Ch08 evaluating arguments

•Transferir como PPT, PDF•

6 gostaram•3,217 visualizações

Hariz Mustafa

Educação Espiritual Notícias e política

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Analysis - Inductive and Deductive Arguments

Alwyn Lau

Logical fallacies

Donna Luna

Critical thinking Logical Fallacies t

karinka2

Argument

Timothy Scott

Ch03 basic logical_concepts

Hariz Mustafa

Logic arguments and_fallacies

Erik Hanson

Critical Reasoning

guest499798

1.3 Deduction And Induction

Nicholas Lykins

1.1 arguments, premises, and conclusions

Saqlain Akram

FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016

Fallacies

Fallacy and types

Logical fallacies

Logic & critical thinking (fallacies unit 3)

Institute of Management Studies UOP

Fallacies

mollysdad

Rebuttals [A Report in Argumentation]

Jhoanna Lyn

Logical Fallacies

NathaliaGuimares15

Inference

Rita (Dr. Rita) Zuba Prokopetz

Logic unit 1

Institute of Management Studies UOP

Fallacies

liszee

Mais procurados (20)

Analysis - Inductive and Deductive Arguments

Logical fallacies

Critical thinking Logical Fallacies t

Argument

Ch03 basic logical_concepts

Logic arguments and_fallacies

Critical Reasoning

1.3 Deduction And Induction

1.1 arguments, premises, and conclusions

FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016

Fallacies

Fallacy and types

Logical fallacies

Logic & critical thinking (fallacies unit 3)

Fallacies

Rebuttals [A Report in Argumentation]

Logical Fallacies

Inference

Logic unit 1

Fallacies

Destaque

Cognition and problem_solving

Hariz Mustafa

Decision making

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture07 the linked-list_as_a_data_structure_v3

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture08 stacks and-queues_v3

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture09 recursion

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture06 methods for-making_data_structures_v2

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture10 trees v3

Hariz Mustafa

Chapter 6 logical_fallacies_ii

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture11 standard template-library

Hariz Mustafa

Chapter 5 fallacies

scrasnow

Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch06

Hariz Mustafa

Critical thinking fall 2014 2015 (chapters 6,7,8,11 and 12 analyzing and eval...

XixiViolet

Exercise answers chapter 1, 2 & 3

Hariz Mustafa

Destaque (13)

Cognition and problem_solving

Decision making

Lecture07 the linked-list_as_a_data_structure_v3

Lecture08 stacks and-queues_v3

Lecture09 recursion

Lecture06 methods for-making_data_structures_v2

Lecture10 trees v3

Chapter 6 logical_fallacies_ii

Lecture11 standard template-library

Chapter 5 fallacies

Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch06

Critical thinking fall 2014 2015 (chapters 6,7,8,11 and 12 analyzing and eval...

Exercise answers chapter 1, 2 & 3

Semelhante a Ch08 evaluating arguments

Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch08

Hariz Mustafa

evaluating arguments

SDhungel1

Understanding arguments

Mclavin Love

Mistakes in Reasoning

dyeakel

3564054 (1).ppt

BlessedAdetutu1

introduction to critical thinking.ppt

Emilyn Marinas

As researchers working in government, influencing service design, we need to know that our research is methodologically sound, our research findings are grounded in empirical data and our recommendations are logically derived. 'Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses' is the first in a series of 5 short courses, covering introduction courses to various aspects of methodology in research, from the use of grounded theory in discovery research, to hypothesis testing and sampling in more experimental research. In this course, you'll learn: About arguments - what we mean by an argument - how to identify a valid/invalid argument - what we mean by premises - what validity and soundness of arguments mean About reasoning - what is deductive reasoning and where do we use it - what is inductive reasoning and where do we use it - what is abductive reasoning and where do we use it About hypotheses - what is a hypotheses and a null hypothesis - how do we test them

Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses

Maria Rosala

7. Fallacies.pptx

Apolinario Encenars

Logical fallacies

Osman Koroglu(Prof.Dr)

Chapter 3 Evaluating Moral Arguments What Is Moral Reasoning? Moral reasoningis ordinary critical reasoning applied to ethics. Critical reasoning(also called critical thinking) is the careful, systematic evaluation of statementsand arguments. Statements A statement(or claim) is the assertion that something is either true or false. The following are examples of statements:“Murder is wrong.”“1 + 1 = 2”“Shakespeare wrote The Tempest.” Statements and Arguments –1 When at least one statement attempts to provide reasons for believing another statement, we have an argument—a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest. Statements and Arguments –2 The supporting statements are called premises. The statement that is being supported by the others is the conclusion. Identifying ArgumentsAn argumentis intended to prove something.All arguments share a pattern: at least one premise is required to support a conclusion.A cluster of unsupported claims is not an argument.The most reliable way to identify arguments is to look for the conclusion first.Look for indicator words:terms that often appear in arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion may be nearby. Some words indicating a conclusion: Therefore, consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, so, it must be thatSome words indicating a premise: Because, since, for, given that, due to the fact that, for the reason that, the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by Two Forms of Argument A deductive argumentis supposed to give logically conclusivesupport to its conclusion. An inductive argumentis supposed to offer probablesupport to its conclusion. Common Deductive Argument FormsValid forms:Denying the antecedentAffirming the consequent Invalid forms:Affirming the antecedent(modus ponens)Denying the consequent(modus tollens)The hypothetical syllogism Deductive Arguments A deductive argument isvalidif the premises support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A deductive argument is invalidif the premises do not support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion may or may not be true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. A deductive argument is unsound if it is invalid and/or any of its premises are false. Inductive Arguments An inductive argument is strongif it gives probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is also likely to be true. An inductive argument is weak if it does not give probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is not more probable than not to be true. An inductive argument is cogentif it is strong and all of its premises are true. An inductive argument is not cogent if it is weakand/or any of.

Chapter 3Evaluating Moral ArgumentsWhat Is Moral Reasoning.docx

walterl4

Critical Reasoning Week 8: Class 1 So far we’ve learned to… appreciate the importance of critical thinking standards such as clarity, precision, accuracy, consistency, and fairness distinguish arguments from non-arguments identify premises and conclusions recognize hidden assumptions and implied premises and conclusions distinguish deductive from inductive arguments assess the logical validity or strength of arguments distinguish relevant from irrelevant reasons identify common logical fallacies Chapter 8: Evaluating Arguments and Truth Claims Now, we will focus on the question, “When is an argument a good one?” (I just saw an advanced screening of The World’s End, so you’ll be seeing a lot of references as we go along ) A good argument does NOT Mean “Agrees with My Views” Mean “Persuasive Argument” Mean “Well-Written or Well-Spoken Argument” You can tell a good argument when … all the premises are true and the premises provide good reason to accept the conclusion It is either deductively sound or inductively cogent. BUT!!! “it is not enough for an argument to be deductively sound or inductively cogent. It must also satisfy (at least up to a certain threshold) the key critical thinking standards discussed in Chapter 1.” Key critical thinking standards Clarity Precision Accuracy Relevance Consistency Logical Correctness Completeness Fairness Most Important Accuracy: Are all the premises true? Logical correctness: Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong? But other critical thinking standards must also be taken into account, as well. And now for something English… Monty Python Bonus Extravaganza! Due via email on Friday by 7pm 1-2 bonus points added to your lowest grade! Make a PowerPoint presentation outlining the argument given for discovering whether this woman is or is not a witch. Name the premises and conclusion, show whether it is deductive or inductive, etc. Basically, is it a good argument or a bad argument, why or why not? Be sure to show your work! Extra points for creativity! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9PY_3E3h2c What is a NOT a good argument? What IS a good argument? From last time Are the premises true? Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong? Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies? General Guidelines… Does the arguer express his or her points clearly and precisely? Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? Are the arguer’s claims logically consist.

Critical ReasoningWeek 8 Class 1.docx

faithxdunce63732

Daniel Hampikian's Power point on arguments and moral skepticism - danielhamp...

Daniel Hampikian

Philosophy 150 Day612

Faisal Khan

Logical Fallacies 18-05-2020.pptx

SumairaRasool6

Week 7 faulty reasoning - teacher version

Julien Nevin

Lecture 2 arguments

Dam Frank

Philosophy 25 Critical Thinking Chapter 1 Agenda 1) What is Philosophy? 2) What is Critical Thinking? 3) Argument Overview 4) Statements & Truth HW: P. 23 (Exercise 1.2) Intro to Critical Thinking What is Philosophy? “Love of Wisdom”? (Etymology not helpful) “Philosophy is thinking really hard about the most important questions and trying to bring analytic clarity both to the questions and the answers.” Marilyn Adams “Philosophy is 99 percent about critical reflection on anything you care to be interested in.” Richard Bradley 3 Intro to Critical Thinking What is Philosophy? Another way to approach defining Philosophy is to think about the questions it asks. Here are three core questions: Metaphysics: What exists? Epistemology: What can we know? How can we know what exists? Ethics: What is right? 4 Intro to Critical Thinking What is Critical Thinking? Philosophers use the skill of critical thinking to answer philosophical questions. Critical Thinking is a set of tools for determining whether we have good reason to believe or accept something. Connection to Logic: Logic is the study of good reasoning (and it is another branch of Philosophy) 5 Parts of an Argument Arguments Premises Conclusion Statement/Claim Statement/Claim 6 Statements / Claims Consider the following sentences: “Grass is Green.” “Is Grass Green?” “Yay!!!” 7 Statements / Claims Consider the following sentences: “Grass is Green.” “Is Grass Green?” “Yay!!!” 8 Statements / Claims Statements/Claims are sentences that are either true or false. But what is truth/falsity? 9 Four theories of truth Correspondence Theory: A statement is true if it corresponds with reality Coherence Theory: A statement is true if it coheres with our other beliefs Pragmatic Theory: A statement is true if it is useful for the lives of human beings Minimalism: A sentence ‘S’ is true if S Truth is not a substantial property. 10 Correspondence Correspondence Theory: A statement is true if it corresponds with reality E.g. The statement “Grass is green” is true because (out there in reality) grass is green. Pros: it is intuitive –many people find this view of truth commonsensical. It is objective- truth is not an invention of people’s minds. Cons: 1) It is TOO objective – How can we what reality is like apart from our perceptions? 2) Why should we care about such an objective notion 11 Coherence CoherenceTheory: A statement is true if it coheres with our other beliefs E.g. The statement “Grass is green” is true because it does not conflict with other beliefs we hold. Pros: 1) There is a subjective element to it and it is clear why truth would matter to human beings. Cons: 1) The ramblings on an insane person can be completely coherent, yet we don’t think they are true. This reveals that there needs to be more to truth than coherence. 12 Pragmatic Pragmatic Theory: A statement is true if it is useful for the lives of human beings E.g. The statement “.

Philosophy 25Critical ThinkingChapter 1Agenda1) What.docx

randymartin91030

Mission Critical: Humanities 1B Fallacies and Non-Rational Persuasion 1. Fallacious Appeals 2. Ad Hominem Attacks 3. Fallacious Generalizations 4. Post Hoc Reasoning 5. Straw Man Fallacy 6. Shifting the Burden of Proof 7. Circular Reasoning 8. Loaded Questions 9. False Dilemma 10. Unfair Fallacies 1. Introduction to Fallacious Appeals We often make legitimate appeals in support of arguments. For example, to support a statement about the relationship between energy and mass, Danielle might appeal to Albert Einstein's theories as an authoritative source. To support a claim dealing with guns and gun control, Janelle might appeal to the Bill of Rights. And to support an argument on immigration, Claudelle might appeal to the humanity or generosity of her audience. As long as Einstein is an authority on Danielle's topic, as long as the Bill of Rights deals with Janelle's topic, and as long as the generosity of her audience is directly related to Claudelle's topic, each of these appeals would be perfectly acceptable. However, what if Danielle had appealed to Einstein as an authority on rap music, or if Janelle had used the Bill of Rights to support a claim about which store has the best prices, or if Claudelle had appealed to the generosity of the judges in evaluating her performance in gymnastics? We would probably have a puzzled reaction, since these appeals would seem to have little or nothing to do with the claims they were used to support. The problem is that fallacious appeals are not always as obvious as these last three, and it necessary for the critical thinker to determine, in each case, whether an appeal is appropriate or not. Generally speaking, fallacious appeals can be divided into two groups: misdirected appeals and emotional appeals. In a misdirected appeal, an otherwise legitimate appeal is misapplied by being used to support an unrelated claim. Danielle's use of Einstein, who was an authority but not on rap music, and Janelle's use of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees some things but not which store has the best prices, are examples of misdirected appeals. By itself, an emotional appeal is never a legitimate strategy in an argument, because it is based on emotions rather than verifiable or evaluative support. Claudelle's appeal to the generosity of her audience in an argument about immigration, for example, would be appropriate as long as she was discussing that generosity as a value related to the subject. However, an appeal to the generosity of the judges at a gymnastic meet is merely a play on their emotions (probably an appeal to their pity); anyway, the value of generosity has nothing to do with the evaluations the judges would render. Thus, Claudelle's appeal to the judges' generosity would be a fallacious emotional appeal. The following are some of the most common fallacious appeals. Popular variations on the names are also listed. Misdirected Appeals A. Appeal to Authority, or Appeal to Que ...

Mission CriticalHumanities 1BFallacies and Non-Ra

IlonaThornburg83

Inductive and deductive reasoning

Abir Chaaban

3.2 Fallacies Of Relevance

Nicholas Lykins

Semelhante a Ch08 evaluating arguments (20)

Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch08

evaluating arguments

Understanding arguments

Mistakes in Reasoning

3564054 (1).ppt

introduction to critical thinking.ppt

Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses

7. Fallacies.pptx

Logical fallacies

Chapter 3Evaluating Moral ArgumentsWhat Is Moral Reasoning.docx

Critical ReasoningWeek 8 Class 1.docx

Daniel Hampikian's Power point on arguments and moral skepticism - danielhamp...

Philosophy 150 Day612

Logical Fallacies 18-05-2020.pptx

Week 7 faulty reasoning - teacher version

Lecture 2 arguments

Philosophy 25Critical ThinkingChapter 1Agenda1) What.docx

Mission CriticalHumanities 1BFallacies and Non-Ra

Inductive and deductive reasoning

3.2 Fallacies Of Relevance

Mais de Hariz Mustafa

Lecture05 operator overloading-and_exception_handling

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture04 polymorphism

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture03 inheritance

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture02 class -_templatev2

Hariz Mustafa

Lecture01 object oriented-programming

Hariz Mustafa

Topic6decisionmaking

Hariz Mustafa

Topic5cognition and problem_solving

Topic2 argument

Topic2

Topic 1

Problem solving activities

Hariz Mustafa

Decision making scenarios

Hariz Mustafa

Chapter 4 language

Hariz Mustafa

Chapter 5 logical_fallacies_i

Hariz Mustafa

Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch04

Hariz Mustafa

Mais de Hariz Mustafa (17)

Lecture05 operator overloading-and_exception_handling

Lecture04 polymorphism

Lecture03 inheritance

Lecture02 class -_templatev2

Lecture01 object oriented-programming

Topic6decisionmaking

Topic5cognition and problem_solving

Topic2 argument

Topic2

Topic 1

Problem solving activities

Decision making scenarios

Chapter 4 language

Chapter 5 logical_fallacies_i

Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch04

Último

How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17

Celine George

Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf

Jerry Chew

How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17

Celine George

會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽

中央社

COMMUNICATING NEGATIVE NEWS - APPROACHES .pptx

annathomasp01

SURVEY I created for uni project research

CaitlinCummins3

male presentation...pdf.................

MirzaAbrarBaig5

Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx

AdelaideRefugio

TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...

Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection

Spellings Wk 4 and Wk 5 for Grade 4 at CAPS

AnaAcapella

When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...

Gary Wood

Photos from our Spring Gala 2024. Thank you for making our 2024 Spring Gala unforgettable! Whether you attended or supported us with a donation, we extend our heartfelt thanks for celebrating School-Community Partnerships alongside ExpandED Schools. Special appreciation to our honorees, Rachel Skaistis and Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP, for their unwavering support in advancing educational equity. Your contributions have profoundly impacted countless young New Yorkers, and we’re proud to have you as part of our community. Our gratitude also extends to our Board of Directors, sponsors, city partners, community-based organizations, and the inspiring young people who joined us. Your support fuels our mission, and we’re endlessly thankful for your dedication. While we celebrate our gala’s success, our work continues. As you view the evening’s highlights, consider how you can further empower young New Yorkers and educators with your donation, no matter the size. Donate today: https://www.expandedschools.org/support-our-work/donate/

Spring gala 2024 photo slideshow - Celebrating School-Community Partnerships

expandedwebsite

OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...

Dr. Mazin Mohamed alkathiri

VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .

Colégio Santa Teresinha

Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptx

Limon Prince

Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx

neillewis46

PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptx

Marlene Maheu

Contoh Aksi Nyata Refleksi Diri ( NUR ).pdf

cupulin

diagnosting testing bsc 2nd sem.pptx....

Ritu480198

Andreas Schleicher presents at the launch of What does child empowerment mean...

EduSkills OECD