PHIL 1010 Extra Credit for FINAL

PHIL 1010 Extra Credit for FINAL - For 5 points extra...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: For 5 points extra credit on your final exam, you must turn in answers to all of the questions below, no later than Monday, November 30, 2009. When can a premise be assumed as true? What is an uncontroversial empirical statement? What is an uncontroversial definition? When can we accept statements by experts as premises? Be able to identify all types of compound statements (provide an example of each) Negations Disjunctions (Inclusive and Exclusive) Conjunctions Conditionals Be able to calculate the following descriptive statistics How do you calculate a Mean, Truncated mean, median, mode? How do you Identify an outlier? Statistical Arguments What type of argument is it (deductive or inductive)? identify sampling techniques (list the types and‘their definitions) what is the standard form of a statistical argument? identify the sample, the target, the relevant property and the N (Define each) what two criteria give a statistical argument good form? Moral Arguments Two Types of Deontological arguments : Universalist, cooperative Two Types of Consequentialist arguments : Maximizing and non-maximizing Aretaic arguments: About person instead of act Be able to identify and evaluate the form of all of the Deductive Syllogisms, (Please list the proper form for each type, and if it passes or fails the good form test. If it had all true premises, would the argument be sound or unsound?) Affirming the consequent Affirming the antecedent Denying the antecedent Denying the consequent Denying the Disjunctive Affirming an Exclusive Disjunction Affirming an Inclusive Disjunction Tri-Conditional Causal Arguments Why is correlation alone not sufficient to prove causation? Define each, and provide an example) of necessary cause, sufficient cause, necessary and sufficient cause, or contributory cause. what gives a causal argument good form? What are some common causal fallacies? Analogical Arguments what is the standard form of an analogical argument? define primary subject, analogue, similarities, and conclusory feature What gives an analogical argument good form? How do we evaluate premises in an analogical argument with nonempirical premises? b DANOTHER HINT: Turn in a typed draft of your second essay to your instructor by Halloween. 4 4 Analogical (Ch 8) Form: Pr.l -X l s have features Fl. F2, F3... & Fn Pr.2-X25 have features Fl, F2. F3 . .. C-XZS probably have in 6 general kinds: 1, Temporal 2. Environmental 3. Standard 4. Logical 5. Classification 6. Equal Treatment Weak (Bad form) Not Cogent (At least 1 False Prs) Remember when evaluating inductive arguments, there are different criteria for each type of argument listed above, I. GFT (by degrees) Statistical (Ch 9) Form: (Ch 10) Pr.l-N% of Form (short): an observed Pnl- E1 is subset of the correlated entities in G with E2 have F Pr.2«E2 is C—N% of all not the cause the entities of E1 in G have F Pr.3-There is no E3 that is the cause of El and E2 Pr.4- El & E2 are not coincidentall y correlated C—El is a cause of E2 Evaluating (2tests) Strong (Good form) \AlgUIIlClllb 21H; 'dllclllpl: lU UUIIVIHUC Llle 'dlc UUIIIpUbCU Ul blutUlIlClID lpIClllleb 0L UUIIUIUDIUHB]. DlalClllCllLb are true or false, but not both. They cannot be true in one situation or in one person’s opinion or culture and false in another situatiOn or in another person’s opinion or culture. Note: there are philosophical arguments against this view. but since this is an introductory class we will assume this is the case. If this interests you take an upper level philoso Moral (Ch. 1 l) 2 general forms: I. (Action) Pr.l-P1’s doing Al has feature F Pr.2-Its morally good/bad to do actions that have feature F C-Pl ought/ought not to do A] 2. (Person) Pr.l-Pl has feature F Pr.2-Its morally good/bad for a person to have feature F C-Pl is a good/bad person 3 theories: 1. Consequentialist General Eoim: Prl- Pls doing AI will produce Cl Pr.2- Its morally good/ bad to produce Cl C- Pl ought/ ought not to do A1 3 different consequences: I. What type of Consequences? (Answer: Intrinsic Consequences) Pr.l- Pls doing AI will produce happiness (Le. any important intrinsic feature, such as pleasure, desire satisfaction, and! or talent development) Pr.2- Its morally good to produce happiness (ie, any important intrinsic feature, such as pleasure. desire satisfaction, and/ or talent development) C- P1 ought to do Al I]. Who is morally important? Universalists: Pr. 1- P15 doing AI will produce happiness for everyone in the world Pr.2- Its morally good to produce happiness for everyone in the world 0 Pl ought to do Al III. Correct amount of consequences? Maximizing Consequentalists. Pr, 1- P15 doing AI will maximize happiness for everyone in the world Pr. 2- Its morally good to maximize happiness for everyone in the world C- Pl ought to do A1 2. Deontological General form: Pr.l- Pls doing Al has intrinsic feature F1 Pr, 2- Its morally good/ bad to do actions with intrinsic feature Fl C-Pl ought] ought not to do Al What sorts of Intrinsic features? I. Universability (Kant‘s Categorical Imperative) Pr, 1- (1) Pl ‘5 doing Al is not universalizable. Pr. 2- It is morally bad to do actions that are not universalizable. C- P} ought not do Al ll. Cooperation Pr.1- Pls doing Al is uncooperative P12» Its morally bad to do actions that are not cooperative C- Pl ought not to do A! 3. Arctic 1, Traditional Form Pr.l~ P1 does good actions. Pr. 2- Pl has motives that lead to good actions. Tf, Pr.3- P I has good motives C- P1 is a good person 1!. Virtue Ethics Form Pr. 1- Pl ’3 doing Al is an action that would be done by a person with virtue V Pr. 2- It is morally good to do actions that would be done by a person with virtue V. C- Pl ought to do A1. class such as Phil. 2010) Deductive l. Affirmining an Exclusive Disjunct Pr,l- S] or S2 & Not Both Pr.2-Sl C—Nor 52 OR Pr.l—SI or $2 & Not Both Pr.2—SZ C-th Sl 2. Denying a Disjunct Pr.l-Sl or 52 Prl—Not SI C~SZ OR Pr. le1 or 82 Pr.2-Not 52 C- 51 3. Denying the Consequent (Modus Tollens) Pr.l-lfSl, then 52 Pr.2—Not $2 C~Not SI 4. Affirming the Antecedent (Modus Poncns) Pr.l-IfSl, then 52 Pr.2-Sl C-SZ Evaluating (2tcsts) Invalid (Bad form) l. Affirmining an Inclusive Disjunct Pr. 1 - Sl or 52 Pr.2-Sl C-Not 52 OR Pr.1-Sl or 32 Pr.2-S2 C—Not SI 2. Denying the Antecedent Pr.1-lfSl , then S). Pr.2-Not Sl C-Not 52 3. Affirming the Consequent Pr.1-IfSl. then 52 Pr.2-S2 C-Sl 5. Tri-ConditiOnal (Hypothetical Syllogism) Pr.l-IfSl, then SZ Pr.2-If 52. then 53 C~lfSl, then 53 Unsound (At least 1 False Prs) ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

PHIL 1010 Extra Credit for FINAL - For 5 points extra...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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