Gsu Extra Credit Phil 1010 Questions B

PHIL 1010 EXTRA CREDIT

GASSETT, John A

When can a premise be assumed as true? When what it says about the world is correct What is an uncontroversial empirical statement? • Uncontroversial definitional statements can also be assumed as premises. What is an uncontroversial definition? Definition that provokes no controversy or reaction and assumed true. When can we accept statements by experts as premises? expert is someone who has specialized knowledge about a particular field. Be able to identify all types of compound statements 1. Negations (not P) 1. a statement that can be put into the form “not P”. 2. Disjunctions (P or Q) Inclusive P or Q (or both) • “You can have chocolate or vanilla.” Exclusive P or Q (but not both) • “Abortion is murder or it is not murder” 1. Conjunctions can be put in the form “P and Q”. “I want chocolate and vanilla.”  Conditionals can be put into the form “If P, then Q”.  If it’s raining, then the streets are wet.  The statement immediately following “if” is called the antecedent, while the statement immediately following “then” is called the consequent. Be able to calculate the following descriptive statistics How do you calculate a Mean- obtained by adding the numbers of a set of data together and dividing by the number of items in the data set Truncated mean Weighted MEAN - mean in which some components have more of an effect on the mean than other components. Median - the data point, D, such that at most half the set have values lower than D and at most half the set have values higher than D. Mode the most frequent value in a set of data Identify an outlier? Statistical Arguments Two forms: General and Particular General: (1) P% of the N observed entities in G have F. Therefore, (2) P% of all the entities in G have F. Particular: (1) P% of the N observed entities in G have F. Therefore, (2) P% of all the entities in G have F. (3) X is an entity in G. Therefore, (4) There is a P% chance that X has F. What type of argument is it Deductive - argument which claims that the truth of the premises shows that the conclusion must be true Inductive- an argument which claims that the truth of the premises only shows that the conclusion is likely to be true Identify sampling techniques (list the types and their definitions) 1. Simple Random Samples – all entities in target have an equal chance of being in the sample. 2. Stratified Random Samples – if there are subgroups that could bias the sample, (simple random) sample each relevant subgroup (stratum). 3. Systematic Samples – select every nth entity from a list of all entities in the target.

4. Voluntary Response Samples – entities (people) voluntarily choose to respond to call for data. 5. Haphazard Samples – choose simply on whim 6. Convenience Sample – surveying the entities that easiest to reach. 7. Purposive Samples – selecting a sample by fixed proportions. What is the standard form of a statistical argument? Sample the target the relevant property and the N What two criteria give a statistical argument good form? The key to passing the good form test is having a representative sample. A sample is representative when the proportions of every subgroup in the target is matched by the proportions of the subgroups in the sample. Moral Arguments Two Types of Deontological arguments • Universalist - everyone is equally morally important. • Do I want everyone at all times to do actions that have the same intrinsic features as the action I am thinking of doing? Cooperative-cooperate with best moral choice • Egoism – only I am morally important. Two Types of Consequentialist arguments Maximizing- as much as possible non-maximizing – equal amounts, that is an even distribuition Aretaic arguments: About person instead of act Unlike deontological and consequentialist forms, which are about actions, aretaic moral arguments take the person form. They are arguments whose conclusion is a statement of the moral evaluation of a person. Aretaic arguments can either take the evaluation of actions as logically more fundamental than the evaluation of persons: (1) H1 does good actions (2) H1 has motives that lead to good actions Tf, (3) H1 has good motives Tf, (4) H1 is a good person or they can take the evaluation of persons as logically more fundamental (this is the view of 'virtue ethics') (1) H1's doing A1 is an action that would be done by a person with virtue V (2) It is morally good to do acitons that would be done by a person with virtue V Tf, (3) H1 ought to do A1 In both cases, notice that what we are evaluating is the moral status of a person. Be able to identify and evaluate the form of all of the Deductive Syllogisms, (Please list the proper form for each type, and if it passes or fails the good form test. If it had all true premises, would the argument be sound or unsound?) Affirming the consequent 1. If S1, then S2 2. S2 3. TF, S1 Affirming the antecedent Denying the antecedent 1. If S1, then S2 2. Not S1 Therefore, 3. Not S2 Denying the consequent

1.If S1, then S2 2.Not S2 Therefore, 3.Not S1 Denying the Disjunctive 1. S1 or S2 2. Not S1 3. Therefore, S2 Affirming an Exclusive Disjunction 1. S1 or S2 (but not both) 2. S1 Therefore, 3.Not S2 Affirming an Inclusive Disjunction 1. S1 or S2 2. S1 3. Therefore, not S2 Tri-Conditional 1. If S1, then S2 2. If S2, then S3 Therefore, 3. If S1, then S3 Causal Arguments • Causal arguments are inductive arguments. A causal argument is an argument whose conclusion asserts that some event or state of affairs caused some other event or state of affairs. Why is correlation alone not sufficient to prove causation? • If there is no correlation, there cannot be causation. • Establishing correlation does not show the existence of causation. • Binary features are features of events that the event either has or does not have. • Scalar features are features of events that the even has to a greater or lesser degree. Define each, and provide an example) of necessary cause sufficient cause necessary and sufficient cause or contributory cause. what gives a causal argument good form? True premises What are some common causal fallacies? Analogical Arguments argument that proceeds by comparison. They are inductive arguments. what is the standard form of an analogical argument? look for reliance on comparison. (1) X1s have features F1, F2, F3, … and feature Fn. (2) X2s also have features F1, F2, F3, … Therefore, (3) X2s probably have Fn. define Analogues – the things to which the entities in the conclusion are being compared, X1s. Primary Subjects – the things about which a conclusion is being drawn, X2s. Similarities – the features that the premises claim are shared by the analogue and the primary subject, F1, F2, F3, … Conclusory Feature – the feature in the argument’s conclusion that is claimed to be a feature of the primary subject, Fn. What gives an analogical argument good form? • analogical argument passes the good form test if the truth of the premises makes the truth of the conclusion likely.

How do we evaluate premises in an analogical argument with nonempirical premises? Basis of fact v. conjecture GOOD FORM TEST • Does the truth of the premises make the truth of the conclusion likely? • The key factor for determining whether an analogical argument passes the good form test is whether the two things being compared are relevantly similar. • If X1 and X2 are not relevantly similar, the argument is a false analogy. RELEVANCY A feature is a relevant similarity when the fact that the analogue and the primary subject share that feature provides some evidence for the claim that the primary subject has the conclusory feature. A feature is a relevant dissimilarity when the fact that the analogue and the primary subject do not share that feature provides some evidence for the claim that the primary subject does not have the conclusory feature. False/Faulty Analogy – look for irrelevant similarities and relevant dissimilarities. This means the analogical argument is weak. TRUE PREMISE TEST • In some cases, the true premise test is relatively straightforward in analogical arguments. • Is each statement an uncontroversial empirical truth? – E.g. “Our brains are like computers. Just as computers process information, so too brains process information.” MILLS METHODS 1. The Method of Agreement 2. The Method of Difference 3. The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference 4. The Method of Scalar Variation MORAL ARGUMENT FORMS Action (1) H1’s doing A1 has feature F. (2) It is morally good/bad to do actions that have feature F. Therefore, (3) H1 ought/ought not to do A1. Person (1) H1 has feature F. (2) It is morally good/bad for a person to have feature F. Therefore, (3) H1 is a good/bad person.