Exam 1 Study Guide - Dr. Staffel PDF

Preview

Summary

Dr. Staffel...

Description

Exam 1 Study Guide Friday, February 12, 2021

08:20

1. Give an example of each of the following: a. A strong inductive argument i. I have walked by that dog one thousand times. Every time I've walked by that dog all one thousand times - it hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog - presumably the one thousandth and one time - it won't try to bite me. 1) Same argument, in Modus Pollens: If I've walked by that dog many times, and it hasn't bitten me before, then it won't bite me the next time I walk by it. ii. 99% of turtles can swim in the ocean, that turtle is in the ocean. That turtle can most likely swim 1) Same argument, in Modus Pollens: If there's a turtle in the ocean, then most likely, the turtle can swim. There's a turtle in the ocean. Therefore, it's very likely that turtle can swim iii. If I study hard, I can probably get a 90 or better on this test. I have studied really hard for this test. I will get at least a 90. iv. When it snows in Boulder, it usually snows at Eldora, too. It snowed in Boulder last night. It probably snowed at Eldora last night. b. A valid deductive argument that has false premises and a true conclusion i. If pigs can fly, then they are farm animals. Pigs can fly. Therefore they are farm animals. ii. France is in South America. I am in France. Therefore, I am in South America iii. The drinking age is 21 in America. I must be 21 in order to legally drink. I am 18 years old. I can legally drink. (I am actually 22) c. A sound deductive argument i. If I live in Boulder, I live in Colorado. I live in Boulder. Therefore, I live in Colorado. ii. If I work out at least 3 days a week, I will get stronger. I have been working out 3 to 4 days a week. I am getting stronger. d. A valid, but unsound, argument i. All U.S. Presidents are Canadian citizens. Joe Biden is the current U.S. President. Joe Biden is a Canadian citizen. e. A valid deductive argument that has only one premise i. Colorado is a State. Therefore, Colorado is in America ii. I am. Therefore, I am. f. False premise, true conclusion i. If I am at least 18 years old, I can buy alcohol. I am 21 years old. Therefore, I can buy alcohol. (I'm actually 22, so this argument is valid for such characteristics). 2. Reconstruct the argument in these passages in valid premise-conclusion format. Add missing premises or leave out unnecessary statements as necessary. Indicate the pattern the argument follows. a. Alex should not be promoted. He is completely incompetent. i. Alex should not be promoted. This company only promotes people who are competent and don't mess up. Alex, however, is incompetent, and messes up all the time. Therefore, Alex should not be promoted. ii. Alex is completely incompetent at work. He messes up all the time. The company

doesn't promote people who mess up all time. Therefore, Alex shouldn't be promoted. iii. **If you are incompetent, you should not be promoted. Alex is completely incompetent. Therefore, Alex should not be promoted. (Modus Ponens) b. If the claim that you should never steal is a universal moral principle, then it should not contradict our considered moral judgements about particular situations. But it does contradict it, because we think sometimes stealing is justified, for example, when your life depends on it. Therefore, the claim that you should never steal is not a universal moral principle. It has exceptions. i. If the claim that you should never steal is a universal moral principle, then it should not contradict our considered moral judgments about particular situations. Because, sometimes, stealing is justified, the claim that you should never steal does contradict our considered moral judgements about particular situations. Therefore, the claim that you should never steal is not a universal moral principle. (Modus Tollens) 3. What is the difference between an echo chamber and an epistemic bubble? Briefly characterize each, and illustrate the difference with an example. a. Echo Chamber: what happens when you don't trust people from the other side. A social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited. Members are not irrational, but misinformed, about where to place their trust. "Do not trust anything you hear or lean outside of this group" i. Example: a religious cult where your God is the only voice of reason, and any other is actively discredited as wrong and evil b. Epistemic Bubble: when you don't hear people from the other side. An informational network from which relevant voices have been excluded by omission (they've just been left out, either purposefully or inadvertently) i. Example: a certain news outlet that only reports about the positives of an issue when there are negatives as well 4. Suppose someone presents you with a deductive argument that has three premises: P1, P2, and P3, and a conclusion, C. You think C is not true. What are your options for showing that the argument is unsound? a. That one of the premises is false, despite the argument being valid (false P + false C or false P and true C) 5. Goldberg argues that people are legally entitled to their own opinions, but that this doesn't necessarily entail that they are epistemically entitled to their opinion. What does he mean by "legally entitled" and "epistemically entitled?" Give an example to illustrate your point (and use a new example that is not already used by Goldberg). a. Legal: you can't be prosecuted for your beliefs, no matter how dreadful or morally terrible the belief is b. Epistemic: you need to have good supporting reasons as a basis for that belief i. There is no law that makes it illegal for you to hold a certain opinion; however, if there is ample evidence suggesting your belief is incorrect, you may not be epistemically entitled to it 1) For example, I may be entitled to believe my car could reach 150 mph. However, all evidence about the make and model (it's really, really old and was built in the 1960s) suggests that's virtually impossible, and is therefore epistemically unwarranted 6. Which of these statements are descriptive, and which are normative? Explain your answer.

a. Parents should limit how much time their children spend on screens i. Normative, because it explains that parents should do something to change the amount of time their children are on screens. It's expressing an opinion on something, not simply describing b. It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. i. Normative, because it's comparing one thing that's better than another thing. There is an opinion being expressed that one thing is better than another c. In 2019, Boulder was snowier than Denver. i. Descriptive, because it's an exact fact. There is no judgement being passed; rather, it's simply describing something believed to be true d. Some people become rich by investing in the stock market. i. Descriptive, because it's empirical (you can do research, look things up, etc.) Simply an observation. (However, being empirical is not a requirement for being descriptive) 7. Why is a skeptical mindset not conducive to critical thinking? Explain what a skeptical mindset is, and what makes having one incompatible with being a critical thinker? a. A skeptical mindset is of the nature of believing that nothing is known or can be down. This is not conducive to critical thinking because if nothing is known, we can't draw logical conclusions or make convincing arguments 8. Janet just had a baby and she is part of a group of new moms. The moms in the group are very pro-breastfeeding and regularly share information with each other about why breastfeeding is better than bottle-feeding. Janet finds breastfeeding difficult, but being part of the group is important to her, so she does her best to continue and to fit in with the group. Also, she finds the articles shared by the other moms pretty compelling. At some point, her childless friend, Judy, tells her that perhaps she should switch to feeding her baby formula, as breastfeeding is clearly stressing Janet out. In response, Janet googles a bunch of articles that argue for the benefits of breastfeeding, and sends them to Judy. Based on how Janet's situation is described, she displays various cognitive biases in her reasoning. Name three cognitive biases that Janet seems to be exhibiting, and explain why they fit her situation. a. Group Centered Thinking - its more important for Janet to align with the ideologies of the group than come to her own logical conclusions b. Looking for Confirming Evidence - even though Judy might be right for Janet's case, Janet only looks for evidence that confirms the opinions of her and the larger group c. Illusion of Truth Effect - Janet is in an environment where it is hammered in that breastfeeding is superior. She therefore accepts it as it is what she hears over and over and thus must be right....