Introduction to Critical Thinking in Philosophy.
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis | A prediction of future events based on observations, or an explanation of observations one has gathered.
🗑
|
||||
| Generalization | A general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.
🗑
|
||||
| Measured property | The property actually measured in the sample population.
🗑
|
||||
| Target property | The property one is interested in finding out in the target population.
🗑
|
||||
| What are the two important factors for determining a fair sample size? | The diversity of the target population and the level of confidence in the representation of the sample from the target population.
🗑
|
||||
| What is the most ideal sample selection method? | Random selection.
🗑
|
||||
| Fallacious arguments | They are arguments which has two characteristics: they appear to be an acceptable deductive or inductive argument (but aren't either) and that they are psychologically persuasive.
🗑
|
||||
| Formal fallacies | They are fallacies of deductive arguments and can be attributed to the form of the argument.
🗑
|
||||
| Antecedent | A thing that existed before or logically precedes another (Conditional propositions in an argument).
🗑
|
||||
| The fallacy of denying the antecedent | Similar to Modus Tollens arguments, however they are invalid arguments (if p, then q. Not-p, therefore not q).
🗑
|
||||
| Consequent | The second part of a conditional proposition, whose truth is stated to be implied by that of the antecedent.
🗑
|
||||
| The fallacy of affirming the consequent | Similar to Modus Ponens arguments, however they are invalid arguments (if p, then q. p, therefore q).
🗑
|
||||
| Factors of formal fallacies | They are ambiguous, contain irrelevant matters, relies on cause and effect, and contains unwarranted assumptions.
🗑
|
||||
| Fallacies of ambiguity | There are two types of ambiguity fallacies, they are Equivocation and Amphiboly.
🗑
|
||||
| Equivocation | Ambiguity due to lexical meaning.
🗑
|
||||
| Amphiboly | Ambiguity due to grammatical structure.
🗑
|
||||
| Informal fallacies of relevance | They are arguments that appeal to irrelevant matters. This is further categorized into Ad Hominem, Appeal to authority, Straw person, Red herring, Appeal to popularity, Appeal to tradition, Appeal to novelty, Appeal to force and Appeal to common practice.
🗑
|
||||
| Ad Hominem | Appealing to personal considerations rather than addressing the argument itself. This includes Abusive Ad Hominem, Poisoning the well, Circumstantial Ad Hominem and 'You too.'
🗑
|
||||
| Abusive Ad Hominem | It is an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition as evidence against their position.
🗑
|
||||
| Poisoning the well | It is a version of abusive Ad Hominem that discredits the other person before they speak.
🗑
|
||||
| Circumstantial Ad Hominem | It is an argument where a person points out the person's circumstances to prevent giving an objective or acceptable argument.
🗑
|
||||
| 'You too' | It is a claim that the person making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument, while neglecting to consider the argument itself (pointing out hypocrisy and making their argument unreasonable).
🗑
|
||||
| Appeal to authority | Arguments by naming a respected and authoritative person, institution or organization that endorses the position as a final appeal, and neglecting to provide actual reasons for one's view.
🗑
|
||||
| Straw Man (straw person) | Misrepresenting an argument as weaker than it actually is and then proceeding to refute it as if it is the original argument, without ever having actually addressed the original position.
🗑
|
||||
| Red herring | Arguments that draw attention away from the central issue; something intended to be misleading or distracting.
🗑
|
||||
| Fallacies of questionable cause | There are three types. Confusing correlations with causes, Post hoc ergo propter hoc and slippery slope.
🗑
|
||||
| Confusing correlations with causes | A correlation is a relationship between two or more events, such that is usually the case that these two events occur together. A causal relation is a relation between two kinds of events, such that one event brings the other to occur.
🗑
|
||||
| Post hoc, ergo propter hoc | Latin for 'After this, therefore because of this.' This fallacy occurs observing an event before another and concluding that the first event caused the second.
🗑
|
||||
| Slippery slope | This fallacy occurs when someone claims that an event will lead to further events, without actually giving reasons for why this chain of events will occur.
🗑
|
||||
| Fallacies concerning unwarranted assumptions | They are divided into circular reasoning, arguing from ignorance, the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division.
🗑
|
||||
| Circular reasoning | Where the conclusion is justified by the premise, however the premise implicitly assumes the conclusion (Cyclic argument).
🗑
|
||||
| Arguing from ignorance | This fallacy occurs when someone argues something is true because no one has proven otherwise.
🗑
|
||||
| The fallacy of division | This fallacy occurs when arguments are mistakenly assumes that a property belonging to a whole also belongs to its parts.
🗑
|
||||
| Validity | A valid deductive argument is one where its conclusion is entailed by its premise, impossible that if the premise(s) is true, its conclusion is false and that it is necessary that if the premise(s) is true its conclusion is also true.
🗑
|
||||
| Sound arguments | It is a valid argument with all of its premises being true.
🗑
|
||||
| Congency | A congent argument is an inductive argument that where all premises are true.
🗑
|
||||
| Argument | An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions intended to justify or support a claim.
🗑
|
||||
| Enthymeme | An argument that is stated incompletely, the unstated part of it being taken for granted.
🗑
|
||||
| Syllogisms | A form of deductive arguments with two premises and a conclusion. Includes Modus ponens (MP), Modus tollens (MT), Hypothetical syllogisms (HS) and Disjunctive syllogisms (DS).
🗑
|
||||
| Other forms of deductive arguments | Reductio and absurdum (R) and Dilemma (D).
🗑
|
||||
| Modus Ponens | Latin for 'the mode that affirms.' If p, then q. p, therefore q.
🗑
|
||||
| Modus tollens | Latin for 'the mode that denies.' If p, then q. Not p, therefore q.
🗑
|
||||
| Hypothetical syllogisms | Chain arguments. If p, then q. If q, then r. If p, then r.
🗑
|
||||
| Disjunctive syllogisms | Either p or q. Not q, therefore p.
🗑
|
||||
| Reductio ad absurdum | Reduction to absurdity. This mode of argument tries to justify a proposition P by showing its negation, not P, leads to absurdity or falsehood.
🗑
|
||||
| Dilemma | It is when a person must choose between two alternatives, where both are undesirable or unacceptable consequences. If p, then q. If not p, then r. Either p or not p, therefore either q or r.
🗑
|
||||
| Habits of mind (HM) | Characteristics of a person such as being open-minded, has a respect for truth, committed to deciding on rational grounds and inquiring.
🗑
|
||||
| Principles or Standards of critical thinking (PCT) | This is where a person thinks from different points of view, avoids bias, thinks about the consequences of your actions and is clear and avoids ambiguity.
🗑
|
||||
| Strategies of heuristics (S/H) | Advice for strategies. E.g Before making a decision, it is generally useful to confer with knowledgeable people. It is generally helpful to brainstorm possible alternatives and to consider their pros and cons before coming to a conclusion.
🗑
|
||||
| Difference between deductive and inductive arguments | Deductive arguments entail, has a true conclusion, premises provide conclusive grounds for truths, and they are either valid or invalid. Inductive arguments do not entail, conclusions are generalization, premises only provides some grounds for truths.
🗑
|
||||
| Extension | An extension of a word is any words under the same instances.
🗑
|
||||
| Intension | An intension of a word consists of characteristics of the word.
🗑
|
||||
| Denotation | The denotation of a word is the set of objects that it refers to.
🗑
|
||||
| Connotation | The connotation of a word includes the word's intension.
🗑
|
||||
| A denotative definition | A term which explains its means by giving or indicating its extensions.
🗑
|
||||
| An intensional definition | A term which explains its meaning by giving its intension.
🗑
|
||||
| Different functions of languages | Informative use, expressive use, directive use and performative use.
🗑
|
||||
| Informative (cognitive) use | To provide information of a fact or convey a piece of knowledge. Such uses of language make statements that are either true or false.
🗑
|
||||
| Expressive use | Whenever language is used to vent or arouse feelings, it is said to have an effect due to its expressive function.
🗑
|
||||
| Directive use | Used in an attempt to direct the behavior of another.
🗑
|
||||
| Performative use | Used in certain contexts to make something so.
🗑
|
||||
| Misuses of language | Ambiguity (Lexial, referential, syntactic/structural and contextual), vagueness and doublespeak.
🗑
|
||||
| Lexical ambiguity | The presence of two or more possible meanings within a single word.
🗑
|
||||
| Referential ambiguity | A word's reference that is unclear and confuses its reference to.
🗑
|
||||
| Syntactic/structural ambiguity | When a sentence has mire than one way to interpret its grammatical structure.
🗑
|
||||
| Contextual ambiguity | When inadequate context is given to the claim, therefore may cause be understood in different ways.
🗑
|
||||
| Vagueness | A term is vague if its meaning has an imprecise boundary.
🗑
|
||||
| Doublespeak (deceptive language) | A language that conceals and prevents thoughts. Examples are Euphemism and Jargon.
🗑
|
||||
| Euphemism | Words that are inoffensive, less emotive, words or expressions that are used to mislead or deceive people of unpleasant realities.
🗑
|
||||
| Jargon | The technical language of an art or science, trade or profession. Often used to give an air of profundity, authority, or prestige to one's claims.
🗑
|
||||
| Components of Critical thinking | Skills, knowledge, heuristics and habits or mind.
🗑
|
||||
| Strategies or Heuristics for Critical thinking | Helpful guides for implementing the principles of Critical thinking in specific situations.
🗑
|
||||
| Habits of mind | Commitments, attitudes and disposition, particularly respect for reasons and truth, respect for high-quality products and performances, open-mindedness and etc.
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
theecloud
Popular Miscellaneous sets