- Industry: Education
- Number of terms: 192
- Number of blossaries: 0
- Company Profile:
UNC Charlotte is North Carolina's urban research university. Located in the state's largest metropolitan area, UNC Charlotte is among the fastest growing universities in the UNC System.
An argument from analogy is an argument that has the following form:
: All P are like Q
: Q has such-and-such characteristic.
: Thus P has such-and-such characteristic.
Thus, for example, a few years ago one Republican congressman, who had been a fighter pilot during the Vietnam War, argued in a caucus prior to the election of the Speaker of the House:
: Not voting to re-elect Newt Gingrich would be like abandoning your wingman.
: Abandoning your wingman is wrong.
: So not voting to re-elect Newt would be wrong.
One evaluates such an argument by examining the analogy. It is a weak analogy, and thus fallacious, if there are not many similarities. For instance, in this example there is some similarity between the two situations. The Congressman no doubt felt that with Speaker Gingrich having been charged with ethics violations that he was under attack as a fighter pilot's wingman could be. But there are also dissimilarities. Voting for Speaker of the House is not a life-or-death situation. Moreover, n combat, one neither gets to choose one's wingman nor one's mission. Yet it is the obligation of a congressman to vote for the officers of the House of Representatives as s/he sees fit.
Here's a stronger analogy:
: Premise: Learning logic is like learning a foreign language.
: Premise: You can't learn a language by cramming; you have to study it regularly.
: Conclusion: You can't learn logic by cramming; you have to study it regularly.
Notice the form is the same for a weak or a strong analogy. What makes a weak analogy fallacious is not the pattern of reasoning but a lack of compelling similarities to warrant the alleged one.
Industry:Philosophy
Like denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy. The fallacy lies solely in the form itself. It has the following pattern: if p then q, q, therefore p. Any argument that fits this pattern is invalid, that is, even if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows from these premises may not be true. Whereas, a valid form guarantees that, if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. Indeed, if an argument has a valid form and true premises, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Industry:Philosophy
An argument is a piece of reasoning with one or more premises and a conclusion. Arguments are usually divided into two kinds, deductive and inductive. So defined, an argument is to be distinguished from a disagreement. One may use an argument, in the logician's sense, in order to win an argument, in the everyday sense of a dispute. Clearly the logician's "argument" is not as dramatic as a verbal fight. For an example of an inductive argument see argument from analogy; for an example of a deductive argument see hard determinism.
Industry:Philosophy
A conclusion is the supported claim that is being made. In an argument one expects that a claim will be supported with reasons or premises. Moreover, these premises will be true and will, in fact, lead to the conclusion. Hence arguments can be evaluated as to how well they do this: Are the premises true? Is the reasoning good?
Industry:Philosophy
A conditional statement is an if-then statement and consists of two parts, an antecedent and a consequent. The antecedent, or that which goes before, is preceded by the "if"; the consequent, or that which comes after, may be preceded by a "then". English sentences sometimes reverse the order: John studies hard if he thinks that he will do well in a class. But the logic of this sentence is: If John thinks that he will do well in a class, then he studies hard. Here the antecedent is "John thinks that he will do well in a class" and the consequent is "he studies hard".
Industry:Philosophy
Consistency is much prized in reasoning. Ideally, one would like for one's beliefs to fit together without any contradictions. Consistency is the intuitive notion that is the basis for the understanding of validity: we expect true premises to lead to a true conclusion. When we find that we have true premises and a false conclusion we lack consistency between premises and conclusion and know that the argument form is invalid.
Industry:Philosophy
A contradiction occurs when one asserts two mutually exclusive propositions, such as, "Abortion is wrong and abortion is not wrong." Since a claim and its contradictory cannot both be true, one of them must be false. Few people will assert an outright contradiction, but one may fall into an inconsistency.
Industry:Philosophy
A counterexample is an example that runs counter to (opposes) a generalization, thus falsifying it. A TV newscast that limited its coverage of "mayhem and misery" (in Bob Inman's phrase) would falsify a claim that all local TV newscasts focused on crime and disasters. Consequently, careful thinkers avoid rash generalizations by qualifying their generalizations. If there are local TV newscasts that do not focus on "mayhem and misery," one could say, "Most local TV newscasts focus on "mayhem and misery."
Industry:Philosophy
Una conclusione è un'affermazione giustificata che è stata fatta. Durante una discussione ci si aspetta che una dichiarazione sia sostenuta da premesse e argomentazioni. Per di più, queste premesse saranno vere e condurranno, di fatto, alla conclusione.
Da questo momento in poi gli argomenti possono essere valutati in base a quanto riflettano queste caratteristiche. Le premesse sono vere? Il ragionamento è giusto?
Industry:Philosophy
Una dichiarazione condizionale è un'affermazione se-allora e si compone di due parti, una antecedente e una conseguente. La parte antecedente, o quello che viene prima, è preceduta da \"se\",la parte conseguente, o ciò che viene dopo, può essere preceduta da \"allora\". Le frasi in inglese a volte invertiscono l'ordine: John studierà duramente se pensa che farà bene in una classe. Ma la logica di questa frase è: Se John pensa che farà bene in classe, allora studierà duramente. Qui l'antecedente è \"John pensa che farà bene in classe\" e la conseguente è \"studierà duramente\".
Industry:Philosophy
