Gsu Phil 1010 Critical Thinking Lecture 2
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Gsu Phil 1010 Critical Thinking Lecture 2 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 654
- Pages: 4
PHIL 1010
CRITICAL THINKING
LECTURE 2
Statement – A sentence that makes a claim that can be either true of false (cf. proposition). An argument has at least two statements (premise and conclusion). All statements are either true or false. Pay attention. Guernica is the best painting of the 20th century. Does God exist? Argument – an attempt to provide reasons (or support) for thinking some statement is true. Conclusion – a statement that the argument is intended to support. Premise – a statement intended to support the conclusion. T/F? “Shows that” is an indicator phrase for a premise. T/F? “Because” is an indicator word for a premise. Enthymeme – an argument with an unstated premise or an unstated conclusion. Explandum – the thing to be explained. Explanans – the thing doing the explaining.
First steps in standardizing and argument 1. Put all the statements into declarative sentences and remove all pronouns. 2. Insert any unstated premises and any unstated conclusion. 3. Number each statement. 4. Place the premises before the conclusion. 5. Indicate the conclusion with the word “therefore”. This yields the following form: 1. Premise goes here 2. Premise goes here Therefore, 3.
Conclusion goes here
Example:
Inglorious Basterds will probably be good since Quentin Tarantino is a good film director.
Conclusion: Premise:
Inglorious Basterds will probably be good. Quentin Tarantino is a good film director.
Standardization: (1) Quentin Tarantino is a good film director. Therefore, (2) Inglorious Basterds will probably be good.
Linked arguments
When the premise of one argument is the conclusion of another argument, the two arguments are called “linked arguments”. Linked arguments are not one argument but a set of two arguments. Example (from last time): (1) The Federal Reserve has indicated that interest rates will rise. (2) If the Federal Reserve indicates that interest rates will rise, then interest rates will rise. Therefore, (3) Interest rates will rise. (1) Interest rates will rise. (2) If interests rates rise, then stock market prices will fall. Therefore, (3) Stock market prices will fall. Main Argument: the last argument in the standardization of a set of linked arguments. Subargument: Arguments used to support premises of other arguments. Unlinked Argument: Argument in which (1) no premise is the conclusion of another argument, and (2) the conclusion is not a premise in another argument. Another definition for Argument (p. 46): Two or more statements in which the truth of one statement (conclusion) is claimed to follow from the truth of the other statement (premise). IN CLASS EXERCISE In-class practice: Exercise C – 9, p. 49 (edited). Peter Singer thinks that humans and animals ought to be treated in similar ways. He claims that there are no morally relevant differences between some non-human animals and some severely mentally impaired human beings. If the reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilities of such impaired humans are not any greater than that of a pig or a primate, then we must treat all these beings in similar ways.
Conclusion: Humans and animals ought to be treated in similar ways. Premise: If the reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilities of such impaired humans are not any greater than that of a pig or a primate, then we must treat all these beings in similar ways. Premise: There are no morally relevant differences between some non-human animals and some severely mentally impaired human beings.
Standardization: (1) If the reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilities of such impaired humans are not any greater than that of a pig or primate, then we must treat all these beings in similar ways. (2) [Unstated] Morally relevant differences between humans and other animals would be differences in reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilites (3) There are no morally relevant differences between some non-human animals and some severely mentally impaired human beings. Therefore, (4) Humans and animals ought to be treated in similar ways.
HOMEWORK 1.1 Sections B and D due next class.
CRITICAL THINKING
LECTURE 2
Statement – A sentence that makes a claim that can be either true of false (cf. proposition). An argument has at least two statements (premise and conclusion). All statements are either true or false. Pay attention. Guernica is the best painting of the 20th century. Does God exist? Argument – an attempt to provide reasons (or support) for thinking some statement is true. Conclusion – a statement that the argument is intended to support. Premise – a statement intended to support the conclusion. T/F? “Shows that” is an indicator phrase for a premise. T/F? “Because” is an indicator word for a premise. Enthymeme – an argument with an unstated premise or an unstated conclusion. Explandum – the thing to be explained. Explanans – the thing doing the explaining.
First steps in standardizing and argument 1. Put all the statements into declarative sentences and remove all pronouns. 2. Insert any unstated premises and any unstated conclusion. 3. Number each statement. 4. Place the premises before the conclusion. 5. Indicate the conclusion with the word “therefore”. This yields the following form: 1. Premise goes here 2. Premise goes here Therefore, 3.
Conclusion goes here
Example:
Inglorious Basterds will probably be good since Quentin Tarantino is a good film director.
Conclusion: Premise:
Inglorious Basterds will probably be good. Quentin Tarantino is a good film director.
Standardization: (1) Quentin Tarantino is a good film director. Therefore, (2) Inglorious Basterds will probably be good.
Linked arguments
When the premise of one argument is the conclusion of another argument, the two arguments are called “linked arguments”. Linked arguments are not one argument but a set of two arguments. Example (from last time): (1) The Federal Reserve has indicated that interest rates will rise. (2) If the Federal Reserve indicates that interest rates will rise, then interest rates will rise. Therefore, (3) Interest rates will rise. (1) Interest rates will rise. (2) If interests rates rise, then stock market prices will fall. Therefore, (3) Stock market prices will fall. Main Argument: the last argument in the standardization of a set of linked arguments. Subargument: Arguments used to support premises of other arguments. Unlinked Argument: Argument in which (1) no premise is the conclusion of another argument, and (2) the conclusion is not a premise in another argument. Another definition for Argument (p. 46): Two or more statements in which the truth of one statement (conclusion) is claimed to follow from the truth of the other statement (premise). IN CLASS EXERCISE In-class practice: Exercise C – 9, p. 49 (edited). Peter Singer thinks that humans and animals ought to be treated in similar ways. He claims that there are no morally relevant differences between some non-human animals and some severely mentally impaired human beings. If the reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilities of such impaired humans are not any greater than that of a pig or a primate, then we must treat all these beings in similar ways.
Conclusion: Humans and animals ought to be treated in similar ways. Premise: If the reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilities of such impaired humans are not any greater than that of a pig or a primate, then we must treat all these beings in similar ways. Premise: There are no morally relevant differences between some non-human animals and some severely mentally impaired human beings.
Standardization: (1) If the reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilities of such impaired humans are not any greater than that of a pig or primate, then we must treat all these beings in similar ways. (2) [Unstated] Morally relevant differences between humans and other animals would be differences in reflective, communicative, emotional, or social abilites (3) There are no morally relevant differences between some non-human animals and some severely mentally impaired human beings. Therefore, (4) Humans and animals ought to be treated in similar ways.
HOMEWORK 1.1 Sections B and D due next class.
Related Documents
Gsu Phil 1010 Critical Thinking Lecture 2
July 2020 1
Gsu Phil 1010 Critical Thinking Lecture 3
July 2020 1
Gsu Phil 1010 Critical Thinking Lecture 1
July 2020 1
Gsu Extra Credit Phil 1010 Questions B
July 2020 1
Critical Thinking
June 2020 43