclusion to be justified? Is it
Acceptability – quality of the reasons itself. If the reasons have no reference
and does not make sense nor support its conclusion properly, it is
considered a problematic premise.
Ambiguity fallacy - When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions are
used within the argument, therefore don’t support the conclusion. Equivocation - allows a key word in an argument to shift and mislead its
meaning in the course of the argument. (2 similar words used but each
represents a different meaning to emphasize the argument)
Amphiboly – product of poor grammar. It results when words are
incorrectly used in a sentence, giving rise to a meaning not intended by the
Accent – 1) statement is spoken in a tone of voice not intended for it, 2)
certain words in it are wrongly accented or stressed, 3) certain words or
paragraphs are taken out of context and thus given an emphasis (&
therefore a meaning) they were not meant to have.
Fallacy of false analogy – problematic when the 2 things are compared isn’t
completely similar. When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an
argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is
unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.
Logical form: X is like Y.
Y has property P.
Therefore, X has property P.
(but X really is not too much like Y)
Slippery Slope - You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually
happen too, therefore A should not happen. The problem with this reasoning
is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention
to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such
extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur.
Question Begging Epithets - With the question-begging epithet, the arguer
uses biased –unfair- (often emotional) language to persuade people rather
than using logic.
EX: if a reporter said,
“This criminal is charged with violently murdering the innocent victim,”
she would be using a question-begging epithet because she has used biased
language to make a case that is not yet logically established. It would have
been more objective for her to say,
“This suspect is charged with killing the other person.” Hasty Conclusion:
- Premises can’t be assertions, needed evidence
Anecdotal evidence – (one’s story) evidence based on personal experience.
Unrepresentative sample –To draw a generalization on the basis of a sample
that's not representative enough to be reliable. Based on survey?
Global sufficiency - argument should indicate that you are aware of the
Fallacy of personal attack – addressing the issue instead of the person. A