Download Review Materials for Chapter 1

Review Materials for Chapter 1
Section 1.1 - Explaining the Possibility of the Impossible: Philosophical Problems and Theories
1. Philosophical beliefs can be divided into three broad categories: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
2. Our thoughts and action are influenced by our philosophical beliefs, as witnessed by people in other
cultures who do not share our philosophy.
3. Philosophical problems arise when it is realized that certain philosophical beliefs are inconsistent with one
another.
4. Philosophical theories attempt to solve philosophical problems by showing how it's possible (or why it's
impossible) for a certain concept to apply to something.
5. Necessary conditions are the conditions which must be met in order for a concept to apply. Sufficient
conditions are the conditions which, if met, ensure that the concept applies.
6. The Socratic and scientific methods: (1) Identify a problem or pose a question, (2) Propose a hypothesis, (3)
Derive a test implication, (4) Perform the test, (5) Accept or reject the hypothesis.
7. Philosophy differs from science in that it tries to explain the conditions under which concepts apply rather
than the conditions under which events occur. In other words, philosophy tries to explain the logical
relations among concepts rather than the causal relations among physical objects.
8. To understand the difference between philosophy and science, it is important to understand the difference
between logical and causal possibility. Something is logically impossible if and only if it violates a law of
logic. Something is physically impossible if and only if it violates a law of nature.
Section 1.2 – Evidence and Inference: Proving Your Point
1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It doesn’t attempt
to determine how people in fact reason. Rather it attempts to determine how people should reason if they
want to avoid error and falsehood.
2. Arguments come in two basic varieties: deductive and inductive. Good deductive arguments are valid; the
truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Good inductive arguments are not valid ; the
truth of the premises, at best, only makes the conclusion possible.
3. Some valid argument forms: affirming the antecedent, denying the consequent, hypothetical syllogism,
disjunctive syllogism. Valid arguments with true premises are sound. Some invalid argument forms:
affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent.
4. An inductive argument that would establish its conclusion with a high degree of probability if its premises
were true is a strong argument. A strong inductive argument with true premises is a cogent argument.
5. Some potentially cogent inductive argument forms: enumerative induction, analogical induction,
hypothetical induction (inference to the best explanation).
6. Criteria of adequacy are used to identify the best explanations. The goodness of an explanation is
determined by the amount of understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an
explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which a
hypothesis systematizes and unifies our knowledge is measured by various criteria of adequacy such as:
consistency, both internal and external, simplicity, the number of assumptions made by a hypothesis; scope,
the amount of diverse phenomena explained by the hypothesis; conservatism, how well the hypothesis fits
with what we already know; and fruitfulness, the ability of a hypothesis to successfully predict novel
phenomena.
7. An argument is fallacious if it contains (1) unacceptable premises, (2) irrelevant premises, or (3) insufficient
premises.
8. Fallacies characterized by unacceptable premises include: begging the question and false dilemma. Fallacies
characterized by irrelevant premises include: equivocation, composition, division, appeal to the person,
genetic fallacy, appeal to authority, appeal to the masses, appeal to tradition, appeal to ignorance, and appeal
to fear. Fallacies characterized by insufficient premises include: hasty generalization, faulty analogy, and false
cause.
Section 1.3 - The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments
1. Philosophical theories are tested by looking for counterexamples; that is, situations where the theory should
hold but doesn’t.
2. Aristotle defined a human being as a rational animal. This theory can be tested by considering its
implications. If true, it would seem to imply that infants are not human beings, for they are not rational.
The theory can be modified to deal with this counterexample by amending it to state that human beings are
animals that have the capacity to reason.
3. Thought experiments can confirm or confute philosophical theories. A confuting thought experiment (a
counterexample) has the logical structure of denying the consequent. A confirming thought experiment has
the logical structure of affirming the consequent.
4. The question “What is a person?” is a central issue in the abortion controversy, for only persons can be
murdered. Thus if fetuses are not persons, killing a fetus is not an act of murder. Some believe that persons
are biological human beings. Warren’s moral space traveler thought experiment provides an apparent
counterexample to this. As a result, it helps explain how moral abortions are possible.
5. Thought experiments are possible because our conceptual competence gives us the ability to determine
whether a concept applies, even in situations we have never before encountered.
6. Some thought experiments are better than others because they are more well-controlled; i.e., more specific.
7. Some theories are better than others because they better meet the criteria of adequacy, such as simplicity,
scope, conservatism and fruitfulness.