Philosophy 1 Reviewer

PHILOSOPHY 1 FINALS REVIEWER

1. Explain ‘the network problem’ and how the critical thinker is related to the independent thinker and creative thinker.

The concepts independent, critical, and creative thinking found in the objectives of the GEP of the UP System would constitute what Ralph Johnson called a network problem.

Network Problem-> The concepts “cannot be understood in isolation from another.”

The concept of an independent thinker and critical thinker overlaps. Both thinkers accept the epistemic obligation not to accept the truth of any statement or belief unless they have examined the evidence of it. Both thinkers are not impressed even if the statement or belief comes from authoritative sources.

Independent thinker -> Takes pain in deciding for himself on the basis of evidence which belief to accept on the basis of evidence which belief to accept and which attitude to adopt; or which course of action to take on the basis of the strength of the argument supporting it.

Critical thinker -> Must first of all be an independent thinker.

-> One who has developed the ability, among others, to judge whether the classification of concept is correct, or whether a definition is acceptable.

-> He can readily evaluate whether a knowledge claim is founded on evidence or not.

-> He can also judge whether an argument an argument is valid or invalid; or whether piece of reasoning is sound or unsound.

-> He cannot only criticize and evaluate the argument or reasoning of another person, “but he can also evaluate and even criticize his own acts, beliefs, behavior, and argument of reasoning.

-> Has reached a the level of meta-cognition (the ability to be intellectually self-conscious)

So it seems that the crucial difference between an independent thinker and critical thinker is that the latter’s evaluative and critical skills are focused on his own thoughts and behavior processes.

Creative thinker -> one who has developed the ability to bring to existence something new, like a new solution to an old problem, or a novel argument in support of an old thesis or new criticism against an old argument. He has the capacity to invent a new method, like a new artistic object, art form, and a new rearrangement from an old pattern.

Hence, to be a critical thinker one must first of all be an independent thinker.

1 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

2. Explain the rules in composing a Definition

RULE 1: “Definitions should not be too broad to include non-members or too narrow to exclude genuine members.” A sounddefinition states a trait or a set of traits, characteristics, or functions that members must possess. The trait need not be an essential trait that is necessary and sufficient condition for membership. If this were the requirement it would narrowly limit concept formation in ordinary language. The concept of family resemblance of traits and characteristics will do for most of our ordinary concepts.

RULE 2: Definitions must not be circular. You are prone to do this if you are using synonym to define a term like: An alien is a foreigner. Definition by synonym is an approximation of a definition. As such, it gives a rough idea of the use of an unfamiliar term by a familiar one. Some subtle examples of circular definitions are: A cause is an event that has an effect. And an effect is an event that has a cause. Another good pair to illustrate the error is: Belief is having faith; and faith is having belief.

RULE 3: Via Negativa. A sound definition must not be stated in negative when it can be stated in the affirmative. Definitions must state what it is and not what it is not. This is not to say that some concepts cannot be defined except in the negative. Example of via negative: Mind is an entity that is neither tangible nor visible; it has no weight, mass or location.

RULE 4: A sound definition should not use figurative, obscure, and metaphorical language. The language is informative, but it is uninformative. Example: Love is never having to say you’re sorry; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

RULE 5: Avoid defining by synonym or ostensive definition. These are incomplete as well as misleading techniques. [Note: Ostensive definition—pointing out examples.]

3. What is a concept and what are the types of concepts?

A word is the simplest unit of communication. Words are the indispensable means of communication. Without words, concepts cannot be formed; without concepts, various types of knowledge claims cannot be asserted; without knowledge claims, arguments cannot be composed. A concept is made up of ideas.

Concepts are native to your intellect they are our means of acquiring knowledge. Concepts are the building blocks of our knowledge, yet they can hardly be imagined to exist (or better term is subsist) in our minds. Thus, without the ability to form concepts, human knowledge will not be possible.


Definiendum – epistemology; the word you’re defining

Definiens—the genus; sub discipline of philosophy

Differentia—source, nature and validity of knowledge

Denota—examples

Unfortunately, we do not have a fixed, as well as hard and fast, classification of concepts. Although, there are seven categories that are readily available.

TYPES OF CONCEPTS:

Empirical Concept

If the members of the extension of a concept can be observed in the world, then the concept is empirical. If the members are observable in the way tables and chairs are observable, then the members exist in space and time. They are therefore tangible and visible to the unaided senses. In addition, the trait, characteristic, and functions that the members must possess are also observable in the way—tangible and visible. Examples: stick and stone, tables and chairs.

Theoretical Concept

Scientists speak of theoretical entities or theoretical constructs. These entities cannot be observed to exist in time and space by the unaided senses. Such entities are observable only through the use of very powerful sensory extending devices like the electron microscope. Nevertheless, the tentative posit of their existence is necessary for a scientific theory to be functional and for it to generate research. A good example is the putative make up of matter into atom and its constituent particles.

Dispositional Concept

There are hybrid concepts that come from sciences such as: elastic, magnetic, temperature, etc. These concepts do not designate a directly observable trait or characteristic that members must have but they exhibit this observable trait only if certain operations are performed. For example, to determine if an object is magnetic we have to perform certain operation like putting some iron fillings near the object and if the iron filings adhere to object, then you know the object is magnetic. Scientific Properties.

Analytic Concept

The members of the extension of analytic or abstract concepts are those entities which cannot be found in the world. They are neither tangible nor visible like tables and chairs. They are conceptual entities and as such creations of our minds. A good example that I know you are familiar with is the concept of numbers. As an analytic concept, the members of the extension are not empirical objects like tables and chairs.

Evaluative Concept

This covers a whole range of concepts—we have the moral, aesthetic, and even the religious. Concepts like good or bad; right or wrong; moral or immoral fall into the moral category. The concepts of beauty and ugliness are under the aesthetic and the concepts of heaven and hell are in the category of the religious. Legal concepts like guilty or not guilty are also evaluative. Evaluative concepts are our judgments of worth or value of a person, act, behavior, event, place, etc.


Fictitious Concepts

Similarly, the intension of fictitious concepts is also clearly delineated, but we know that the members of the extension of the concepts are purely imaginary. Mermaids and Unicorns are good examples of fictitious concepts. Fictitious concepts are not bad per se. In fact, in mythology and fairy tales, they provide a unique source of entertainment. What is misleading is when fictitious concepts support to e empirical while in fact they are not. Ghost, tikbalang, nuno sa punso and manananggal are good examples of fictitious concepts pretending to be empirical. Because some Filipinos believe such entities exist, they seem to lie in-between the fictitious and the empirical.

Metaphysical Concepts

Metaphysical concepts assumed the center stage in many philosophical systems. A good example is the concept of substance like God, mind, and matter. For instance, the intension of the concept mind is described as follows: It is an entity that is fundamental. It is immaterial, it has no weight, no mass and consequently it cannot be located in space yet it is believed to exist in time. It is also indivisible and cannot be divided into parts. It is also eternal and so it cannot be destroyed unless destroyed by God. Nevertheless, it is believes that the mind interacts with the body.

Another very interesting metaphysical concepts offered by the idealist philosophers is called absolute. It is characterized as a universal mind and as such, it is composed of the totality of all minds, past, present and to come, together with all their ideas, of course. We are all part of one reality—the absolute.

4. Explain the two sources of knowledge and the two theories of truth

Faculty of Reason — Reason can be considered a source of knowledge, either by deducing truths from existing knowledge, or by learning things a priori, discovering necessary truths (such as mathematical truths) through pure reason. The view that reason is the primary source of knowledge is called rationalism

Faculty of Perception — that which can be perceived through the experiences of the senses. The view that experience is the primary source of knowledge is called empiricism.

We only have to two types of knowledge claims: the formal and the empirical.

Formal -> faculty of reason

Empirical -> faculty of sense

Our sources of knowledge:


When a formal knowledge claim is made, like Hume’s example of the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides it is made by using an analytic statement. And when an empirical knowledge claim is made like the sun will rise tomorrow the claim is made using an empirical statement.

Two Theories of Truth

*Hume’s relation of ideas and matters of fact

Correspondence Theory of Truth -> Use of five senses

Correspondence Theory of Truth

Relational

Empirical Knowledge Claim

Theory of Reality

The statement is relative to the state of affairs

Realist Version of Correspondence Theory of Truth

If claim is about a present event, it corresponds to direct observation

If claim is about a future event, it corresponds to observation of past regularities

If claim is about the past, it corresponds to documents and testimony

If claim is about generalization, it corresponds to the representative of the sample of the population involved

Coherence Theory of Truth -> Use of the faculty of reason

Relational

Formal knowledge claim – the analytical statement

Formal system – the context

Math, Logic, Geometry, Empirical

The predicate is contained in the subject

The terms used must follow conventional usage in a given language game


5. Explain your obligation as a critical thinker.

Your Obligation

Never accept the truth of any statement or belief unless there is adequate evidence for it

Healthy Skepticism

Distinguish between the known, knowable, and unknowable

Empiricism's help

The Known, Knowable, and the Unknowable

Knowable as extrapolation from the known

Cloning, Origin of Life

Known and Knowable as Provable

Evidence in Fact

Readily available

Evidence in Principle

Hypothetic

The Unprovable

Claims assumed to be true as unprovable

Heaven & hell, reincarnation of the soul

Empirically Unprovable

Unprovable if claim is empirical, hence unknowable

Exception on evaluative claims

Guard against rumors and superstitions

Reject all beliefs in the unknowable?


6. Construct and explain the truth table of logical constants.

Truth table of Conjunction (And)

Truth table of Alternation (Or)

Truth table of Conditional (If…then)


P Q P • Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F F

P Q P v Q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F

P Q P -> Q

T T T

T F F

F T T

F F T

Truth table of Biconditional (If and only if)

P Q P ≡Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F T

Double Negative

P ~P

T F

F T

Negative of Compound Statement

7. What are the complex arguments forms? Give examples with content of each.


P • Q ~(P • Q)

T F

F T

P v Q ~(P v Q)

T F

F T

P • Q ~(P • Q)

T F

F T

P ≡ Q ~(P ≡ Q)

T F

F T

P -> Q ~(P -> Q)

T F

F T

Modus Ponens

-> Valid argument; premise ii affirms the antecedent

i. R -> L

ii. R

iii. ∴ L

Affirming the Consequent

->invalid argument; reverse of Modus Ponens

i. R -> L

ii. L

iii. R∴

Modus Tollens

-> Valid argument; counter part of the valid form modus ponens; denying the consequence

i. R -> L

ii. ~L

iii. ~R∴

Denying the Antecedent

-> Invalid argument; often confused with modus tollens

i. R -> L

ii. ~R

iii. ~L∴

Detaching the Consequent


-> Invalid argument

i. R -> L

ii. L∴

*You cannot infer the consequent because the conjunction can still be true even if the consequence (L) is false.

Hypothetical Syllogism

->Complicated valid argument

i. R -> L

ii. L -> C

iii. R -> C∴

Fallacy of Misplaced Middle

-> Invalid argument; often confused with hypothetical syllogism

i. R -> L

ii. C -> L

iii. R -> C∴

Constructive Dilemma

-> Complicated valid argument; a combination of two modus ponens

i. R v L

ii. R -> D

iii. L -> C

iv. D v C∴

Destructive Dilemma


-> Valid argument; it denies the consequent ~D and ~C of both conditionals and therefore you can validly infer the denial of the antecedent in the conclusion. The argument structure is a combination to two modus tollens.

i. ~D v ~C

ii. R -> D

iii. L -> C

iv. ~R v ~L∴

Pseudo Dilemma I

-> Invalid argument; denies the antecedent of premise i and ii. And so it cannot conclude the denial of both the consequents. This invalid argument is often confused with Destructive Dilemma.

i. R -> D

ii. L -> C

iii. ~R v ~L

iv. ~D v ~C∴

Pseudo Dilemma II

-> Invalid argument often confused with Constructive Dilemma.

i. D v C

ii. R -> D

iii. L -> C

iv. R v L∴

8. What are the appropriate standards for measuring argument strength? Give examples of each


1. The criteria for judging the strength of an empirical argument is measured in terms of the evidence offered by the premises to verify the truth (or probability) of the conclusion. In this type, the strength of the relation between the premises and conclusion may be susceptible to degrees. For example:

More likely than not, Isabel comes from a poor family, because Isabel is a UP freshman batch 1998 and most freshmen batch 1998 come from poor families.

2. The criteria for judging the strength of an analytic argument rest on the stability of the truth of the analytic statement, which is often an analytic definition or a WFF of some formal science. It seems that this type of argument is not susceptible to degrees. For example:

Eagles have feathers and all animals with feathers are birds, therefore all eagles are birds.

3. The criteria for judging the strength of an evaluative argument rest on the extent of public acceptance or inter-subjective consensus regarding the moral principle offered to justify an evaluative claim. The relationship between the premise set and conclusion o this type of argument is loose and susceptible to variations from different audience. For example:

Pedro should not be punished. Although he is accused of a crime, he is innocent. And we should never punish an innocent person.

9. Enumerate the basic fallacies and of informal logic and explain each.

1. Argumentum ad Hominem- “Mud slinging”. The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

2. Argumentum ad Baculum- “Argument to the club”. The fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

3. Argumentum ad Misericordiam- the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

4. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam- the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric. Just because nobody has proven x doesn’t mean y is true.

5. Argumentum ad Populum- (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. Appeal to popularity and tradition.


6. Argumentum ad Vericundiam- The fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority.

7. Strawman Fallacy- committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

8. Red Herring- is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.

Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Topic A is abandoned.

9. False Analogy- misleading notion in which an argument is based on deceptive, superficial, or unlikely comparisons. An example of false analogy is 'people are like dogs. False analogies respond best to clear discipline.

10. Slippery Slope Fallacy- You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

11. Fallacy of Complex Question- the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false


dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly.

12. Petitio Principii (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question)- “Fallacy of begging the question”. It uses the premise as conclusion. The reason petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself. A premise must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion.

13. Fallacy of False Dilemma- Although valid in form, the argument is false. Example: Either you do not value human life or you do not love your Uncle Fred; it seems to us that you do not love your Uncle Fred. Therefore, you do not value human life.

14. Non Sequitur- an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

10. Explain the difference between Formal Logic and Informal Logic

There are two general types of ways to examine arguments for soundness: formal and informal.

FORMAL LOGIC INFORMAL LOGIC-created -deductive -depends on the logical form for strength -the content of the argument is irrelevant - Formal arguments tend to be simple, straightforward, and extreme.

-naturally formed -focuses on the content that formal logic disregards -According to Johnson, the task of informal logic is to understand and analyze argument as they are used in ordinary discourse in everyday discussion without the paradigm logical form as template.

- They tend to be complex and contain unstated assumptions.


Philosophy 1 Reviewer

Documents

Transcript of Philosophy 1 Reviewer