lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Study Guide Philo 1 - Liberty University course
taken with Clint Roberts. These are notes that I
have
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas (Liberty University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Study Guide Lesson 1 - Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 1: What is Philosophy?
The 4 reason students often presuppose a low view of philosophy: It has to do with an
image that one has to be super intelligent to do philosopher. (that is not true) 2.
Most students study philosophy late in their academic development, 3. most
people do not think it is practical, 4. main reason is that students do not know
what it is or how it can benefit them.
What is philosophy? Four ways to get to know what something is are the following:
define it, describe it, contrast and compare it with similar things and experience it.
Philosophy can be used as a noun or with a verb. As a noun it often refers to a
person point of view on a particular topic.
The term can also function as a verb or an activity. To do philosophy is to practice a
particular
kind of mental activity. That is the operational definition I am seeking here.
Socrates quote The unexamined life is not worth living. (good example of
critical examination)
What is the unexamined life? A person who rarely takes time to stop and think about
what they are dong and why they are doing it. They are going through the motions of
life with out
making the effort to reflect and think about what life is about. That is the
unexamined life. Often
they adopt beliefs without thinking about them.
Human beings are made to reason and reflect about themselves and the world
around them. Socrates is making a “normative claim” which is claim about some
actions persons ought to do. When one lives the unexamined life one is not living
as one should. The greatest good is examining life.
Human beings are creatures who want to know and understand the truth about
themselves and the world around them.
What is philosophy? Broadly speaking, it is examining life.
a second way to defined philosophy is by examine the etymology of the word.
Philosophy is the combination of 2 terms in Greek: phileo and soho. Phileo is a term
fro ‘love” In Greek, each nuance of love has a different term. Phileo is usually mean
to express great affection for something. The Greek term soho is the word for
wisdom. Philosophy can be defined as the love of wisdom.
What is wisdom? Wisdom is do with how one uses the knowledge one has. Wisdom is
knowledge applied. Wisdom and knowledge are not the same. To appraise
something is to investigate it and determine its value. That is what philosophers
do. They examine beliefs and determine the value.
Working definition of philosophy: Philosophy is the critical examination of our
foundational
beliefs concerning the nature of reality, knowledge and truth, and our
moral and social values.
Philosophy, is the critical examination of beliefs. Critical in how he analyzes it. There
are 3 main tasks in analyzing: clarification, justification, and evaluation. To clarify
something means
to determine what it means. Justification address the questions.
Evaluation determines the value or significance of the idea.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Foundational beliefs - The definition says foundational beliefs- a belief may be
defined as an idea or concept one accepts or affirms as true.
Presuppositions- are beliefs people usually don’t think about or try to prove. They
are assumptions people hold about themselves and the world without which they
would not be able to arrive at any other knowledge. Presuppositions affect all other
beliefs, and philosophers
think it is important to examine them critically in order to
determine what they really mean.
What do philosophers examine? The definitions says foundation beliefs. A belief
may be defined as an idea or concept one accepts or affirms as true. Foundational
beliefs are those
beliefs that are central and fundamental to an overall worldview and
yet are often not thought
about. Philosophers examine all kinds of beliefs, but they
tend to concentrate on these central beliefs because they are core.
3 major categories of foundational beliefs; beliefs about reality, beliefs about
knowledge and
truth, and beliefs about moral and social values.
We hold a number of foundational beliefs about human beings. Most of us believe
that human
beings have free will. Free will is the idea that humans deliberate about
their actions and beliefs
and choices based on those deliberations. Most people do not
often thing about free will they assume it in their evaluation of actions of other. It is
a presupposition. Philosophers have wondered whether people really are free to
make choices. There are many forces outside a person’s control that have large
bearing on what he decides. Because actions often flow out of character, many
philosophers wonder whether people are as free as they thing they are.
People believe they know thing , and much of this knowledge is based on their
experiences. Such knowledge comes in 2 modes: what we are currently
experiencing, and past experiences
in the form of memories. There is no noncircular
way to to test wether memories are reliable.
We also have assumptions when it comes to values. We believes that some
thing are better than other things and often rank them according to their value.
What is the basis for this ranking Many people believe it is purely personal
preference and individual taste.
These are all examples of common foundational beliefs people have about reality
(we have free will), knowledge ( knowledges based on personal experience is
possible, and values( some things are better than others. Each of these beliefs is
central.
a second way to get to now something is describe it. Describing philosophy draws
out the finer details.
6 characteristics of Philosophy
1. Relationship between philosophy and facts - Philosophers are generally more
interested in what lies behind the facts, their meaning, significance and
veracity, then in the facts themselves. Factual data rarely solve philosophical
problems.
2. The importance of method in philosophical investigation. Philosophy is not
nearly as interested in what they believe as in why they believe it.
3. One of the primary tasks of philosophy is clarification. One aspect of critical
examination
is clarification. Philosophy is interested in finding the truth and clear
thinking is a key ingredient
in that search. 2 great enemies to clear thinking is:
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
ambiguity and vagueness.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
4. Philosophy examines and evaluates everything. Nothing is taken for
granted. In philosophy, every belief and idea is open to critical
examination. Philosophers require clarification and justification before
accepting any belief as true.
5. Philosophy is usually concerned with foundational issues that have been
perennial throughout the history of humankind
6. Philosophy often appeal to systems of principles or guidelines regarded to be true.
No such thing as a neutral philosopher. Everyone has their own biases! They begin
with guidelines or principles that they hold to be true and then using them
investigate new knowledge claims as they arise. If those claims are inconsistent
with what they already consider true an adjustment must be bade. Inconsistency
with a set of beliefs is a sign of falsehood. This usually means philosophers must do
2 thing : either reject the new claims or adjust their system to adapt to this new
claim.
A first-order discipling is a field that studies reality directly. A second- order discipline
is a field that studies the methods and presuppositions of first-order disciplines. It
is not interested in the conclusion as much as the means used to arrive at the
conclusion and the presuppositions held while attempting to answer the question.
People often use language in an ambiguous or vague manner without thinking about
what they are saying or believing. Philosophers hold that foundational beliefs are too
important to be needlessly vague or ambiguous.
Ambiguous- when there is more than one possible meaning
Vague- when the meaning is not clear
Reason is a gift from God to humans to assist them in understanding God and the
world God has made. Cognition is the ability to reason and know is not possible in
a world without Go . We cannot even understand what the Bible says without our
basic reasoning abilities .
We do have reasons to believe based on the authority of the word of God from the
apostles and prophets.
Plato’s greatest work in book Republic talks about what a just society is and how
goods and services should be distributed in such a society. We’ve been dealign
with these questions from the beginning. The problem is not there are not answers;
the problem is that there are too many.
First there is value in taking the time to reflect critically on these fundamental issue
. The process of deep reflection itself is affirming to our humanity. 2, not all
proposed solutions are of the same quality. Philosophers can often look at the same
evidence and generate completely different explanations and theories to account
for it.
Just bc 2 philosopher disagree doesn’t mean that one is rational and the other is
not. It is possible to be rational and still be wrong. There is a difference between a
philosophical theory being rational in the sense that the conclusion follows from
the evidence and it being compelling. Rational means that it is supported by the
evidence or arguments.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
To be compelling often involves many other factors such as our starting point, the
start of
beliefs we already hold etc.
Definition of worldview: a comprehensive system of beliefs that functions, first, as
an explanation and interpretation of the world and second as an application of that
system to the way people lives and the values they hold.
A 3 ways to get to know philosophy is to compare and contrast it with other fields.
Philosophy and religion are similar in that they both search for the ultimate- that
which
has ultimate meaning and value. All religions believe that he or it is is where
the ultimate lies.
Some philosophers have given up the search of anything
ultimate beyond our material world much of the history of philosophy chronicles
the quest for that which unifies all things.
Where philosophy and religion often di er is in how they conduct that search. ff
Religion
usually appeals to some authoritative revelation to discover the truths
about the ultimate. For
religions like the Bible. In contrast, philosophy, uses
rational inquiry in attempting to
understand the ultimate. For philosophy the search
for the ultimate is an exercise in critical
reflection, not something one accepts bc
some authority claims it. Religion usually incorporates spiritual discipline such as
prayer and worship. One does not find this spiritual dimension in philosophy.
Philosophy and Science - are similar in that both try to understand reality in a
methodical fashion. They both use observation and appeal to evidence to support
their conclusion.
The first differ has to do with the extent of their search. Science generally
examines that part of reality experienced with the senses what we might call the
physical world ( a belief called scientific naturalism) Scientism- the notion that
scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge there is.
Philosophy its field extend outside physical reality to what lies beyond and behind it.
second distinction is, Science deal with first order questions about reality.
Philosophy deals with second order questions about disciplines like science.
Philosophy and art- artists often use their medium to express philosophical ideas.
First differ, Art usually only conveys a particular philosophical view, whereas philosophy
seeks the rational justification of a view. Second differ, Philosophy is distinct in that art
is concerned mostly with structure, whereas philosophy is concerned mostly with
content. Depressing view of life: nihilism.
Philosophers divide knowledge into 2 main types: proportional knowledge and
experiential knowledge. Propositional knowledge (much of this knowledge is
history) consist of beliefs that can be formulated and conveyed in propositions.
Experiential knowledge is knowledge gained through experiencing something. It
cannot be conveyed through propositions.
Neither of these forms of knowledge is superior to the other. They are different forms. It
is also
true that experiential knowledge often enhances our understanding beyond
what propositional knowledge can convey.
Definitions:
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Study Guide 2 of Foreman’s Prelude to Philosophy: Why is Philosophy important?
A Philosophical mindset is an attitude or approach to life that involves regularly
examining
beliefs to ascertain what they mean whether they are true and what value
they have. It might
involve taking a course or reading philosophers, but it is more to
that. It is adopting a new habit to life.
Living in the information age.. as a result we often adopt beliefs without much
reflection, not
realizing how vulnerable to criticism they may be. A philosophical
mindset approaches new info critically. It involves questioning, reflecting on and
considering the meaning, value and truthfulness of what we see read or hear.
Adopting the philosophical mindset is analogous to accepting the call to vocation. It is
to accept the call to radically change your approach to life. It becomes a part of
your identity.
5 Reasons for why it is important to develop a philosophical mindset- 1. Examined life, 2.
Clarification, 3. Value of Arguing, 4. Cultivating a worldview, 5. the practical value of
Philosophy
To say we have an epistemic obligation is the normative claim that we have a duty to
clarify our
beliefs and be able to offer good reasons for thinking they are sure.
2
benefits Examining and evaluating our beliefs is more than fulfilling a duty. It also
yields
significant dividend, 2 of which stand out. First, understanding life enhances
our enjoyment of it. Wisdom and understand provide more enduring joy than
ignorance.
A second benefit to examining and evaluating our foundational beliefs becomes
apparent when we consider how strongly our beliefs affect us. Most of our actions
originate out of our
beliefs and we often will act on a belief whether it is true or not. The
power of our core beliefs is
much stronger. Most of our beliefs are built on one
another.
Think of joy as the fulfillment of an appetite. If healthy appetite produces contentment
and joy. There are also nonphysical appetites. Social appetite that is fulfilled through
friends and family. Aesthetic appetite fulfilled through our experience of beauty in the
world Existential appetite a
desire for meaning and purpose. Intellectual appetite: a
natural desire to know and understand. This appetite is so powerful that we are
often frustrated when we don not understand a concept.
Philosophy aid in understanding life better.
Clarification- Quantitative concept of fairness— the quantity of time or effort one
puts into a task should determine the reward one receives from it.
Another concept of fairness is the qualitative concept— it is the quality of one’s
work that is determinative of the reward one receives.
Clarification is important in discussions bc when entering a philosophical discussion, it
is
important to make sure that all participants are clear on the meaning of the terms
involved.
A philosophical mindset it aids in the task of clarification. Philosophers consider
clarification to be important in 2 ways: first it is important that we are clear about
what we believe for our own benefit. Second, clarifying terms and concepts is of
utmost importance bc our
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
discussions with others about our beliefs are based on a shared understanding of
what those terms and concepts mean.
Determinisim: everything including every cause is the effect of some cause or
causes or that everything is not only determinate but casually determined.
If philosophy is the pursuit for the truth, then arguing is the strategy that guides the
pursuit.
Philosophical arguing is not regular arguing with 2 people against each other.
Regular arguing— two individuals in an angry dispute. It is usually characterized by
negative emotions, we are upset, raise our voices. In this kind of argument we
usually attack the opposing person.
Philosophical arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but
between competing ideas. This is the kind of arguing philosophers do. Rather than
being emotional it is
rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true.
In Arguing this way, we do not
attack the other person, but we are both attacking an
issue or problem. The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth.
Arguing is so important in philosophy bc it is the foremost way that we fulfill the
justification
aspect of critical examination. To justify our beliefs is to offer reason for
why we think they are
true. arguing forces us to understand an issue better.
Socratic method—
A worldview can be defined as an explanation and interpretation of the
world and an application of that view of life. How peach respond to events
depends greatly on their worldview.
although everyone holds a worldview not everyone has done the real labor of
cultivating a worldview. some people adopt without much critical reflection their
worldview by
accepting what they world told or what their culture proclaims or tactily
endorses. To cultivate
a worldview is to reflect on our foundational beliefs, to consider
the different options concerning them, and to arrive at a good justification for holding
the beliefs we do.
3 elements of a worldview—- 1. the beliefs involved in a worldview need to be
internally consistent. They should not contradict one another.
2. aspect of a worldview is external comprehensiveness. Comprehensive doesn’t mean
that every single beliefs has to be accounted for by our worldview. It means instate
that hone a new fact that might have a profound effect on a worldview comes to
light, the worldview needs to account for it.
3. element of a worldview is coherence. The beliefs involved in a worldview should
fit together and mutually support one another. A worldview is not merely a loose
collection of
beliefs. It is a set of related beliefs that together form a basis from
which to act in the world.
Consistency, comprehensiveness and coherence are
facts of every worldview.
Philosophers insist that inconsistency is a sign that something is wrong within a
given set of beliefs and that we must make a change to remove the inconsistency.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
What should we do when we encounter new info that challenges our worldview? The
questions of what to change depends on which beliefs have the best support in their
favor.
Thomas Kuhn argues that a whole paradigm shift in a persons worldview might occur
on the basis of the one new fact coming to light.
None of us should be so committed to a worldview that we are not willing to change our
minds if that is where the evidence leads. Sometimes a new idea will force us to
reexamine our worldview and to make significant changes bc the veracity of the
new idea is so overwhelming.
Some think that philosophy has no practical value. Part of this is understandable.
Sometimes it does seem that philosophical inquiry is far removed from our world.
5 ways philosophy is practical.
1. a person’s worldview determines his ultimate goals and these in turn strongly
shape everyday decisions.
2. practical function of philosophy is the role it plays when individuals evaluate
questions and problems in other fields. No matter what discipline one is in, whether
it is business psychology or science, one will eventually encounter basic philosophical
questions.
One of the most common ways philosophy is practical is the role it plays in our
ethical reasoning
3. practical way is how philosophy plays a role in our ethical reasoning. Sometimes
these are small and trivial like keeping a commitment instead of playing golf.
4. practical value of philosophy concerns how we relate to one another. One task of
philosophy is cultivating and understanding worldview. There are a variety of
worldview held by different individuals. Understanding one’s worldview, knowing its
basic presuppositions and where he is coming form aids in the task of relating to
him. The more we understand philosophy the better we understand each other.
5. practical value of philosophy is practical is in the way it opens and expands our
minds to new ideas and options we may have never considered. It helps us to rid us of
dogmatism, prejudice, and poor reasoning. We are assailed with new ideas, and we
need to evaluate them critically before we accept them. All too often we allow our
presuppositions to control what we accept without taking the time to ask, what
really is meant here? Do I have a reasons to believe it is true?
Today’s choices will mold tomorrow. Philosophy helps us consider what goals for
the future
should be and how to best achieve them.
What did Kierkegaard mean when he said we should- understand life backward but live
it forward. There is wisdom in the idea that a person should look at the end of her life
decide what she wants to have accomplished and then thinking backward form the
end, plan out her life.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
The project of thinking about goals, planning out life and making adjustments is a
philosophical endeavor.
Why are daily choices important? we often think that the most important choices we
make are the big ones: whom we marry or what college we go to etc. although these
are
important they tend to overshadow other choices that are often equally, if not
more, important.
These are the regular, daily choices we make in our interactions with
others and in our private lives. These choices form our character and reflect and
influence our worldview.
sometimes things happened to us outside of our control thought. Yes, but we
decide how to respond to those things. We can choose to respond wisely learning
from such things and growing through them or we can choose to respond in
bitterness and resentment.
Not only do we ponder the ethical decisions in our own lives, but also we are often
confronted with social and cultural issue that involve moral decisions.
How does the philosophical mindset help in decision making? Whatever we decide,
whether the issue is personal or social, we need good reasons The quality of your life is
largely dependent on the daily choses you make - so choose wisely. The process of
finding moral justification for our choices involves thinking philosophically. How do
we decide what is right or wrong? At first we might appeal to some moral rule or
principle that we have adopted
but the process does not end there, for the rule itself
begs for justification. We justify our moral
rules by appealing to an overarching moral
theory that governs all our moral justification. For some, it is the consequences of
our actions that control our morel decisions. If the results of our decisions are good
then they are deemed, morally justified.
For others, it is not the consequences that make an action right or wrong
instead certain actions are regarded intrinsically right or wrong regardless of
the results.
Then there are those who appeal neither to consequences more to morel duties
but instead to character qualities called virtues in making moral decisions. a moral
virtue is a dispositional
trait built into our charted. For the virtue thinker, our actions
flow out of our character. Virtue
ethicists try to determine which actions are
appropriate expressions of certain virtues such as
love or integrity. These
individuals often make moral decisions by attempting to model morally
ideal person?
Asking what would he do if he were faced with this decision?
There are even those who think morality is completely relative and need no
justification bc it is
up to each person to decide what is right or wrong based purely
on individual desires or preferences.
ultimately they might need to appeal to he/she entire worldview to justify her moral
theory.
Every step of reflective moral thinking involves the philosophical mindset.
How does philosophy help us to relate to other people? Another practical value of
philosophy concerns how we relate with one another. One task of philosophy is
cultivating and understanding worldview. Understanding another’s worldview,
knowing its basic presuppositions and where he is coming from, aids in the task of
relating to him.
Betrand Russel’s point - famous philosopher shares that philosophy leads us to free
our thoughts and to think of things in a new light. It opens our minds to new
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
thoughts and ideas. It is a primary means to intellectual and spiritual growth. It is a
passionate lover of wisdom.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Study Guide lesson 3 to Prelude to Philosophy
Philosophy is a key ingredient to being an effective disciple of Jesus.
The word philosophy is mentioned only 1 time in the Bible. It advocates the
need for a philosophical mindset.
Know the historical and literary back to Col. 2:8 (WHERE TO FIND pg 78-80)— Paul
starts this passage with the Greek term belpete meaning beware or be on your
guard. In the greek text vain deceit comes un the same regimen as philosophy and
so ‘philosophy’ and ‘vain deceit’ are the same thing.
Paul is not condemning Philosophy. Paul is contrasting 2 kinds of philosophy: one
that is based on human tradition and the basic principles of the world and another
that is based on Christ. I call this the biblical mandate to develop a Christian
philosophical mindset and want to suggest that this mandate involves 3 elements:
appreciation of the role reasoning plays in evaluating philosophies, construction
of a christian system of philosophy and refutation of contrary philosophies.
In Col. 2:8 it is contrasted against another philosophy one that is based on Christ.
Paul already has detailed the foundational principles of the philosophy of Christ (col.
1:15-23).
3 elements involved in fulfilling the Biblical mandate: First, in order to fulfill Paul’s
mandate
we need to appreciate the value Scripture places on the use of our reason
and intellect. Many christians devalue the use of reason. Many Christians have an
exaggerated view of human depravity calming that the noetic effects of sin have
so darkened the mind as to be incapable of knowing any truth.
second, element in fulfilling Paul’s mandate is the construction of a Christian
worldview. According to Colossians 2:8, not only do we need to beware of a
deceptive philosophy but also we need to establish a philosophy that is according
to Christ. We need to construct a a christian worldview. Since a primacy source for
that worldview is scripture.
3 element in fulling the biblical mandate expressed in Colossians 2:8 is refutation.
Why do some Christians devalue the use of reason? Christians think that reason
and
intellect rigor is not important, but scripture counters that. The
philosophical mindset is
necessary to love the Lord and to be an effective
disciple in these modern times. pg 83
Continuing answer to why Christians devalue the use of reason. - it is not surprising
that some theologians call our age the most anti-intellectual period in the history of
the church. This low view of reasoning and reflecting has led many outside the
church to view christians as shallow, simple and unintellectual. There is no
dichotomy between head and heart, reason and faith in Scripture. They work
together, never apart. Such understanding cannot be accomplished apart from
employing the philosophical mindset. pg. 81
What does Jesus a rm about the use of reason? ffiScripture praises the use of
intellect. Matthew 22:37 Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love the
lord not just with our hear and soul, but with our mind or more literally,
‘understanding.” There is no dichotomy between heart and head, reason and faith
in Scripture. They work together, never apart.
Hebrews says that without faith its is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6) This is not
a blind faith, however it is a reasonable faith.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
How does Acts 17 demonstrate the value of reason? It is important to note here that
Luke praises these Bereans not just because they received the word with
eagerness but also bc of the manner in which the received the word: they
examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.These Berean Jews
did not accept with blind faith what Paul taught. These Bereans were making sure
the Paul’s teachings lined up with the evidence of the Scriptures. That is high
praise of reasoning.
Know what 1 Peter 3:15 states.” Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being
ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope
that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.
What does II Tim. 2:15 have to say about constructing a Christian worldview?
2 Tim 2:15 suggests that Paul is warning against taking the devious paths of
deceiving interpretations the Scriptures. Paul’s contrast is between those who do
accurately handle the truth and those who do. There is a right and wrong way to
interpret the Bible. In order to construct an Christian worldview we need to handle
accurately the word of truth. There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret God’s
word. pg. 85
What are some elements of II Cor. 10:5 that inform us that Paul is referring to Philosophy
here? In this passage Paul contrast arguments and pretensions set against
knowledge of God with thoughts captive to Christ. The main difference between the
passage is that in Colossians Paul exhorts readers to to beware of those philosophies
contrary to Christ but in this passage Paul is more aggressive we need to refute
those contrary philosophies.
What are we all called to do?
We are ALL called to think critically!! pg. 89
Scripture praises the use presuppositions intellect. Matthew 22:37
We cannot love God with just our heart — to love God requires us to understand
him and the world he has made. Such understanding cannot be accomplished
without philosophical
mindset.
There is an important place for faith. Hebrews 11:6 This is not a blind faith, it is a
reasonable faith. We believe God bc we have good reason to believe him.
Being prepared to defend our faith involves being able to reason with a certain
degree of a philosophical sophistication.
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy is that we need to work hard to ensure that we interpret
Scripture accurately. Interpreation is a philosophical enterprise. We establish principles
of interpretation
like the historical -critical method which is a philosophical principle
and then we employ the principle as we try to grasp the meaning of a passage.
In order to refute bad philosophy we need first to beware of it. The need not just
to develop a philosophical mindset but to study the writings of philosophers.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
There are those christian who are uniquely gifted and called to perform the the
task of using philosophy to contrast explains and defend the Christian worldview
and to educate other
believers about that worldview. It is not for everybody. we are
all called to think critically.
5 ways philosophy plays a vital role for Christians.
1. Philosophy plays a large role in the task of hermeneutics or interpreting Scripture.
Interpretation involves applying principles or criteria to discover the original
meaning of the text. One criterion is to interpret a passage according to its
historical and literary context.
2.second role that philosophy plays for the Christian is the task of doing theology.
systematic theology requires philosophical thinking
3. Third area where philosophy functions for Christians is apologetics. is the rational
defense of the truth claims of Christianity. Probably in no other area of Christian
thinking is the
philosophical mindset employed than apologetics.
4 . Fourth area where philosophy plays a part for Christians is polemics. Apologetics
deals with external attacks against Christian beliefs, polemics deals with
nonorthodox teachings that arise from within the church. Philosophy plays a role
here in defining the doctrinal purity of orthodox Christianity.
5. philosophy functions for the Christian in evangelism. This commission requires
that we interact often with those who differ from us in their basic worldview and
values. being philosophically minded helps us to understand where others are
coming from and to tailor our evangelistic message to meet their needs and
questions.
Explain how hermeneutics is a philosophical endeavor. Nowhere in Scripture are we
told how to interpret the Bible. These principle of interpretation are derives
philosophically. Hermenutics is a philosophical endeavor. Another aspect of
Hermeneutics is the task of
application. We need first to apply the proper criteria in the
interpretation of a passage. Then
we must be careful that the manner in which we
apply it is in accordance with those criteria. At
the minimum this means that we
need first to apply the proper criteria in the interpretation of a
passage. Then we
must be careful that the manner in which we apply it is in accordance with those
criteria.
How does philosophy help in systematic theology and developing theological concepts?
Another way philosophy aids theology is in helping Christians to draw out and
express important theological concepts. Throughout the history of the church,
Christian philosophers have often aided in expressing theological ideas such as the
dual nature of Jesus and the issue of free will and divine sovereignty. pg. 91
List 2 ways in which philosophy helps in the task of apologetics:
Apologetics is an attempt to address theses questions by often arguments and
evidence to support Christian truth claims. Christian apologists also offer
positive arguments to support their beliefs. Probably in no other area of
Christian thinking is the philosophical mindset employed than apologetics.
How does philosophy help in doing polemics? Polemics deals with nonorthodox
teachings
that arise from within the church. Philosophy plays a role here in defending
the doctrinal purity
of orthodox church.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
How is the philosophical mindset effective in doing evangelism? Being philosophically
minded helps us to understand where others are coming from and to tailor our
evangelistic message to meet their needs and questions. Being an effective
evangelist demands having an understanding of a person’s worldview and that
involves a philosophical mindset. pg. 93
Explain the problems with the 2 extreme views of the role of the Bible in doing
philosophy- 2 extremes that we should avoid concerning the role of the Bible in
doing philosophy and then offer a middle way between these 2 extremes.
One extreme is to ignore the bible while doing philosophy. There are some how argue
that individuals should abandon their convictions suppositions and worldview and
adopt a poisons of neutrality in doing philosophy. Only after examining all possible
views from a neutral perspective and submitting one’s arguments to vigorous
critical investigation should one then adopt the view that has the best evidence and
arguments in favor for it. While this might seem appropriate there are 3 problems
with it.
1. It is highly unlikely that most person can do this. We have to have a starting
point with which to being in examine and evaluating beliefs and claims. Many of
our foundational presuppositions. Absolute neutrality seems to be an unrealistic
an unattainable goal for the average person.
2. Even if complete neutrality were attainable such a position seems unreasonable.
For most of us are presuppositions and worldview commitments are deeply
ingrained. It seems unreasonable to require the average person of intelligence to
rummage through his worldview
interest effectively and clear out all his foundational
beliefs before he is even are allowed to do
philosophical inquiry
3. It is not necessary that a person and abandon her worldview and take a
completely neutral position.
What are some reasons why Christians adopt an erroneous view of the use of the
Bible? The reasons why many Christians adopt this erroneous view of the use of
scripture are varied: a false dichotomy between faith and reason that has
permeated modern thinking and marginalized religious truth claims to little more
than subjective feelings; a problematic theological view of human depravity that
denies the possibility of knowledge to nonbelievers; and a sincere but mistaken
view that the Bible alone addresses every issue indeed are a few examples.
Know the 6 guidelines for a critical use of Scripture in doing philosophy:
1. do not feel obligated to appeal to biblical passage in doing Philosophy or to support
a philosophical argument. You can offer non-biblical reasons and evidence for
most philosophical position. If these reasons are solid and true and their value
is equal to any Biblical support you can offer because truth is truth.
2. Avoid proof texting. If you do choose to appeal to scripture and your
philosophical work and be sophisticated and accurate in your handling of it. This
means you should avoid prove texting a passage or verse. Never cite a passage
or verse without being aware of its literary and historical context
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
3. Be prepared to explain how the passage applies to the philosophical issue in
accordance with its literary and historical context. If you choose to appeal to scripture
and
doing philosophy it is not enough to interpret it correctly. You need to show
exactly how it
applies to the particular philosophical issue under consideration. This
is often the trickiest part of using Scripture.
4. Recognize the difference between the biblical text and your interpretation of the
biblical text. do not conflate the 2. Our own foundational beliefs about reality and our
theological commitments influence the way we'll often construe the meaning of the
passage in Scripture. the goal of good exegesis is to bring these 2 into line with
each other. Often there are a number of possible meanings available to us and we
have to select the one we think is closest to the meaning the author meant to
communicate.
5. Recognize the possibility of alternative reasonable interpretation of di cultffi passages.
Some passages are difficult in determining exactly what the author meant. Either
we do not have enough information or the context for wording is not clear. When
that happens we need to be open to other meanings and not take it dogmatic
stands on a particular reading passage. epistemic humility is often necessary virtue
in scriptural interpretation. First we need to be charitable to those who take the
meaning that might differ from her own. Second we should be open to changing our own
interpretation of a passage if we believe the evidence requires it. Sometimes an
adjustment is warranted.
6. Be aware of and takes seriously the Orthodox interpretations of the text as developed
throughout the history of the church. For 2000 years intelligent people have been
dealing with and interpreting the Scriptures. Throughout the time of consensus has
evolved concerning the meaning of most of the text. Sometimes evidence arises
casting new light on the meaning of a passage that warrants a reconsideration of
the traditional understanding of it. However why you should not fall into the fallacy
of thinking traditional means right you should also honor long-held Orthodox
conclusions established by the historical church.
Explain what is meant by critical and strategic use of Scripture:
Suggest an alternative between these 2 extremes through the critical and strategic
use of Scripture. By critical, I mean we use it in accordance to accepts standards of
historical and
literary interpretation and application. By strategic, I mean that we
appeal to it wisely when
necessary and specifically addressing believers. We should
not feel pressured to feel we have to support every point with scriptural passage
even if the Bible gives us excellent reasons to reject certain view and we ned to
remember that all truth is God’s truth. pg 102
The Bible and natural revelation provide the raw data philosophy provides the
principles of systemizing the data into accessible categories where we can study
and understand God and his creation.
another way philosophy aids theology is in helping Christians draw out and express
important theological concepts. ex. is the word trinity - not located in the Bible. The
church fathers recognized this conundrum and appealed to philosophical concepts to
express the Trinity.
The idea at the Bible is all we need and that all of our moral and metaphysical ideas
must come from only that source is a prevalent and I believe detrimental one
among many Christians
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
especially those who aim to have a high regard for scripture. There are many
places where we can learn about God and his creation outside the Bible.
First there're many important philosophical issues the Bible does not adequately
address. The Bible was not written to address every philosophical issue. second,
believers who adopt the attitude of all I need is the Bible often end up dreadfully
misusing scripture. The usual way this is done through the highly mistaken by the
common custom proof texting. often they force a verse to say something it was
never intended to mean and which usually has nothing to do
with it’s original,
historical and literary context. third, problem with claiming that the Bible is all
one
needs is that it is often ineffective in answering most philosophical questions from
large numbers of people. Many people do not accept the Bible as the authoritative
word on philosophical issues. Therefore for these people just because the Bible
claim something that does not in and of itself make it so. They desire to hear good
reasoning and Evidence.
fourth, such a view fails to recognize that all truth is God's truth. God uses many
avenues to
communicate truth about his world. Natural revelation and tradition are all
venues to which God
can and does reveal his truths to humankind. Philosophical
inquiry and investigation is the search for truth.
Conclusion: there are two philosophies available to us one based on the
elementary principles of the world and the other based on Christ and his teachings.
We drew out three elements in fulfilling that mandate: the need to appreciate the
value scripture places on the use of our reason and intellect, the realization that
philosophy is necessary to construct a Christian worldview and that philosophy is
necessary to refute world views that are contrary to that of
christ. We then
examined five ways philosophy plays a vital role in the Christian life activity:
hermeneutics, theology, apologetics, polemics and evangelism . Finally we
discussed the important question of the role of the Bible should play in doing
philosophy.
Critical and strategic use of scripture—- I suggested an alternative between these
two extremes to the critical and strategic use of Scripture. By critical I mean we
use it in accordance to accepted standards of historical and literary interpretation
and application. By strategic I mean that we appeal to them wisely when
necessary and when specifically addressing believers.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Study Guide 4 - Prelude to Philosophy
The study of philosophy can be reduced to smaller areas. One way is historical
approach. This method studies the development of philosophical ideas as they
evolved over time by examining the works of the great philosopher and attempting
to understand philosophical issues and questions within their historical context.
Western philosophy is divided into 4 historical periods. Ancient philosophy covers
the beginning of western philosophy. early thinkers pondered the universe’s origin.
Socrates, plato and aristotle came from this time.
Medieval period was a time when the church was the dominant movement in
the western world. Philosophers during this time used philosophy as a way of
expressing a christian understanding of the world.
Renaissance period when there was a virtual explosion of knowledge and continued
into the modern period. It was a colossal era of philosophical inquiry.
Current historical period, contemporary philosophy. it’s the most diverse age and it
represents many different philosophical movements.
Second way to break the study of philosophy is the worldview approach. which
examines philosophical problems and issues through the lens of different
worldview of beliefs and then contrasts and compares the different systems with
each other.
all worldview may be reducible to 2 primary ones, of which there are multiple
variations:
naturalism, and non naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that all that exist are
the constituents of
the natural universe. That is all there is.
The most common modern version of naturalism is scientific naturalism which
includes 2 basic aspects: 1 a naturalistic epistemic attitude that view scientific
explanations as the only adequate means of explaining reality 2. a comprehensive
story of reality that explains how all things came to be, told strictly in terms of
event causation and described in terms of the laws of physics and evolutionary
biology.
Non naturalism is the view that there exist more than just the natural universe. There
are non
theistic versions of non naturalism such as platonism, different forms of
theism are the most common versions of non naturalism: monotheism, deism,
polytheism.
third way to divide philosophy is the topical approach. Philosophy is divided into
branches of study with subcategories under the different branches.
3 main branches of philosophy:
Metaphysics is the philosophical study of reality. Aristotle referred to metaphysics
as first philosophy. Metaphysics is the study not only of the world we experience
with our sense but also of those aspect of reality that are beyond the material
world.
Metaphysics can be divided into 4 subcategories:
Cosmological metaphysics which concerns questions about the organ and purpose
of reality. Metaphysical cosmology exams questions on the origin and purpose of
ultimate reality.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Theistic metaphysics deals with questions about the reality of a God. There area at
least 3 general metaphysical questions about God that philosophers often ponder.
First, there is a God and what reasons do we have for believing in His existence?
Second, questions is what is God like? Third question is about God concerns his
relationship to the rest of reality. Christian theism believes that God is intimately
involves with his Creation. Deism is the belief that although God created the
universe, he is not involved in it in anyway. Pantheists believe that God and the
world are the same thing: everything is God and God is everything.
Our third subcategory of metaphysics anthropological metaphysics pertains to
the nature of human beings. Is there more to being human than just physical?
The vast majority of human history most persons believe that we are more than
just brains and bodies, that there is a nonphysical aspect of being human: mind
or soul. Hello this traditional belief is called mind body dualism.
Philosophers however Challenge the idea of libertarians free will. Some claim that
our choices are ultimately determined by forces outside our control such as our
environment for a genetic makeup. Compatiblists are you that we have free will
defined as doing what we want but they claim what we want is based on beliefs
and desires that are ultimately not in our control.
the 4 subcategory of metaphysics is both the most basic and most abstract:
ontological metaphysics. Ontology deals with the nature of being or existence
itself. Its primary question: what doe sit mean for reality to exist? One of the most
primary concerns the problem of the one or the many: Is reality ultimately made of
one thing and everything is just a part of expression of that one thing (monism), or
is it made of up many things that exist independently of one another and cannot be
reduced to one thing (pluralism)?
Another ontological issue concerns the identity and change. What does it mean for
something to be what it is? Ontology divides the basic constituents of reality into
such categories as properties and substances, universals and particulars, and
relations like causality and whole/ part relations.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and truth
claims. Propositional knowledge is the main purview of epistemology. The first task
of epistemology is to define exactly what propositional knowledge is. Plato defined
knowledge as justified true belief. In order to claim that we know something we first
have to believe it is true, second it has to be true, third we need good reasons to
believe it is true. Some philosophers called skeptics question whether we can have
knowledge at all.
How do we obtain knowledge? Empiricists claim that all knowledge begins with
sense perception the use of one of our 5 senses, so that if an idea cannot be
ultimately traceable to an original sense perception, we cannot claim to know it.
The opposing view to empiricism is rationalism which claims that knowledge
begins in and is ultimately based on reason.
Rationalists hold that I can arrive at some knowledge of the world though reason
alone apart from the use of my 5 senses. Some claim that truth is relative and
there are no absolute truth claims. Most philosopher believes that there are at
least some propositions that we can claim are true.
Some believe that a proposition is true if it corresponds with reality. Others say
that a proposition is true if it coheres with other propositions we know to be true.
A third view says truth is what works in explaining a particular fact about the
world or in accomplishing a goal.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Epistemology deals with the justification of our beliefs. For a belief to be justified
means that
we have reasons for holding that the belief is true. There are a couple
of issue with
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
contemporary epistemic justification. One has to do with our noetic structure, or the
way our
beliefs are related to one another. One view of our noetic structure, called
foundationalism says
that these beliefs build on one another and at the foundation
of the structure are basic beliefs that are not built on other beliefs.
Some philosophers think there are fatal problems with foundationalism and so adopt
a view
called coheren-tism in which no beliefs are more foundational that any other but
instead relate
together by cohering with one another.
2 debate in justification concerns our epistemic duties. Many philosophers argue
that if we are going to claim to know something, we have an epistemic obligation
to have good reason for our beliefs and that we should know what those reason
are, bc these reason are internally accessible to us( we are was of them in our
minds) this view is called internal-ism)
3 major area of philosophical examination concerns the idea of values. There are 2
major divisions of to axiology. Ethics deals with moral values: right versus wrong.
We frequently ponder ethical questions like abortion, war, etc. The face that we
have debate shows something that we hold in common with our opponents: most
of us believe that some actions are right and some are wrong.
however, some philosophers questions the whole idea of morality. Some argue that
morality is just an illusion and we have no mortal obligations. Others argue that
although there is
something to morality, there are no objective or universal moral
norms. Individual relativists hold that mortality is purely subjective and moral rules are
relative to one’s personal preference or emotional state. Cultural relativists, also called
conventionalists argue that moral is relative
to one’s culture. We have no choice
concurring our moral view— it is dependent on the culture in which we were raised.
How to determine what is right and wrong. A popular view is to appeal to
consequences of our actions: those actions that produce the best consequences are
right and those do not are wrong. The most common version of consequentialism —
Ultiltarianism which claims that an action is right if and only if it produces the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Other philosophers believe that consequences have nothing to do with any action
being right. Deontologist argue that we have moral obligations regardless of
consequences. Consequences are morally irrelevant.
Some have revived an ancient view of ethics that concentrates not so much on
what we do but on how we are. Virtue this claims that the debate on ethic has been
misplace and that our concern should be about developing our moral character.
Since an aesthetic claim is a value judgement, it is considered a subcategory of
axiology. Philosophy raises ?’s about art and beauty. The word art is short for
artifact which describes any human-made object. A related definition is that art is
the product of the artistic process. The definition of art is elusive. Some believe
that the purpose of art is imitation. Some say that the purpose of art is to perfectly
express a particular form while others disagree and say it is the purpose of art to
break forms and exist always on the cutting edge.
One of the reasons art is difficult to define or determine is due to the modern
propensity to view beauty and individually and subjectively. Aesetheic
subjectivism holds that beauty is no
the object itself, but in the person who is
interacting with the object. Whether an object is
beautiful changes from person to
person.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Political philosophy is sometimes called ethics for society and is often thought of
as another subbranch of axiology. Politics broadly conceived refers to how people
within a society relate and function together. A major area of concern for political
philosophy is justice.
Philosophy of religion deal with questions concerning the nature of God and how we
know and relate to Him. Under philosophy of religion we move beyond just the
questions of Gods existence and more into questions of his nature, attributes and
actions. Philosophy of religion also deals with questions of how we relate to and
know about God.
Philosophy of history can be thought of in 2 senses. First there is the inquiry into
the nature of history itself: does it have a purpose? This is usually called
speculative philosophy of history and is closely relate to metaphysics as it deals
with the ontology of history.
The other sense of philosophy of history concerns with the inquiry into how
history is known. here one is dealing with the task of historians in determining
what has happened in the past and its meaning and importance for us today. This
area is often called critical philosophy of history or historiography. It is closely
relates to epistemology, as it deals with how we know history.
It becomes clear that history is not the study of past facts but the study of the
record of those past facts.
Philosophy of law is more commonly known by the term of jurisprudence meaning
the study and theory of law. Issues in the area of jurisprudence range from the
nature of law to the
relationship between law and morality. Jurisprudence differs from
the related field of legal
ethics in that issue of legal philosophy are more wide
ranging than issue of legal ethics.
One classic debate in jurisprudence involves the sources of law. the positivist view
argues that there is no connection between law and moral and the only sources of
law are those that hav been expressly enacted by a government or course. The
naturalist view takes the position that government is not the only source of law but
moral values, human nature, and God-given rights are also integrated in the law.
Bc natural law is assumed and not based on established rules, it is subject to greater
interpretation.
philosophy of Science is closely related to epistemology. Science is the primary
means of understanding and explaining the observable and natural world around us
( for modern thinkers. Some claims that science is the antithesis of philosophy.
They reason science is cold hard facts and philosophy is little more than speculation
and subjective opinion. No scientific definition of science.
Scientists often infer conclusions about unobserved causes based on observable
effects: the magnetic field and black holes etc. Science is not always dealing with
the observable.
One of the most important debates in philosophy of science has to do with what
science is supposed to be telling us. One view, called scientific realism claims that
the purpose of science is to give us truthful explanation and understanding of the
world.
Many scientists today have abandoned the search for truth and have adopted the
view called
scientific antirealism. Antirealists claims that the purpose of scientific
theories is not to tell us the truth about the world but to do something else. There are
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
different versions of antirealism,
but the most common version is instrumentalism.
Instrumentalism: claims that the purpose of scientific theories is to functions as a
way of explaining predicting, or understanding certain
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
observable phenomena. It adopts the pragmatic view of truth— what is true is
what works to explain something.
Study Guide Lesson 5 - Prelude to Phil
Phil use logic. The 1 task in being an effective phil, is learning how to use the tools
of phil and that means becoming a skillful logician.
Why are the laws of logic foundational? At the foundation for all reasoning are the
law of
logic often referred to as the first principles of logic. If they are not
recognized as true, then
nothing we claim makes any sense.
List and explain the 3 laws of logic. Traditionally 3 laws of logic.
1. most primary laws is the law of noncontradiction which states: something cannot
both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
Explain the common confusion concerning God and contradictions:
Some Christians have challenged this law by claiming that God is all-powerful and
therefore can do anything including contradictions. They will often quote Matt.
19:26 (with God all things are possible)
There are couple of problems with this reasoning:
1. First the context of this passage is salvation
Jesus uses 2 hyperboles to make his point. First, is that of a camel going through
the eye of a needle and the second with with God all things are possible. His point
is that none of use can save ourselves only God can save us.
2.When he says all things are possible with God he means all things that can
possibly can are possible with God. There are some thing that cannot possibly be:
Contradictions. God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same
respect; He cannot be God and also not be God. that is a contradiction and
contradictions are impossible.
Know the symbolic express the law of non-contradiction and how it clears up
confusions:
~(P* P).2
The ~ means “not” or “non” and negates any term or proposition that follows it.
The parenthesis means “both.” The dot means “and.” The letter P is called a
variable and it can
refer to any term of proposition. Therefor the logical formula reads:
It is not the case that there
can be both P and non-P. Stating it this way clears up some
confusion concerning the law of noncontradiction.
2. Second law of logic is the law of excluded middle which states something either is
or is not. a thing either exists or it does not.
Know the Symbolic expression of the Law of excluded middle. Why is it called the law
of
excluded middle? P v~ P. It is called the law of excluded middle bc it excludes the
possibility
of something in the middle of existence or nonexistence. A thing either
exists or it does not.
3. Third law is called the law of identity. Something is what is it. P=P.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Comments need to be made about these 3 laws. First, the observation has been made
that these 3 laws all seem to be saying the same thing. They mutually entail each other
to the point where if one is true, then the others follow. But they actually empathize a
different logical relationship.
Non contradiction seems to have the primary force in most logical reasoning.
Excluded middle is often the best way to express a point in an argument.
Second observation, these laws are claims about existence. They can also be stated as
claims about the truthfulness of a proposition.
Final observation, these laws are not in need of any proof beyond themselves.
They are self evident and undeniable.
Know why the laws of logic are self-evident:
these laws are not in need of any proof beyond themselves. Self-evident means:
they prove themselves and do not need any proof outside themselves.
Undeniable means: that laws cannot be meaningfully denied.
Logic can be seen as critically thinking about how we critically thing. Thinking
describes any mental activity.
Logic mostly concerns itself with the last of these. Reasoning is at the heart of what
goes on in the process we hav been describing as critical thinking.
Know the 3 parts of an argument: When we group our reasons together to achieve a
particular conclusion, we refers to that as an argument. An argument is a group of
propositions.
1. reasons are called (premises)
2. Conclusion- trying to prove one of the other propositions
3. Inference the interference is the relationship between the premises and the
conclusion Non sequitur- means ‘it does not follow’
Distinguish the language of evaluating arguments (deductive and inductive) from how
we evaluate propositions.
Logic is about evaluating arguments. Deductive arguments are evaluated as either
valid or invalid. Inductive arguments are either known as strong or weak. When it
comes to
propositions within the argument we evaluate them according to their truth
value: whether
they are true or false.
Explain the relationship between truth value of the propositions with the validity/
strength of the argument. The validity or strength of an argument and the truth value of
the propositions are 2 distinct and separate aspect of an argument.
Truth value of the propositions in an argument has nothing to do with its validity or
strength.
Validity or strength has nothing to do with truth or value.
if the premises are assumed to be turret then the conclusion follows.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Know the point about agreeing with the conclusion of an argument and it being a good
argument. Do not assume that bc you agree with the conclusion of an argument , it
must be a good argument.
A final term is soundness for deduction or cogency for induction. a deductive
argument is considered sound when it is valid and the premises are true. An
inductive argument is considered cogent when it is strong and the premises are
truth.
Deduction is form of logical reasoning in which the aim is to arrive at a conclusion
that is logically necessary given the premises.
Know the kind of conclusion arrived at by a valid deductive argument. In a valid
deductive argument, if the premies are assumed to be true, it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false. in a valid deductive argument, the premises guarantee the
conclusion with logical certainty.
Key distinctive of a deductive argument is the kind of conclusion that one is aiming
to obtain:
one that must follow give the premises. Distinctive feature of deductive
arguments is that they
argue from the general to the particular. This is not always
the case though.
Note the difference in terminology between the laws of logic and the rules of valid
inference.
Need to find answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A syllogism is logical argument that consists of 2 premises and a conclusion that is
structured according to certain rules of valid inference that govern the particular type
of
syllogisms that are based on 3 different kinds of propositions used in reasoning.
1. Categorical syllogism - consists of 2 categorical propositions as the premises and
one categorical proposition as the conclusions.
A categorical proposition - is a statement that affirms or denies a relationship
between 2 categories or classes: a subject and a predicate.
Explain the categorical syllogism- Categorical syllogism - consists of 2 categorical
propositions as the premises and one categorical proposition as the conclusions.
a categorical syllogism features 3 categorical propositions: a major premise, a
minor premise, and the conclusion.
Since each categorical syllogism has 3 categorical propositions then there are 4
possible types of propositions.
6 rules of valid inference for categorical syllogisms:
1. the middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises
2. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premise
3. No conclusion can come from 2 negative premises
4. If one premise is negative, then the conclusion must be negative
5.
If both premies are affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative
6. If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be
particular. If the syllogism breaks one or more of the rules, it
is invalid.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Explain the disjunctive syllogism and know the fallacy: Second kind of syllogism is
the disjunctive syllogism. a disjunctive syllogism makes use of the disjunctive
proposition.
A disjunctive proposition is an either/ or statement that affirms or denies something in
terms
of 2 alternatives called alternants. This proposition offers 2 alternative
possibilities.
In a valid disjunctive syllogism: one will deny ones of these alternatives in the
second premise; and affirm the other alternant in the conclusion. The logic of this
kind of argument can be seen as a process of elimination.
Disjunctive syllogism has only one rule:
One must deny one of the alternatives in the second premise and a rm the ffi
other alternative in the conclusion.
Example: Either is rained last nigh or I left the sprinkler
running
It rained last night.
Therefore I did not leave the sprinkler running.
Affirming one of the alternatives in the 2 premise does not get me to any
conclusion bc they can both be the cause. This is called fallacy of a rming theffi
alternant.
Explain what a hypothetical proposition is doing and what it is not doing. 3 kind of
deductive syllogism is the hypothetical proposition. A hypothetical proposition: is a
statement that a rms or denies something ffiin terms of antecedent expressed as an
“if” and a consequent expressed as a ‘then”
Explains the hypothetical syllogism and know the 2 fallacies.
There are 2 basic kinds of hypothetical syllogisms the pure and the mixed. The
pure hypothetical syllogism uses only hypothetical propositions for the 2
premises and the conclusion.
The mixed hypothetical syllogism uses a hypothetical proposition for the 1 premise
but then uses categorical propositions for the 2 premise and the conclusion. The
key factor in determining validity in a mixed hypothetical syllogism is what is
transpiring in the second premise.
There are 2 forms of valid mixed hypothetical syllogisms:
the 1 form is called “the way of a rming”. In this form the second premises a rms ffi ffi
the antecedent of the hypothetical is truth. Assuming the hypothetical is true, if the
antecedent is affirmed, then the consequent must also be affirmed.
The 2 form is called “the way of denying”. In this form a the 2 premise
denies the consequent of the hypothetical proposition. Assuming the
hypothetical is true, if the consequent is denied, then the antecedent
must also be denied.
The 2 rules for the mixed hypothetical syllogism are either to a rmffi the antecedent or to
deny the consequent in the second premise.
The 2 fallacies: fallacy of denying the antecedent & the fallacy of a rmingffi
the consequent.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Contrast induction with deduction:
Valid deductive argument: the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
So, if the premieres are assumed to be truth the conclusion necessarily must be
true.
In a strong Inductive argument, the conclusion only probably follows from the
premises. That is assuming the premises are true, the conclusion is only probable.
This is they key distinction between 2 kinds of reasoning: no inductive argument
reaches a conclusion that is logically certain in the same way as a deductive
argument - even if the premises are true.
The reason that deduction reaches logically certain conclusions: is that everything in
the conclusion is already contained in the premises.
Inductive arguments reach conclusions that go beyond the info contained in the
individual premises.
Another distinction, between deductive and inductive reasoning concerns how the 2
kinds of arguments are evaluated. Deductive reasoning has only 2 possible
evaluations: the argument is either valid or invalid. In evaluating inductive arguments
a number of options are possible. In general, the 2 major alternative are strong or
weak.
A strong inductive argument, is one where assuming the premises are truth, the
conclusion probably follows.
A weak inductive argument, is one where assuming the premises are truth, the
conclusion probably does not follow.
Inductive arguments are often said to reason from the particulars to the general.
One can also argue from one particular to another particular inductively as in an
analogy.
Explain the 6 forms of inductive arguments:
1. Generalization: in this form a number of particulars are gathered and a general
conclusion attained
2. Analogy: is a one-to-one comparison between 2 or more things or states of
affirms.
3. Predictions based on the probability of calculus: they form of argument makes a
prediction about a future event bases on our past experiences in light of current
conditions.
4. Statistical reasoning- this occurs by gathering info from a sample of population
and attempting to extrapolate general trends, averages and percentages based
on principles of statistics. Statistical reasoning plays a large part in scientific,
psychological and academic studies but most of us encounter is in the use of
polls.
The key to a successful extrapolation depends on a number of factors: including the
size and representation of the sample, the phrasing of questions, and the manner
in which the report is express. Statistical reasoning is a useful and effecting way
of arriving at an inductive conclusion.
5. Causal inference- this is done by observing an effect and attempting to reason
back to its cause.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
6. Argument based on authority - the evidence cited to support a conclusion is some
form of authority. It can be a person, an authoritative writing, and or an
authoritative sign.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
It is recognized that there are may different views in these areas and therefore
there is no one expert to appeal to for the definite reason.
Even qualified experts can be wrong. Their testimony can add evidence for a
conclusion, but caution is advised about arriving at a conclusion purely bc
someone says it is the case.
Formal fallacies: error is usually structured.
Scientific method or hypothetical reasoning: Ex. I form a hypothesis as to what
caused the effect, and then I test the hypothesis. Once I remove one possible
alternative, I move on to the next. I remove the other possible alternative and
arrive at the cause.
Know the idea of relevant similarity concerning analogies: The analogy is successful
observing relevantly similar particulars and can arrive at a probable conclusion
based on that similarity. Analogies are successful only as far as the discussion
concerns areas relevantly similar to the issue under consideration.
Questions and ANSWERS pg. 139
Study Guide Chapter 6 - Prelude to Phil
Informal fallacies- we know something is wrong, but it is not always easy to discern
where the error lies.
Explain the difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy -
Deductive fallacies occurs when a specific rule of valid inference is broken. These
are called formals fallacies bc they break a formal rule. Some fallacies do not break a
formal rule, yet there is still something wrong with the reasoning- these are called
informal fallacies.
Formal fallacies are concerned with structural relationships. Informal fallacies are
often more concerned with the content of the argument.
Informal fallacies fall into 4 categories: fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of
presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of relevance.
What is a fallacy of weak induction? an error arises bc the reasoning between the
premises and the conclusion is inductively weak and leads us to a conclusion that
may be presented as strong but does not follow.
Explain the fallacies of hasty generalization, sweeping generalization, weak analogy,
and slippery slope.
Hasty Generalization: this fallacy occurs by arriving at a conclusion on the basis
of insu cientffi evidence. The conclusion is arrived at hastily.
In hasty generalization, our representative sample is qualitatively or quantitatively
inadequate to
reach any conclusion.
Accident or sweeping generalization: this fallacy occurs by applying a general
principle to a specific case to which that principle does not apply.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Christians can be notorious at committing this fallacy. Some will often take a
scriptural
principle and turn it in to an absolute promise. part of the problem is that
they are treating a
proverb as if it is a promise. (ex. is Proverbs 22:6 if you train
your child, they shall not depart from it) They are no guarantees.
Weak Analogy - A weak analogy coccus when the items being compared are not
relevantly similar concerning the issue under consideration. The success of an
analogical argument depends on the relevant similarities between the items being
compared.
Slippery Slope-
It is a weak indicative argument that claims that given one event, an alleged chain of
events will follow, but it offer little or no evidence to support such a claim. In most
cases, it is claimed the the chain will result in some disastrous consequence.
This is an example of superlative arguing. The arguer attempt to make a case by
arriving at an extreme conclusion that often overstates the actual situation.
Slipper slopes are notorious for predicting unwarranted extreme conditions.
Slipper slope is usually considered a fallacy of its own, but it can be seen as a type
of the false cause fallacy.
Describe the fallacy of false cause and know the different types. - This fallacy is
committed when we attempt to draw a causal inference between 2 events and
there is little evidence that the 2 events are casually connected.
1. type of false cause- Post hoc fallacy. in this version of the fallacy, an individual
mistakenly concluded that bc one event occurred temporally after another event, the
first event must have cause the second.
2. type of false cause- oversimplified cause- often there may be more than one cause
for an event or it may be the result of a causal series. Care needs to be taken that
we do not reduce a complex problem to a simplistic cause. It is naive at best to
identify just one cause for such a complicated problem.
3. type of false cause is the non causa pro causa - (not the cause, for the cause) This
fallacy occurs when something that is not the cause if inferred as being the cause
for the event or effect with no evidence offered to support the inference.
What is a fallacy of ambiguity? the language employed might be unclear, vague,
ambiguous, or inappropriate in some other sense.
Explain the fallacies of equivocation, hypostatization, amphiboly, and composition
and division.
Equivocation: this fallacy occurs when the meaning of a significant term changes in
the middle of an argument and thus distorts and usually invalidates the conclusion.
Hypostatization: this fallacy occurs when one treats an abstract words as if it
were an concrete word. The most common forms of this fallacy is through
personification or the attributing of personal characteristics to non-personal
things.
(Another abstract terms commonly personified is ‘culture’ Culture is an abstract
term used to describe the general beliefs and practices of a community of persons.
Culture may describe the way a community acts but it doe snot prescribe how a
community should act.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Other abstract terms that are often employed in this fallacy are: science, society,
government
and truth.
Amphiboly: Is a well known fallacy that is usually the result of ambiguous
grammatical construction and poor sentence structure that introduces a lack of clarity
in the sentence. Most common version of this fallacy occurs when the referent of a
pronoun is not clear.
Composition and Division: are known as part/ whole fallacies. it is erroneously
assumed that what is true of 1 must also be true of the other . In the fallacy of
composition, it is erroneously though that what is true of each part of something must
necessarily be true of the whole. This is sometimes true, but it not necessarily the
case.
In the fallacy of division, it is a fallacy that makes the same error in the opposite
direction. it
erroneously assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of
each individual part.
Synergy: is the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that
is great
than the sum of the individual elements by themselves.
One needs to look at the context to see whether the fallacy is present or not.
There are other fallacies that fall under the category of language issues that do not have
specific names: One is the use of emotionally loaded and cliche language. People are
often passionate about the beliefs they hold. This may cause them to use language
that packs an emotional wallop but may not be accurate and may even be
misleading in arguing for a particular view
Second, caution is vital in a culture in which emotional appeal are a common
from of persuasion.
Third, arguers will appeal to cliches, epithets, and pithy sayings to say an opponent in
a particular direction.
What is the problem with using language that is emotionally loaded or a cliche in an
argument? People are often passionate about the beliefs they hold. This may
cause them to use language that packs an emotional wallop but may not be
accurate and may even be misleading in arguing for a particular view
What is a fallacy of presumption? Explain the difference between assumption
and presuming. there is a subtle difference between them.
To make an assumption is to take something for granted with out investigating it.
A Presumption is like an assumption with a small twist. Again I am assuming
without investigating but in the case of presumption an epistemic obligation
exists that usually is not present with a simple assumption.
Some claims should be investigate before we believe them and to ignore this
obligation is to presumptuous. the fallacies of presumption occurs when one is not
given the opportunity to investigate all the options in an argument bc the
arguments has been framed and presented in such a way as to ignore, distort, or
evade certain facts that may have significant bearing on the argument.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Explain begging the question and its different forms.
Begging the question is the most well known fallacy of presumption.
1. In this fallacy the main question or premise under debate is never addressed.
Instead the arguer presumes the issue is settles or does not need to be
addressed and arrives at a conclusion without presenting the premise or
allowing other to examine it.
2. Sometimes begins the question occurs when the conclusion merely restates a
premise. This is often down by using different language when moving from
premises to conclusion, thereby concealing the fallacy. By placing the
conclusion in the premises the arguer presumes that the conclusion is true in
order to prove that it is true.
3.type of begging the question is the circular argument. In this form, the
premises itself need justification, and the arguer justifies it by appealing to the
conclusion.
Explain the fallacies of bifurcation, special pleading and complex
question. Bifurcation:
This fallacy is sometimes referred to as the face dilemma or the fallacy of extremism.
This
fallacy occurs when we are presented only 2 possible options, usually extremes,
when other options are possible. This fallacy presumes the 2 options are the only
ones.
Bifurcation: occurs often with extreme terms like never or always.
Special Pleading:
this fallacy occurs when one applies a double standard without warrant: one standard
for us and other for them. It is important to note at the outset that not all double
standards are ILLEGITIMATE.
A common way this fallacy is committed is through the use of pejorative and
euphemistic language.
Speak Euphemistically: is to put something in its best light, making it sound better than
it may be.
Speak Pejoratively: Is the opposite: to place something in a negative light, making
it sounds worse than it is.
Complex Question:
Our last fallacy of presumption occurs when a questions is asked that contacts 2
questions but is phrased so that the responder can give only 1 answer and is not
allowed to address both questions separately.
The result is that the responder may end up a rmingffi or denying something he does
not intend to.
The way of handling a complex question is to question the question.
What is the fallacy of relevance? our last group of fallacies both is the largest group
and contains some of the most common fallacies. What binds this group together is
that all of the fallacies employ premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion being
proposed.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Ad hominem: in this fallacy the arguer attacks the opponent instead of the issue. Ad
hominem is Latin for “against the man” There erroneous principle behind the fallacy
is that bad persons cannot produce good arguments.
If I can show that an individual is bad in some sense, then I have given you a reason
not to consider his argument bc automatically it is a bad argument. However, the
quality of the person giving an argument has nothing to do with the merit of his
argument; it is irrelevant.
Explain the 3 different types of ad hominem fallacies:
1. Abusive form. In this form the personal character of the opponent is attacked.
2. Circumstantial form. In this version, the persons motives rather than his character is
attacked. If the position, he is arguing for happens to benefit him personally,
then, it is claims, that should discredit his argument. Just bc a conclusion of an
argument personally benefits a person is no reason to discount it as a bad
argument.
(Most of us argue for things that we strongly believe in and therefore could be
accused of bias in favor of the conclusion we are advocating. We must judge the
argument on its own merits regardless of who is making the argument or the reason they
might be making it.
3. Tu quoque (you also) the idea behind this fallacy is the the person making the
argument is guilt of the practice she is arguing against so her argument is
invalid.
We can all agree that we should practice what we preach, but the fact that we do not
practice
it does not mean that what we preach is wrong or invalid.
Explain the 3 different types of ad populum fallacies:
1. This fallacy appeal to the idea that tif a position is popular then that constitutes
positive evidence that it must be right. Ad Populum is Latin for “appeal to the
people”
2.
A subtler versions of this fallacy inverts the logic. Rather than appeal to the
majority, it
appeals to a select few. The idea is to appeal to our desire to be special
and unique.
3. Mob Appeal : in this form of fallacy the crowd is whipped up into an emotional
frenzy based on some noble idea. In all the turmoil, they often stop listening &
evaluating what is being said. This often occurs in large group meetings. If the
person is speaking on “our side” we will tend to go along with the crowd and
unreflectively agree with almost everything the speaker says;
Ibsens’s warning: the greatest enemy to the truth can be the
majority. Explain the red herring, straw man and appeal to pity
fallacies:
Red herring: the idea is to divert the attention of the listener by subtle changing
the subject.
Straw man: This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope and bifurcation in that it
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
usually appeals
to an extreme as part of its tactic, but it operates differently from those
2 fallacies. The fallacy
occurs when one takes another’s argument, distorts it to an
extreme and then process to tear down the distortion int eh belief that the arguer has
torn down the original
argument .
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
It is easy to confuse the straw man with the red herring as they both deal with replies to
original arguments:
to avoid such confusion, keeps this distinction in mind:
The red herring avoids: the original argument by changing the subject
The Straw man distorts: the original argument to an extreme and then destroys the
distortion.
Appeal to Pity:
It is called appeal to pity bc rather than argue on the merits of the issue itself, a person
makes an irrelevant emotional appeal meant to rouse sympathy for the person involved,
diverting attention aways from the real issue.
Study guide chapter. 7 - prelude to Phil
9 reasons that you should think through as you put your argument together.
Good reasoning - Good arguments conform to the laws of logic. This means they will
not
contain contradictions. They will also maintain the rules of valid inference, the
rules that govern
deductive syllogism such as “affirming the antecedent in modus
ponens” Good arguments avoid the informal fallacies.
Why is clarity important for a good argument? Good arguments are clear, accurate,
and precise.
1. You need to be clear about the structure of your reasoning and how the
premises lead to the conclusion.
2. You need to clearly communicate your thoughts and ideas to others. This
involves using appropriate language that accurately expresses your ideas. It
might mean taking the time to define significant terms so that everyone
understand exactly what you are saying.
Striving toward clarity also means avoiding such emotionally loaded language and
cliches. Such language introduces obfuscation into the argument. You want avoid
the 2 great enemies of good arguments: vagueness and ambiguity.
What is the difference between consistent and coherent?
Consistency: means that within a set of beliefs none of them contradicts the others.
( Inconsistency is a sign of falsehood and introduces a problems into the
argument.
In good arguments, beliefs need to be related together and that is the task of
coherence. Coherence: means that the beliefs relate together in a way that is
mutually supportive.
What determines how comprehensive an argument needs to be?
Good arguments consider all known reasonable alternative and arguments for a view
and can account for them as part of the overall argument. This does not necessarily
mean that every alternative needs to be presented and addressed in your argument.
The context will often determine how much needs to be brought up in your paper.
Good argument should at least have an answer prepared for challenges and alternatives
if raised.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
good arguments take all the relevant facts into account and attempt to address all
the known problems. This element recognizes an epistemic limitation: we rarely, if
ever, have complete knowledge about an issue.We want to be as comprehensive as
we can.
Orderly structure: Good arguments are structured well. They are mapped out and
presented in a form where the reasoning is apparent.
What are the 2 basic approaches to structuring an argument?
1.
They will either state the conclusion first followed by the premises.
2.
They will state the premises and then follow with a “therefore type of
conclusion”
(the 1 is more common in formal settings and the latter in
causal settings)
Explain the idea of fair use of evidence:
Good arguments use evidence fairly and avoid suppressing evidence in favor of a
particular position. If our goal is to arrive at the truth, then it is our obligation to
examine all the evidence and account for it from our perspective. Good arguments
do not have the option of being selective toward the evidence they consider.
The 1 thing that Phil does not allow you to do is ignore or suppress it (the problem
of trying to resolve your position in an argument) in hope that it will disappear.
An additional advantage is tactical: it will usually take the wind out of your opponent’s
seal.
What is a positive/ negative approach and what is the advantage of using it?
tactically this is the strongest approach to take in presenting an argument. Good
arguments not only present positive evidence in favor of the view they are
supporting. They also provide negative evidence toward the view they are
opposing.
This can be direct evidence against the view or in the form of problems with the
evidence that view employs. If you can show that not only does your view have
good evidence but also the opposing is weak, then your argument is much
stronger.
What is the advantage of a best explanation approach?
rarely does any 1 argument answers every problem. It is important to remember
that few controversial issues have perfect solutions with no problems. Almost
every solution has some problems. The goal is not to find the perfect solution but
to arrive at one you can live with, to discover which view offers the best
explanation with the least number of problems.
List and explain the 5 aspects of a best explanation:
1. The best explanation will have the largest explanatory scope. Explanatory
scope considers the quantity of facts accounted for by an explanation. The
more facts accounted for, the more likely an explanation is correct .
2. The best explanation will have superior explanatory power- the explanation that
can be understood with the least amount of effort, vagueness, and ambiguity
has the best explanatory power.
3. Plausibility: this has to do with the explanation fitting with our background
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
knowledge. The explanation that is more plausible given the background
knowledge we
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
already have is better than the one that seems implausible in accordance with
background knowledge.
4. Best explanation is ad hoc. Ad Hoc means an explanation that is created for the
situation at hand. It’s an explanation that would not generally apply but is
necessary for
this particular situation. It often employs the use of creativity and
imagination to arrive at an
explanation beyond what the evidence tells us. Ad hoc
evidence is not looked favorably and is viewed as an act of desperation. Therefore
the explanation that is less ad hoc is considered the better one.
5. The best explanation will have the property of illumination. By illumination we
mean the ability of an explanation to provide light on related areas besides the
question at hand.
Sometimes a best explanation not only will explain the particular question under
consideration, but will also address a host of related questions and issues.
What is the principle of simplicity and what is a danger concerning it?
Good arguments are those that do not contain unnecessary assumptions and
reasoning. This element of a good argument also referred to as Parismony, is
usually traced back to the late medieval phil William of Occam.
Occam developed a principle that states: Entities should not be multiplied without
necessity. For Occam, an explanation was best when it did not contain unnecessary
assumptions and baggage. This is known as Occam’s Razor.
Today we often refer the principe of simplicity by another term : KISS principle = keep
it simple,
stupid. In general, a simpler explanation will often be the best one.
Many issues are often more complex than we initially give them credit for. Care
must be taken that in our striving for the simplest explanation we do not become
simplistic. Many issues are enormously complex and need serious thought and
reflection.
So this principle of simplicity needs to be balanced: Keep your explanation as simple
as is necessary while realizing that even the simplest explanation may need to be quit
extensive and di cult.ffi
Conclusion: is the point the argument is trying to trove,
Premises: are the reasons being offered to support why we should believe the
conclusion is true.
What is the very first task in analyzing an argument?
1. first task in analyzing an argument is to find the conclusion.
What are 3 ways to find the conclusion in an argument?
1. First, look for indicator words. These are words that appear before the conclusion
and
indicate that it is coming. The most common are: therefore, thus, so, hence
etc. ( There are
also premise indicator terms that let us know a premise is coming:
since, bc, for, in that. etc.
2. second tactic is to remember that most of the time the conclusion is either the first of
the last sentence in the argument. This is a good place to start.
3.
Third tactic is to ask what is the main point of this argument. Try to see the
inferential
link between the premises and conclusion.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
What is the common standard logical order for an argument?
It is helpful to write it out in a from in which the reasoning is apparent. this is where
we separate the premises from the conclusion and from each other, so we can examine
each individual part of the argument.
We have to first ask another questions: How many premises are there? We need
to remember what our goal is: analysis.
A good principle when you are analyzing is to break the item down to its smallest parts;
Doing so with our argument yields 4 separate premises.
This is also giving the strongest interpretation to the argument, which fulfills another
important
principle in analysis: give the author of the argument the benefit of
interpreting the argument
in the strongest way possible
An argument with 4 reasons in support of the conclusion is generally stronger
that one with only only 2.
Why do we ask about the premies supporting the conclusion before asking about the
truthfulness of the premises?
2 reasons why this is the next question:
1. Remember our goal: we are trying to determine whether we have a good
argument or not. At heart, a good argument is one where the conclusion follows
from the premises. If the conclusion does not follow , then it does does not matter
where the premises are true or not.
2. Practical reasoning for performing this step: we can answer this questions
without doing any extra burdensome work.
We may have to check out the premises late , but if the conclusion does not follow,
then there
would be no need - the argument final. In asking this question first, we
assume for the moment, the premises are true and we do not worry yet whether
they are actually true or not.
What are the 2 reasons argument fail?
1. either the conclusion does not follow fro the premises
2. or the premises themselves are not true
If the conclusion follows from the premises, then that means that an argument is
valid (in the deductive sense) or strong (in the inductive sense )
Validity and strength is only one part of a successful argument. In order for an
argument to success, it also needs to be sound and cogent.
That requires that we have good reason to believe the premises are in fact true and
therefore reliable for reaching the conclusion.
In step 3 we assume the premises are true now e need to check that out.
We tend to be reticent in challenging arguers on their evidence, but is it not improper
to request
such additional supporting evidence. It is not uncommon fo arguers to
inflate claims to make their evident sound better than it usually is.
How does observing language helps us to determine the reliability of the premises?
One the of the most important lessons in PHIl is the importance of paying
attention to the language in which arguments are expressed. Extremely
important to examine carefully the language in which claims are made to see
whether it is accurate, precise and clear.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
As we look at the premies, and conclusion in our argument, is terminology present
that needs clarification and definition?
Arguing by example. What is meant by examples being representative? What is a
counter example?
It is common when arguing to use examples as evidence to support your
conclusion. 3 factors need to be considered when you argue by example:
1. You normally can’t arrive at a conclusion on the basis of one example
2. Second factor to consider: Are the examples employed representative of the
point your are making? In order for examples to work as evidence they need
to be broadly representative.
3. Another factor is counterexamples: is an example that refutes the ones that have
been suggest in support of the conclusion. Counterexamples have the function of
weakening an argument by showing that the conclusion does not necessary
follow.
the use of the counterexample method works best when the argument makes
universal and extravagant claims.
Explain the problems of unqualified and conflicting authorities and how to resolve them:
we often have to rely on others to provide info that we may use as evidence in an
argument.
This is called argument by authority.
3 factors to consider when arguing by authority:
1. It is important that the authority being quotes is a bona fide and informed
authority on the issue under consideration. Just bc one might be considered an
authority in one are does not make one an authority in all areas.
A closely related fallacy( is individuals who are experts in an adjacent field,
but not necessarily an expert on the question under consideration.
2. another factor is employing an authority concerns the problem of conflicting
authorities. Even authorities often disagree with one another. If you are going to
argue by authority, you should attempt to arrive at a consensus of authorities. In
many cases this is possible. Often a consensus is not to be, and it would be
disingenuous to claim one. We should avoid claiming a consensus without having
done the requires research to support such a claim.
3. You should remember that ad hominem attacks do not discredit an expert. We are
valuing the individuals expertise on a specific issue. We are not evaluating his or her
personal beliefs, characteristics or actions.
Ethics, politics, and religion are 3 areas where it is usually recognized that quoting
an expert does little to resolve an issue.
Consider causal arguments: we often argue about why an event occurred by pointing
back to its cause. Causal arguments are common, but they can be more
complicated than they might initially appear.
1. one factor that will help to strengthen a casual argument is if the argument
explains how the cause led to the event. ( Merely asserting a causal connecting is
usually not enough to make the argument work and lays you open to the charge of
false cause)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
You do not need every detail to justify a causal connection:but you should offer some
of the elements to show how one event caused another event to occur.
2. Social events are often the result of multifaceted causes intricately connected
together. Rarely it is just one thing, and care needs to be taken to not
oversimplify a cause.
Many events have more than one possible cause. When it comes to more than one
cause, and we are not able to test them, a good general principle is to embrace the
cause that goes with our established beliefs and experiences.
3. It is important that you can show that 2 events are in fact casually connected.
Sometimes random events occur that are coincidental and not causally related. Be
careful not to jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence that a casual
connect is involved or you might end up affirm an argument.
Check for fallacies: the final step in evaluating an argument is to look for any formal
and informal fallacies within the argument. This requires that you have a good
understanding of logic and of the informal fallacies we discussed in the previous
chapter. In general the main things you are look for is non sequitur.
