Introduction to Philosophy
Mr. Fisher
What is Philosophy?
• The word "philosophy" comes from the
Greek philos (loving) + sophos (wise) meaning
literally love of wisdom.
Two main ways of using the word
“PHILOSOPHY”:
• 1. The study of the most general and abstract
features of the world and categories with
which we think: mind, matter, reason,
proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy, Blackburn, 2nd edition, p. 275)
• This is the way in which we will use
“philosophy” in this course.
Two main ways of using the word
“PHILOSOPHY”:
• 2. A way of thinking about virtually
anything. E.g., “What’s your philosophy
concerning the Buffalo Bills’ defense?” We
will not generally be using the term
“philosophy” in this way in this course.
• There are many
branches, or
disciplines within
philosophy.
• Epistemology: Theory of
knowledge (e.g., What can I
know? Is knowledge possible? Is
knowledge true, justified belief?)
• Metaphysics: A. Theory of
being, reality, and the nature of
things (e.g., What exists? Does
God or soul exist? What is
mind?) B. Freedom of the will v.
determinism.
• Ethics: Theories of the best
ways in which to live, right and
wrong, and/ or happiness (How
should I best live? What is
happiness?)
• Aesthetics: Theory of beauty
(what is beauty? Is beauty
objective, or only in the eye of
the beholder? What is offensive,
obscene, etc? What is art?)
• Logic: Reasoning and the study
of arguments.
• Social/ Political Philosophy:
Theories of justice or how to
best run a state (What is the best
form of government? Do people
have rights?).
• “Philosophy of”: Language,
Religion, Psychology, Mind,
Science.
• Philosophy by region, group, or
time period: E.g. Western
Philosophy, Eastern Philosophy,
Feminist Philosophy, Ancient
Philosophy, etc.
•What is an argument?
•An ARGUMENT = A
set of at least one
premise and one
conclusion.
For Example:
• 1. All humans are mortal.
• 2. Mike is a human.
• _________________________
• C: Mike is mortal.
• The Conclusion = The statement that
you are (or someone else is) trying to
prove. (“C” on the previous slide).
• Premise/ Premises = The statement(s)
that are supposed to prove the
conclusion (“1” and “2” on the previous
slide).
Evaluating Deductive Arguments:
• Validity: If the premises are true, the
conclusion must follow.
• Soundness: An argument that is valid (see
above) and whose premises are in fact true.
• If a deductive argument is sound, then it is a
good argument.
• One should not use “sound” or “valid” of
individual premises or conclusions.
• So it follows from these definitions
that there is such a thing as an
argument that is valid but not
sound [that is, the conclusion
follows from the premises
(assuming they’re true), but at least
one premise is not true].
Example:
• 1. If Corning, NY ever experienced a zombie
apocalypse, then Barack Obama is president.
• 2. Corning, NY once experienced a zombie
apocalypse.
• ___________________________________________
• C: Barack Obama is President.
Different Types of Arguments:
• Deductive Arguments: The premises
completely or totally prove the conclusion.
• Five Types of Deductive Arguments:
• 1. Mathematical arguments (3>2; 2>1;
therefore 3>1)
• 2. Definitions (A bachelor is an unmarried
male; Alex is an unmarried male; therefore
Alex is a bachelor)
Five Types of Deductive Arguments
• 3. Categorical Syllogisms (All athletes get
injured; Sydney is an athlete; therefore
Sydney will get injured)
• 4. Hypothetical Syllogisms (Corning/
Zombie example)
• 5. Disjunctive Syllogisms (Either I’m a
teacher or my Mom is a murderer; my Mom
is not a murderer; therefore I’m a teacher)
Inductive Arguments
• Inductive Arguments: The premises partially
prove the conclusion.
• There are six different types of inductive
arguments:
• 1. Generalizations:
• A- Every Irishman I’ve met is a heavy drinker.
• C: Irishmen are heavy drinkers (generalization)
OR
• C: The next Irishman I meet will be a heavy
drinker (prediction)
Inductive Arguments
• 2. Arguments by Analogy:
• A good argument by analogy occurs when the
analogous example is relevantly similar to the
desired conclusion of the argument.
• Ex- Just as it is morally obligatory for someone
to save a drowning child while walking past a
pond with knee deep water & little effort
necessary, it is morally obligatory that each
person who has enough money to sustain him
or herself gives some money to relieve world
hunger.
Inductive Arguments
• 3. Signs (you see a sign for Corning Inc.
headquarters building & infer that it must be
the Corning Inc. headquarters)
• 4. Causal Inference (A causes B; A, therefore
B)
• 5. Argument from Authority (A nutrition
specialist claimed that eggs are very good for
you; therefore it probably is true)
Inductive Arguments
• 6. Prediction (Irishmen example)
• Inductive arguments are assessed based on
Cogency and Strength:
• 1. The argument is inductively valid
(cogency)
• 2. All its premises are warranted (strength)
• 3. No relevant information has been omitted
(strength).
Fallacies
• What are they, and why should you care?
Fallacy:
• An argument that is not sound (or an
argument that is not c0gent).
• What is a fallacy? A fallacy is an argument that is not sound (or an
argument that is not cogent). Basically, if you make a fallacious argument
or are convinced by one, the conclusion you’re arguing for MAY be true,
but not for the reason(s) you’re thinking. In short, the conclusion may not
be true, even if the premises are, and/or the premises may be false or
unwarranted (i.e., unjustified or not supported well). One way to
show/prove that these are really poor ways in which to argue, is for one to
see that both sides of an argument or issue can be made by using fallacies.
If fallacies were good arguments, then both sides of every issue would just
be correct! According to Perkins, author of Logic and Mr. Limbaugh: A
Dittohead’s Guide to Fallacious Reasoning: “Fallacious reasoning is a kind
of counterfeit, and like bad money, it should be identified and rejected
whenever encountered.” (xiv) And: “If our reasoning is fallacious, we
commit the error of believing something without proper justification, and,
as a result, we run an increased risk that what we believe to be true may
actually be false.” (xv)
• Ok, why should I care? Sophists were people back in Plato’s day
who used any argument to win, and taught others to do the same
(after the others had paid them money, of course!). They “made the
weaker argument the stronger”, as the saying went. Modern day
examples are lawyers (be careful … not ALL lawyers …) who appeal
to emotion or commit other fallacies all in the name of getting their
way in the case, or marketers who commit fallacies just to get you
to buy a product, whether or not it’s in your best interest to
purchase it. The intellectual reason was already given in I.A. above:
You might believe something that is not actually true; you may be
resting your whole view of happiness and your way of life on a
fallacy! So you should at least check these out and make sure no
one else commits them either, after you’ve cleaned up your own
act, of course.
There are (at least) 3 kinds of
fallacies:
• 1. Fallacies of Invalidity:
• A. Non Sequitur: Latin for “it does not
follow.”
• Arguing such that the conclusion does not
follow from the premises.
• Ex- I love dogs. Therefore, I am in Corning,
NY right now.
• B. Argument from Ignorance: Arguing from
the fact that something has not been proven
true (or false) for the conclusion that the
thing is false (or true).
• Ex: “Nobody has proven that the Loch Ness
monster exists, therefore the Loch Ness
monster does not exist.
• C. Ad Hominem: Latin for “against the
man.”
• Attacking the person, and not the argument.
• Ex- A two-year old comes into our classroom
& shows that 2+2=4. One of you retorts,
“You can’t know that, you’re only two!
Where’s your mommy?”
• D. Irrelevant Conclusion/ Evading the Issue:
• Trying to evade the issue by raising another
issue, instead of addressing the issue on the
table.
• Ex- Obama said that Mitt Romney (his
opponent) did not have good character.
Romney responded, “I thought we could
avoid these attacks, so I will use my rebuttal
time to talk about education.”
• E. Equivocation: Concluding an argument from
a premise that uses different senses of a word or
words.
• Ex• 1. God is love.
• 2. Love is blind.
• 3. Ray Charles is blind.
• ____________________________
• C: Ray Charles is God.
• F. Hasty Generalization:
• 1. Generalizing from too little evidence to
make one’s argument.
• Replacing “some/ few” with “most/ all”.
• Ex- The first three Corning High School
students I saw had big, gauged holes in their
ears. Therefore, every Corning High School
student has gauged ears.
• G. Questionable Cause: Concluding from a
premise that says A occurred before B; that
A CAUSED B.
• Ex- “It’s been shown that 90% of people who
are heroin addicts started smoking
marijuana. So smoking marijuana causes
heroin addiction.”
2. Fallacies of Unwarranted Premise:
A. Straw Man: Concluding from a premise
that says something untrue about an
opponent or his/ her position, that the
opponent or position really is unworthy.
Ex- “The anti-war protestors think that e
should change our government to a communist
form of government, and never engage in war,
even in self-defense. Therefore, the anti-war
position should not be supported.
• B. False Alternatives: Concluding from a
premise that says certain alternatives are
available (but omits at least one acceptable
possibility) and a premise (often unexpressed)
that all but one of these alternatives are
unacceptable, that the remaining alternative
must be accepted.
• Ex- “America- Love it or leave it!” Therefore, if
you criticize any U.S. policy as a citizen, you
need to leave the country.
• C. Complex (loaded) Question: Assuming
something is true in a question, such that the
answer cannot make a good/ nice answer if
the question is, in fact answered.
• Ex- “When did you stop beating your wife?”
• D. Begging the Question: Concluding from a
premise that says something is so (which is
what the argument is meant to prove), that the
same thing is so (put in different language).
• Assuming what you want to prove.
• Ex- “Why do I have to mow the lawn this
morning?” “Just Because.” That is, “you need to
mow the lawn this morning because you have to
mow the lawn this morning.”
3. Fallacies of Omitted Evidence:
• A. Suppressed Evidence: Concluding (validly,
without additional, omitted information) from
a premise that makes the conclusion likely (but
omits important information which makes the
conclusion unlikely).
• Ex- 94% of males between 45 and 54 are, or have
been married. Mike is a 50-year-old male. Joe
probably is, or has been married.
• [But Joe is a Catholic Priest who entered the
priesthood at age 14.]
• B. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority:
Concluding from a premise saying that
person P accepts a statement S (But P’s
knowledge or reliability is questionable) that
S is true.
• Ex- “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.
Camel cigarettes are the healthiest smokes
on the market; therefore, you should smoke
Camels.”
• C. Faulty Analogy: Reasoning by analogy
that overlooks/ ignores important
dissimilarities between the two things being
compared.
• Ex- I was a kid who needed to get to school.
You are a kid who needs to get to school. I
successfully met my need by walking to
school. Therefore, you should walk to school.
Tips for Detecting Fallacies:
• 1. Be faithful to the arguer’s intended
meaning, specifically with reference to
wording. Look at both the letter and the
spirit of what is being argued, and do not
twist your opponent’s words.
• 2. Determine what the point at issue is.
• 3. Look for argument (premise and
conclusion) indicators.
• 4. Look to see if the premises really support
the conclusion.
• 5. Look to see if the premises are true or
warranted.
• 6. Look to see if the premises omit any facts
that, if included, would weaken the
argument.