PhiloFinal - REVIEW Chpt 13 4 kinds of refutations Invalid...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
REVIEW: Chpt 13: 4 kinds of refutations Invalid Unsound Begs the question Reductio (absurd consequences) EXCUSES and JUSTIFICATIONS Chpt 15: Abortion: def and 1st argument Marquis arg. and objection Thomson strategy and view Chpt 17 religious reasoning concept of god (perfection examples) omnipotence etc Existence of god argument, be able to tell what is wrong. (4 ways of refuting argument) Popular arguments be able to give objection Philosophical arguments Ontological Cosmological Teleological (know one of above in detail) (objection for one of above) problem of evil argument and one objection CHAPTER 13 “Uses of Arguments” -Besides providing justifications for disputed claims, arguments have other purposes. Arguments may also be given to refute claims, and this is often done by providing counterexamples. Note: We may distinguish two kinds of justifications: -Determining whether there are any good reasons supporting a claim, compelling to a rational person. Call this “impersonal justification”. (This is independent of what any particular person actually believes.) -Determining whether, given what a particular person believes, there are any good reasons supporting a claim or whether the person is committed to some conclusion. Call this “personal justification”. (The worry here is about inconsistency in a person’s beliefs.) Refutations: (Note: refuting an argument is showing that it fails to establish its conclusion) **-Kinds of refutations 1. Show some premises are dubious or false (reject soundness) 2. Show the conclusion leads to absurd results (use “ reductio ad absurdum ”) 3. Show the conclusion does not follow from the premises (reject validity)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
4. Show the argument begs the question (see Ch. 12) Refutation by Counterexample: (Note: A counterexample may be given to a particular claim or to an argument form) *-A counterexample is simply an example contrary to the claim (or argument form) in question. Universal claims are refuted by providing a single counterexample. (If the claim is that ALL A are B, it is enough for refuting it to show that SOME A is not B.) Responses: 1. Deny the purported counterexample is of the same kind as the universal claim, i.e., it is irrelevant. 2. Deny the purported counterexample is genuinely “counter” to the claim, i.e., it does not have an opposite truth-value. Look at the discussion of “The Golden Rule” (p. 411). Is there a version that is plausible? Exercise 1, p. 411; try providing counterexamples. (Good and fun) Exercise 2, p. 412; discussion questions. Refutation by Reductio ad Absurdum -Another way to refute a claim (or argument form) is by showing that, were it to be accepted, an absurd consequence would result. [Assumption: absurd consequences are obviously false or very unlikely to be true.] For this kind of refutation to be successful two conditions must be met: 1. The result must really be absurd or obviously false (It can’t just be surprising or shocking). 2. The absurd result must genuinely be the logical result of accepting the claim
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 17

PhiloFinal - REVIEW Chpt 13 4 kinds of refutations Invalid...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online