|
GLOSSARY
Absolutism The sensible world, because it changes, is thus not "really real." "Pure"
disciplines such as math, philosophy, and theology, which study the "really real" things,
are the "privileged discourses"; they are more important than science, which studies
only the apparently real. Absolutist Epistemology is the view that p is true if it
corresponds to the essences or Forms of numbers or God or things. Truth applies only to statements
whose truth value never changes, e.g., about math or God or essential natures such as Dog-ness or
Table-ness. For absolutism, a paradigm of knowledge would be a math statement such as "2 + 2 = 4". This statement is objectively true: it is true whether or not anyone knows it, for all times, cultures, and situations. When rational beings discover this kind of truth (the only kind, for absolutism), they are bound to agree about it. Absolutist Ethics is the view that fixed and unchanging ethical rules apply to all individuals in all cultures. Usually these rules are thought to be laid down by the immutable
God. God is construed as intelligible, i.e., able to be understood by reason. Thus if we apply
ourselves to the task of reasoning, we will always know which moral rule to use in any particular
case. In other words, morality is objective. All rational beings following rational methods will
agree what those rules are and how to apply them. None of the characters in
Who’s To Say? is an absolutist in the sense defined here. In philosophy, absolutism
is pretty much dead. It has been superseded by various forms of relative relativism, such as scientific
rationality and pragmatism.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away
facts that seem to refute one’s theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in
paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists.
For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile
thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive
instruments. The hostile vibes, they say, made it impossible for them
to duplicate a positive ESP experiment.
Being able to duplicate an experiment is essential to confirming its validity.
Of course, if this objection is taken seriously, then no experiment on ESP
can ever fail. Whatever the results, one can always say they
were caused by paranormal psychic forces, either the ones being tested or others
not being tested. ... "Ad hoc hypotheses are common in defense of the
pseudoscientific theory known as biorhythm theory. For example, there are very many
people who do not fit the predicted patterns of biorhythm theory. Rather than
accept this fact as refuting evidence of the theory, a new category of people
is created: the arhythmic. In short, whenever the theory does not seem to work,
the contrary evidence is systematically discounted. Advocates of biorhythm theory
claimed that the theory could be used to accurately predict the sex of unborn
children. However, W.S. Bainbridge, a professor of sociology at the University of
Washington, demonstrated that the chance of predicting the sex of an unborn child
using biorhythms was 50/50, the same as flipping a coin. An expert in
biorhythms tried unsuccessfully to predict accurately the sexes of the children
in Bainbridge's study based on Bainbridge's data. The expert's spouse suggested
to Bainbridge an interesting ad hoc hypothesis, namely, that the cases
where the theory was wrong probably included many homosexuals with indeterminate
sex identities! "Astrologers are often fond of using statistical data and
analysis to impress us with the scientific nature of astrology. Of course, a
scientific analysis of the statistical data does not always pan out for the
astrologer. In those cases, the astrologer can make the data fit the astrological
paradigm by the ad hoc hypothesis that those who do not fit the mold have other,
unknown influences that counteract the influence of the dominant planets. "Using ad hoc hypotheses is not limited to pseudoscientists. Another type of
ad hoc hypothesis occurs in science when a new scientific theory is proposed
which conflicts with an established theory and which lacks an essential
explanatory mechanism. An ad hoc hypothesis is proposed to explain what
the new theory cannot explain. For example, when Wegener proposed his theory
of continental drift he could not explain how continents move. It was suggested
that gravity was the force behind the movement of continents, though there was
no scientific evidence for this notion. In fact, scientists could and did show
that gravity was too weak a force to account for the movement of continents. Alexis
du Toit, a defender of Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the
ocean floor at continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move.
Stephen Jay Gould noted that "this ad hoc hypothesis added no increment of
plausibility to Wegener's speculation." (Gould, p. 160) "Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural
or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is
called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For
example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not
steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch.
I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you
did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we
went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket
and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport
the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act
with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you
cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too
much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the
air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to
explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis
that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc
hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather
than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing
that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away
because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra,
I will opt for the former every time. "It is always more reasonable
to apply Occam's razor than to offer speculative ad hoc hypotheses just
to maintain the possibility of something supernatural or paranormal." For more information and references, see the
Skeptic's Dictionary.
A formal fallacy. Affirming the Consequent has the form: If A then B You can recognize Affirming the Consequent because the
CONSEQUENT (B) of the conditional statement (If A then B) serves as the
other premise.
All substitution instances of Affirming the Consequent are invalid.
People who commit the error might be thinking the argument in question
is a substitution instance of Modus Ponens, a valid form, since
Affirming the Consequent looks somewhat like Modus Ponens.
Modus Ponens looks like this: If A then B All substitution instances of Modus Ponens are valid (logically
correct deductive arguments).
analogy
anomaly Anything weird, abnormal, strange, odd, or difficult to classify is considered an anomaly. In science, an anomaly is something which cannot be explained by currently accepted scientific theories. Sometimes the new phenomenon leads to new rules or theories, e.g., the discovery of x-rays and radiation. For further references, go to the Skeptic's Dictionary. Click on "Glossary" in the Course Menu to return here.
antecedent If [something -- call it A]
then [something else -- call it B] or If A
then B The part of the conditional after the word "if" is called the
antecedent. The part after the "then" is called the consequent.
In logic, we understand a conditional to say the antecedent is
sufficient for the consequent. In other words, the antecedent guarantees or ensures the consequent.
Or whenever you have the antecedent you have the consequent.
The conditional is important because it is found in many deductive argument forms.
Some are valid (modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism); some are invalid
(affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent).
a priori and a posteriori statements
The expressions “a
priori” and “a posteriori”
are Latin idioms. They are phrases and function as adjectives or adverbs.
That is, they modify a noun (such as “knowledge,” “statement,”
or “claim”), a verb (such as "know") or an adjective (such as “true” or
“false”). The “a”
in these expressions is the Latin preposition meaning “from.” So “a
priori” means “from before [observation]” and “a
posteriori” means “from after [observation]”. The expressions “a priori” and “a posteriori” describe how we
know the truth or falsity of a statement. A statement is true or false a priori if no observation or experiment is required to determine
if it is true or false. Examples of a
priori statements are mathematical assertions, statements true or
false by definition, and logical truths and falsehoods. We “just know”
when some claims are a priori true or false. For example, we “just
know” that the same statement cannot be both true and false in the same
sense at the same time (a rule of logic called the law of non-contradiction).
A statement is true or false a posteriori if observation
or experiment is required to determine if it is true or false; we don’t
“just know” it. Examples of a posteriori statements are statements the world, e.g., “Dogs are carnivores” or “Ottawa is the capitol of Canada.”
argument
Barnum effect "Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality. You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. "Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of times with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2. "In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign. The Forer effect seems to explain, in part at least, why so many people think that
pseudosciences 'work'." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
closed concept
cogent argument "Cogent" is to induction as "sound" is to deduction. See also strong argument, weak argument
coherence theory of truth Example: we don't believe in solipsism primarily because it contradicts so many of our other beliefs. Problems: a belief can be consistent with all our other beliefs and yet have no independent supporting evidence. For example, many metaphysical beliefs are consistent with all imaginable states of affairs (e.g., "the universe came into existence five minutes ago complete with historical records and memories"). See Philosophical Theories of Truth for a much more comprehensive account!
compatibility with all states of affairs The logical positivists were the 20th-century
radical empiricist heirs of David Hume.
The logical positivists said statements about the world (a posteriori
statements) had to pass the verificationist test in order to be meaningful.
According to the verificationist test, an empirical
statement is meaningful (not nonsense) if and only if you know, or you can
imagine, what would verify it (what would make it true) and what would falsify
it (what would make it false). Statements that do not pass the verificationist
test are nonsense. A statement is nonsense, then, if nothing makes it true or
false. In other words, a statement is nonsense if it is compatible with all
states of affairs. The verificationist principle applies only to a
posteriori statements. True statements about a priori matters
(relations of ideas) are compatible with all states of affairs, but not in a
dangerous way. For example, nothing falsifies “2 + 2 = 4” but according to the
positivists, that’s not a statement about the world; it’s a statement about how
we think. You’d probably agree that lots of statements are
nonsense. For example, consider the
statement “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” That statement comes from
the famous linguist Noam Chomsky. Now, what would make that true? False? You
don’t know where to look, because the statement is internally contradictory –
whereas the universe isn’t. Many statements of pseudo-science (bogus science) are
compatible with all states of affairs.
Consider statements of astrology. Suppose your horoscope says “You may
be disappointed today.” That’s going to be true whether or not you’re
disappointed today. In other words, the claim is not falsifiable. And according
to the logical positivists, if it’s not falsifiable, it’s meaningless nonsense. “The universe came into existence five minutes ago,
complete with so-called historical records and memories.” You can’t prove that’s
false either, can you? Anything you
bring forward as evidence to the contrary is either a “historical” record (like
“yesterday’s” newspaper, which of course came into existence with all the other
“historical” records five minutes ago) or a memory (a false memory). Because
you can’t prove the statement false, the statement does not pass the
verificationist test for meaning. The
statement is not false; it doesn’t say anything at all, so it’s nonsense. That’s an important point. “False” and “nonsense” are two different things. The statement “Bill Clinton is on my roof”
is meaningful, because I know how my roof would be different if it were
true. The statement is not compatible
with all states of affairs. However, the statement “God is in this room” would
be classified as meaningless, since I don’t know how the room would be any
different if God were in it or not (assuming God is a non-material being that
can’t be sensed – the usual definition of “God”).
conditional
If [something -- call it A] then
[something else -- call it B] or If A then B
The part of the conditional after the word "if" is called the antecedent.
The part after the "then" is called the consequent. In logic, we
understand a conditional to say the antecedent is sufficient for the consequent. In other words,
the antecedent guarantees or ensures the consequent. Or whenever you have the antecedent
you have the consequent. The conditional is important because it
is found in many deductive argument forms. Some are valid (modus ponens, modus tollens,
hypothetical syllogism); some are invalid (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent).
confirmation bias
"This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that supports our preconceptions and beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our preconceptions and beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established upon solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fits with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness. "Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, i.e., data which is positive or which supports a position (Gilovich, ch. 3). Thomas Gilovich speculates that the "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively." It is much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. Consider a typical ESP experiment or a seemingly clairvoyant dream: successes are often unambiguous or data is easily massaged to count as a success, while negative instances require intellectual effort to even see them as negative or to consider them as significant. The tendency to give more attention and weight to the positive and the confirmatory has been shown to influence memory. When digging into our memories for data relevant to a position, we are more likely to recall data that confirms the position (Gilovich)." For more information and references, see the Skeptic's Dictionary. Click "Glossary" on the Course Menu to return here.
connotation consequent If [something -- call it A] then [something else -- call it B] or If A then B The part of the conditional after the word "if" is called the antecedent. The part after the "then" is called the consequent. In logic, we understand a conditional to say the antecedent is sufficient for the consequent. In other words, the antecedent guarantees or ensures the consequent. Or whenever you have the antecedent you have the consequent. The conditional is important because it is found in many deductive argument forms. Some are valid (modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism); some are invalid (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent).
controlled experiment "A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A random test is one which randomly assigns items to the control or experimental groups. "The purpose of controls, double-blind and random testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
correspondence theory of truth Example: The statement "The opera Aida had its first performance in Cairo" is true just in case the opera Aida had its first performance in Cairo, and false otherwise. "Snow is white" is true just in case snow is white. Problems: Is the correspondence theory itself true? If so, what does it correspond to? How do we figure out what is so? This latter question belongs to metaphysics. A metaphysical realist will hold that the reality that "corresponds" is objective and mind-independent. An idealist may hold that it is objective yet not mind-independent. You may think it is easy to figure out what is so. In the Part 8 of this class, we will see the overwhelming psychological evidence that there is no such thing as "pure" perception or "pure" linguistic description. If everybody comes from somewhere, nobody has complete God-like objectivity. So some people have rejected the correspondence theory because they say we simply can't discover what is so in any "objective" way. Think about this argument in the light of our earlier discussion of the subjective-objective distinction! (Remind me.) (The point of our discussion was that you DON'T have to reject the correspondence theory of truth even if it's true that there's no pure perception.) See Philosophical Theories of Truth for a much more comprehensive account!
critical theory In the hands of theorists like Derrida, critical theory probably belongs in the "absolute relativist" column, because it calls into question the notion of disinterested rationality itself. Critical theorists, in other words, would support the view that there is no objective truth of any sort, since all "texts" are situated in a particular socio-political framework. Peter Barry, from his book Beginning Theory, pp. 34-36 summarizes the main points of critical theory as follows:"politics is pervasive, language is constitutive, truth is provisional, meaning is contingent, human nature is a myth." Philosophers generally do not think well of critical theory. Philosophers agree with many of its claims -- e.g., that meaning is constitutive -- but disagree, for empirical reasons, that reason and human nature are radically different from culture to culture. The Web has many sites about critical theory, since it was very fashionable in some literature departments in the 1980's and 90's. Search for keywords like postmodernism, deconstructionism, Foucault, and Derrida.
deconstruction
In the hands of theorists like Derrida, critical theory probably belongs in the
"absolute relativist" column, because it calls into question the notion of
disinterested rationality itself. Critical theorists, in other words, would support
the view that there is no objective truth of any sort, since all "texts" are
situated in a particular socio-political framework.
Peter Barry, from his book Beginning Theory, pp. 34-36 summarizes the main points of critical theory as follows:"politics is pervasive, language is constitutive, truth is provisional, meaning is contingent, human nature is a myth." Philosophers generally do not think well of critical theory. Philosophers agree with many of its claims -- e.g., that meaning is constitutive -- but disagree, for empirical reasons, that reason and human nature are radically different from culture to culture. The Web has many sites about critical theory, since it was very fashionable in some literature departments in the 1980's and 90's. Search for keywords like postmodernism, deconstructionism, Foucault, and Derrida.
deduction denotation denying the antecedent If A then B You can recognize Denying the Antecedent because the ANTECEDENT (A) of the conditional statement (If A then B) is negated or denied in the other premise. All substitution instances of Denying the Antecedent are invalid. People who commit the error might be thinking the argument in question is a substitution instance of Modus Tollens, a valid form, since Denying the Antecedent looks somewhat like Modus Tollens. Modus Tollens, the valid form, looks like this: If A then B All substitution instances of Modus Tollens are valid (logically correct deductive arguments).
double blind experiment "A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A random test is one that randomly assigns items to the control or experimental groups. "The purpose of controls, double-blind and random testing is to reduce error, self-deception and bias." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
epistemological relativism epistemology ethical relativism An ethical relativist restricts relativism to ethical matters; an ethical relativist might not be an epistemological relativist. For example, an ethical relativist might accept the possibility of scientific truth but deny the possibility of truth in ethics. facts and theories "Noted paleoanthropologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould reminds us that in science 'fact' can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould, 1983, 254). However, facts and theories are different things, notes Gould, "not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." In Popper's words: "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world': to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer." "To the uninformed public, facts contrast with theories. Non-scientists commonly use the term 'theory' to refer to a speculation or guess based on limited information or knowledge. However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena. Nevertheless, scientific theories vary in degree of certainty from the highly improbable to the highly probable. That is, there are varying degrees of evidence and support for different theories, i.e., some are more reasonable to accept than others. "There are, of course, many more facts than theories, and once something has been established as a scientific fact (e.g., that the earth goes around the sun) it is not likely to be replaced by a "better" fact in the future. Whereas, the history of science clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is, among other things, the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for awhile, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered which do not fit with established theories), and new theories being proposed and eventually replacing the old ones partially or completely." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
fallacy A formal fallacy is one that results from an arguer's mistaking an invalid form for a valid form, because of the resemblance between the forms. For example, Affirming the Consequent, a formal fallacy, looks superficially very much like the valid form modus ponens, and it is easy to see how someone might mistake AC for MP. An informal fallacy is any other kind of common error in reasoning. Informal fallacies are commonly used in propaganda and advertising. Many lists of informal fallacies are available online; for example, here.
Forer effect "Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality. You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. "Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of times with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2. "In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign. The Forer effect seems to explain, in part at least, why so many people think that pseudosciences 'work'." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
formal fallacy If A then B Modus Ponens, a valid form, looks like this: If A then B Affirming the Consequent looks superficially very much like Modus Ponens, and it is easy to see how a careless person might mistake AC for MP. Thus Affirming the Consequent is considered a formal fallacy. An informal fallacy is any other kind of common error in reasoning.
hypothetical syllogism If A then B. The order of the premises does not matter. All substitution instances of hypothetical syllogism are valid.
induction informal fallacy The division of fallacies into formal and informal is not precise. Some informal fallacies are formally valid arguments. For example, the argument A is formally valid (the conclusion must be true if the premise is true). But this argument doesn't do the job an argument is supposed to do; it doesn't give you a reason to believe A. So this argument fails, and is considered an instance of the informal fallacy of Begging the Question. Informal fallacies are commonly used in propaganda and advertising. Many lists of informal fallacies are available online; for example, here. The fallacy lists compiled by different authors (including Conway and Munson) differ slightly, but all include the same core group: Accident/ Appeal to a Saying, Ad Hominem/Genetic Fallacy,Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Ignorance, Arguing from Questionable Premises, Bandwagon, Begging the Question, Compatibility with All States of Affairs, Composition, Continuum Fallacy, Correlation Fallacy, Division, Equivocation, False Dilemma, Gambler's Fallacy, Impromptu Definition,Irrelevant Emotional Appeal, Loaded Question, Objectionable Vagueness, Poisoning the Well, Post Hoc, Questionable Analogy, Questionable Cause, Questionable Statistics, Quibbling, Sample Too Small, Sample Unrepresentative, Slippery Slope, Smokescreen/Red Herring, Straw Man, Suppressed (Overlooked) Evidence, Two Wrongs Make a Right, Unfair Shifting of the Burden of Proof
invalid argument Kuhn, Thomas "Kuhn believed that during periods of "normal science" scientists work within the same paradigm. Scientific communication and work proceeds relatively smoothly until anomalies occur or a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones. "A paradigm of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's sense would be the Copernican revolution. The old model of the earth at the center of God's creation was replaced with a model that put the earth as one of several planets orbiting our Sun. Eventually, circular orbits, which represented perfection and God's design for the heavens in the old worldview, would be reluctantly replaced by elliptical orbits. Galileo would find other "imperfections" in the heavens, such as craters on the moon. "For Kuhn, scientific revolutions occur during those periods where at least two paradigms co-exist, one traditional and at least one new. The paradigms are incommensurable, as are the concepts used to understand and explain basic facts and beliefs. The two groups live in different worlds. The movement from the old to a new paradigm he called a paradigm shift." From the Skeptic's Dictionary
logic
lunar effect "Ivan
Kelly, James Rotton and
Roger Culver examined
over 100 studies on lunar effects and concluded that the studies have failed to show
a reliable and significant correlation (i.e., one not likely due to chance) between
the full moon, or any other phase of the moon, and each of the following: "If so many studies have failed to prove a significant
correlation between the full moon and anything, why do so many people believe
in these lunar myths? Kelly, Rotton, and Culver suspect four factors:
media effects, folklore and tradition, misconceptions, and cognitive
biases. I would add a fifth factor: communal reinforcement." For more info and references see the
Skeptic's Dictionary.
matter of fact
matter of opinion
A claim is NOT automatically a mere "matter of opinion" simply because people
disagree about it. Note that people do disagree about matters of opinion
(whether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream) but they also disagree
about matters of fact (whether aliens have visited earth).
The two cases are quite different. The taste of the ice cream is metaphysically subjective; it
exists ONLY as experienced.
So the truth value of the statement "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream"
depends ONLY on each individual's metaphysically subjective experience of the taste.
On the other hand, ETs either have or haven't visited the earth, and
at some future time, on the basis of shared evidence and reasoning,
we could reasonably be said to have objectively determined the truth-value of the statement
"As of (some date) ETs have visited" — whatever the truth value turns out to be.
The relevant events that would determine the truth value either have or have not occurred:
ETs have visited or they haven't, independently of anyone's experience.
What do you think about aesthetic judgments, then (like "Mozart's music
is better than Copland's" or "Amadeus is a better movie than Dumb and Dumber")?
Some matters of "taste" seem
to be more than mere matters of taste, no?
metaphysics modus ponens If A then B The order of the premises does not matter. All substitution instances of modus ponens are valid (i.e., have correct deductive logic).
modus tollens If A then B The order of the premises does not matter. All substitution instances of modus tollens are valid (i.e., have correct deductive logic). An example of an argument in modus tollens form is: If I get an A, I pass the class. necessary condition normal science Kuhn believed that during periods of "normal science" scientists work
within the same paradigm. Scientific communication and work proceeds relatively smoothly until anomalies
occur or a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in
new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones. "A paradigm of a scientific revolution in Kuhn's sense would be the Copernican
revolution. The old model of the earth at the center of God's creation was replaced with a model that put
the earth as one of several planets orbiting our Sun. Eventually, circular orbits, which represented perfection
and God's design for the heavens in the old worldview, would be reluctantly replaced by elliptical orbits.
Galileo would find other "imperfections" in the heavens, such as craters on the moon. "For Kuhn, scientific revolutions occur during those periods where at least two paradigms
co-exist, one traditional and at least one new. The paradigms are incommensurable, as are the concepts used to
understand and explain basic facts and beliefs. The two groups live in different worlds. The movement from the
old to a new paradigm he called a paradigm shift." From the Skeptic's Dictionary
objectionable vagueness
The Examples of Bad Writing exemplify
objectionable vagueness.
objective Occam's razor ""Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk, William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). ..." Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." In any case, Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don't posit more than is necessary. Von Daniken could be right: maybe extraterrestrials did teach ancient people art and engineering, but we don't need to posit alien visitations in order to explain the feats of ancient people. Why posit pluralities unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don't make any more assumptions than you have to. We can posit the ether to explain action at a distance, but we don't need ether to explain it, so why assume an ethereal ether?" For more information and references, see the Skeptic's Dictionary. Click on "Glossary" in the Course Menu to return here.
ontology open concept paradigm From the Skeptic's Dictionary: "One notion of a paradigm is that used in law, where a paradigm is a model case to be distinguished from penumbral cases. A law might make it a crime to use a gun. A case where a robber uses a loaded .357 magnum would be a paradigm case; a case where a robber uses a squirt gun would be considered penumbral. A court would have to decide whether the law meant to include the use of squirt guns as a crime, but there would be no need for interpretation of the law to decide whether using a loaded .357 magnum was within the legislature's intent. Paradigm in this sense has no correlative paradigm shift. "A more common use of paradigm as model would be something like the paradigm of policing, which would include the basic assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories and knowledge that a community has about policing. Many models, like that of policing, have emerged over time in response to various changes in society and are not the result of a grand design or plan. A paradigm shift in policing might occur slowly and over many years or it might occur abruptly as the result of a conscious analysis and evaluation of the current paradigm. An individual or a group might list the inadequacies, dangers, etc. of the current paradigm in light of relevant changes in society and present a new model for policing. If the new model is accepted by the community then a paradigm shift occurs. The new paradigm would replace old assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories, etc. with ones of its own. ... "One of the more common applications of the terms paradigm and paradigm shift is to mean "traditional way of thinking" vs. "new way of thinking." Some New Age thinkers seem to think that paradigms can be created by individuals or groups who consciously set out to create new paradigms. They seem to mean by 'paradigm' nothing more than "a set of personal beliefs," e.g., Essays on Creating Sacred Relationships: The Next Step to a New Paradigm by Sondra Ray and Handbook for the New Paradigm from Benevelent [sic] Energies. Many of the New Age Self-Help promoters base their approaches on the notion that one's current paradigm is holding them back and what they need to do is create a new paradigm (set of beliefs, priorities, assumptions, values, goals, etc.) for themselves that will allow them to break through, etc., e.g., The Paradigm Conspiracy: How Our Systems of Government, Church, School, and Culture Violate Our Human Potential by Denise Breton and Christopher Largent. For more information and references, see the Skeptic's Dictionary. Click on "Glossary" in the Course Menu to return here.
pareidolia "Under ordinary circumstances, pareidolia provides a psychological explanation for many delusions based upon sense perception. For example, it explains many UFO sightings and hearing sinister messages on records played backwards. Pareidolia explains Elvis, Bigfoot, and Loch Ness Monster sightings. It explains numerous religious apparitions and visions. And it explains why some people see a face or a building in a photograph of the Cydonia region of Mars. "Under clinical circumstances, some psychologists encourage pareidolia as a means to understanding a patient. The most infamous example of this type of clinical procedure is the Rorschach ink blot test." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
philosophy There are many online resources for philosophy,
including: Guide to Philosophy on the Internet
Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy Online
help for writing philosophy papers
The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Philosopher's Magazine (TPM) Online
No
Dogs or Philosophers Allowed
Dictionary of
hilosophy of Mind
Philosophy
News Service The
Philosopher's Lighthouse postmodernism In the hands of theorists like Derrida, critical
theory probably belongs in the "absolute relativist" column, because it calls into question the notion of disinterested rationality itself. Critical theorists, in other words, would support the view that there is no objective truth of any sort, since all "texts" are situated in a particular socio-political framework. Peter Barry, from his book Beginning Theory, pp. 34-36 summarizes the main points of critical theory as follows:"politics is pervasive, language is constitutive, truth is provisional, meaning is contingent, human nature is a myth." Philosophers generally do not think well of critical theory. Philosophers agree with many of its claims -- e.g., that meaning is constitutive -- but disagree, for empirical reasons, that reason and human nature are radically different from culture to culture. The Web has many sites about critical theory, since it was very fashionable in some literature departments in the 1980's and 90's. Search for keywords like postmodernism, deconstructionism, Foucault, and Derrida.
pragmatic theory of truth
Example:
My belief that inanimate objects do not spontaneously get up and move about is true because
it makes my world more predictable and thus easier to live in.
It "works." Problems:
Sometimes unreasonable beliefs "work".
A tribe might believe that human sacrifice brings their crops back each year.
The crops do come back after the human sacrifice, but not because of the human sacrifice.
The pragmatic theory of truth might invite relativism in the case of
beliefs that are compatible with all states of affairs, e.g., religious beliefs.
(Someone might say the belief "God exists" is true because it "works for me,"
i.e., it helps this person "interact more effectively with the cosmos.")
The notion of "more effective and efficient interaction with
the cosmos" is perhaps objectionably vague.
The pragmatic theory of truth invites the notion that there are degrees of truth
(some beliefs might be more effective than others), and thus invites us to reject the law of
non-contradiction ("a claim is either true or false"). See Philosophical Theories of Truth
for a much more comprehensive account!
pragmatism
Pragmatic epistemology says p is true/right if and only if p "works," i.e.,
enables more satisfactory relations with the world. "God exists" is true for me if it makes my life better
(and I define "better"). Beliefs that work for one person or culture or
time might not work for another. But pragmatists agree that scientific discourse is privileged as long
as science tends to continue to produce beliefs that work very well.
In Who's to Say? Anita represents pragmatism.
principle of charity
It's the right thing to do.
There are also pragmatic advantages to adhering to the principle of charity. If you do not paraphrase accurately, it is easy for your opponent to demonstrate your sloppiness by referring back to her original text ("If you had read my article, you would have noticed that I explicitly stated ...") I.e., you look a fool, or worse. Furthermore, your refutation has much more weight if you successfully refute the strongest version of the argument in question.
Violating the principle of charity constitutes the straw man fallacy.
pseudoscience "Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by empirical facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but it does not follow from that fact that a theory which is consistent with the facts is therefore a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits." "Several characteristics of pseudoscientists and pseudoscience seem to stand out:
From the Skeptic's Dictionary. quibbling Geometry Teacher: "Now we'll discuss circles." (Draws a circle on blackboard). Student (quibbling): "That doesn't look like a circle to me. That's not a perfect circle. That's just one circle, and how can you generalize from that? That's not a circle at all; it's really just particles of chalk." Etc.
These positions, and others like them, are forms of relativism. Relativism is the view that judgments about truth and falsity, good and bad, right and wrong are relative to the individual person or culture. Different people have different opinions about what's true but no one can be said to be absolutely right or wrong; rather, everyone is correct. Relativism denies that there can be any objectivity in matters of truth or morality.
Relativism comes in many forms, some more problematic than others. Schick and Vaughn devote an entire chapter (Chapter 4) to the problematic forms of relativism. See here for an outline of that chapter. If "relativism" is construed simply as the denial of absolutism, there are at least two philosophically respectable forms of relativism ("relative relativisms"): scientific rationality and pragmatism.
See also absolutism, epistemological relativism, ethical relativism, critical theory, deconstruction, postmodernism, scientific rationality, pragmatism.
science "Science is also the organized body of knowledge about the empirical world which issues from the application of the abovementioned set of logical and empirical methods. "Science consists of several specific sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy. which are defined by the type and range of empirical phenomena they investigate. "Finally, science is also the application of scientific knowledge, as in the altering of rice with daffodil and bacteria genes to boost the vitamin A content of rice." From the Skeptic's Dictionary. Go to top of page
scientific method "Scientific methods are impersonal. Thus, whatever one scientist is able to do
qua scientist, any other scientist should be able to duplicate. When a person claims to measure or
observe something by some purely subjective method, which others cannot duplicate, that person is not
doing science. When scientists cannot duplicate the work of another scientist that is a clear sign that the
scientist has erred in either in design, methodology, observation, calculation, or calibration. From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
Go to top of page scientific rationality The epistemology of scientific rationality says that p is true / we know p beyond reasonable doubt if and only if However, p might still turn out to be false later on, as science progresses. "Truth" and "knowledge" always thus always qualified as beyond reasonable doubt. According to scientific rationality, scientific discourse is "privileged." The self-correcting nature of science ensures that knowledge of the world will get better and better. The ethics of scientific rationality says science has an essential role to play in making life happier for everyone by improving the material circumstances of life: "good" = "happy-making" The character Mike in Who's to Say? represents scientific rationality.
Go to top of page scientific theory "A scientific theory is a unified set of principles, knowledge, and methods for explaining the behavior of some specified range of empirical phenomena. Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works. "A scientific theory must have some logical consequences we can test against empirical facts by making predictions based on the theory. "To be able to test a theory by experience means to be able to predict certain observable or measurable consequences from the theory. For example, from a theory about how physical bodies move in relation to one another, one predicts that a pendulum ought to follow a certain pattern of behavior. One then sets up a pendulum and tests the hypothesis that pendulums behave in the way predicted by the theory. If they do, then the theory is confirmed. If pendulums do not behave in the way predicted by the theory, then the theory is falsified. (This assumes that the predicted behavior for the pendulum was correctly deduced from your theory and that your experiment was conducted properly.) "The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory, however. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept it. However, to confirm is not the same as to prove logically or mathematically. No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty. "Furthermore, the more tests which can be made of the theory, the greater its empirical content (Popper, 112, 267). A theory from which very few empirical predictions can be made will be difficult to test and generally will not be very useful. A useful theory is rich, i.e., many empirical predictions can be generated from it, each one serving as another test of the theory. However, even if a theory is very rich and even if it passes many severe tests, it is always possible that it will fail the next test. It could even fail the same test it has passed many times in the past. Karl Popper calls this characteristic of scientific theories, "falsifiability."" From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
Go to top of page scientism "In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
selective thinking James Randi gives the following
example of selective thinking. Peter Hurkos was astonishing people with his ability to recite
intimate details about their homes and their lives. Two of the persons who had their minds read by
Hurkos and who were amazed at his accuracy were invited by Randi to watch a tape of the mind readings.
It was "discovered by actual count that this so-called psychic had, on the average, been
correct in one out of fourteen of his statements.... Selective thinking had led them to dismiss all
the apparent misses and the obviously wrong guesses and remember only the "hits." They
were believers who needed this man to be the genuine article, and in spite of the results of this
experiment they are still devoted fans of this charlatan" (Flim-Flam!, 7).
For more information and references, see the Skeptic's
Dictionary. Click "Glossary" on the Course Menu to return here.
Go to top of page
sound argument Go to top of page
statement strong argument The following is a strong inductive argument: All US Presidents to date have been male. Here the premise, if true, would support the conclusion in the inductive sense of "support": it would make the conclusion likely, though not certain, since a woman might be elected President someday. In this argument the premise is also true (i.e., the argument is factually correct), so this argument is not only strong but cogent. The following is also a strong argument. All US Presidents to date have been female. This one is strong because here the premise, IF true, would support the conclusion in the inductive sense of "support": if true, it would make the conclusion likely, though not certain, since a man might be elected. In this argument the premise happens to be factually false, so while this argument is strong, it is not cogent. See also weak argument, cogent argument
subjective
subjective validation "Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept
vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves
without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone.
Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.
You have a need for other people to
like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some
personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. "Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of times with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2. "In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign. The Forer effect seems to explain, in part at least, why so many people think that pseudosciences 'work'." From the Skeptic's Dictionary.
subjectivism sufficient condition term truth value valid argument weak argument The following inductive argument is weak: Janga is a woman of the Itchybooboo tribe and her lips are pierced. The premise here does not make the conclusion likely, because the conclusion makes a claim about all women of the tribe on the basis of an observation of a single one. Perhaps Janga is unique among Itchybooboo women, perhaps not. We simply don't know. (Compare: "I met a WVC college student and he was a guy. So WVC must be a men's college.") The conclusion might happen to be true; it is just not established by THIS premise. Note that the words "strong" and "weak" apply only to inductive arguments. See also strong argument, cogent argument.
Sandy's X10 Host Home Page | Sandy's Google Sites Home Page Questions or comments? sandy_lafave@yahoo.com |