Cheatography

PHI1600: Basics Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by rdechant

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

Logic

 ∙Def­ini­tion: [defin­ition] ∙Goal: [defin­ition] ∙Pur­pose: [defin­ition]

Arguments, etc.

 ∙Arg­ume­nt: [defin­ition] ∙Pre­mis­es: [defin­ition] ∙Con­clu­sion: [defin­ition]

Reasoning

 ∙Inf­ere­nce: [defin­ition]∙Sty­le: [defin­ition] ∙Eff­ica­cy: [defin­ition] ∙Jus­tif­ica­tion: [defin­ition] ∙Rat­ion­ali­ty: [defin­ition]∙Rat­ion­al: [defin­ition] ∙Irr­ati­onal: [defin­ition]

Statements

 ∙Con­tent: [defin­ition] ∙For­ce: [defin­ition] ∙Exp­res­sion: [defin­ition]

Styles of Inference

 Dedu­cti­ve: Indu­cti­ve:

Dimensions of Reasoning

 ∙Inf­ere­nti­al: the varying infere­ntial relations premises and conclu­sions stand in when connected together via reasoning ∙Rep­res­ent­ati­onal: the varying degrees of accuracy statements exhibit when connected with reality via assertion and belief

Norms of Reasoning

 Rati­ona­lity: norm for evaluating the infere­ntial dimension of argumentsRati­onal: premises succes­sfully justify the inferred conclusion [posi­tive infere­ntial "value"] Irra­tio­nal: premises fail to justify the inferred conclusion [nega­tive infere­ntial "­val­ue"] Accu­racy: norm for evaluating the repres­ent­ational dimension of argumentsTrue: positive infere­ntial "­val­ue" Irra­tio­nal: negative ver "­val­ue"
Inac­cur­ate: statement succes­sfully

[posi­tive repres­ent­ational "value"]

False: statement fails to veridi­cally represent the actual facts

[nega­tive repres­ent­ational "­val­ue"]

Recogn­izing Statements

 1. Indicator Words 2. Common Types of Non-St­ate­ment ·  Commands ·  Proposals ·  Requests

Recogn­izing Arguments

 1. Indicator Words 2. Logical Order 3. Background Context 4. Common Types of Argument 5. Common Types of Non-Ar­gument

Common Non-Ar­guments

 ∙[defi­nition]∙ Advice ∙ Assertion ∙ Descri­ption ∙ Explan­ation ∙ Exposition ∙ Illust­raction ∙ Reporting ∙ Quotation ∙ Warning

Validity vs. Strength: Simila­rities

 1. Both depend on whether the truth-­con­ditions of the premises and the truth-­con­ditions of the conclusion are correctly related. 2. Neither depend on the actual true-value of the premises or the conclu­sion.

Validity vs. Strength: Differ­ences

 1. Only deductive inferences can be valid/­inv­alid, and only inductive inferences can be strong­/weak. 2. When the premises in a valid argument are all true, it's impos­sible the conclusion is false. When the premises in a strong argument are all true, it's only impro­bable the conclusion is false. 3. Validity is all-­o­r‐n­othing, but strength is a matter of degree.
1.

For strong arguments, when

it is still For strong arguments, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can s9ll be false.