Fallacies (watch out, most of info you get from sources is fallacious)

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Here are some examples:

Begging the Question: The argument's conclusion is used as one of its premises. Basically the proof is assumed.
 

A: He's mad right now.
B: How do you know?
A: Because he's really angry.

Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen!

Prosecutor to defendant: So how did you feel when you killed your wife?

Ad hominem (or Against the Person): When someone tries to win an argument by denigrating its presenter (favorite fallacy used by politicians and the media to put down an enemy)

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

"Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine."

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument.

Ex: "The Bold and the Listless must be a great book. It’s been on the best seller list for 8 weeks."

Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam): It has two forms: The fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. Ad ignorantiam wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

"She hasn't said she doesn't like you, right? So she's probably interested. Call her up."

"Nobody has conclusively proven that the Yeti doesn't exist, therefore it must exist."

 "I thought I had every reason to think I was doing fine leading the group; no one complained."
 
Hasty Generalization: You are guilty of hasty generalization when jumping into conclusion about all things of a certain type based on evidence that concerns only a few things of that type (favorite argument used by politicians and ideologues).  

"The department of law enforcement in Miami is corrupt. Five police officers in three different departments were involved in drug dealing in 2017" (right answer: Miami has  4,780 police employees, i.e., 5 corrupt officers are 0.16% of the force).  
 
"Men are toxic! It's crystal clear:  They perpetrate over 76% of the violent crime in the US." (right answer: violent men committing violent crimes constitute 6% of the population of males in the US).

Appeal to Authority: A claim is accepted because not because of its merit, but because of the authority (power, fame, etc) of the person saying it.  

"Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it."

"If the Pope says it, it must be true."  

 "Nobody is a better judge than public opinion."

Red Herring: This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. 

Daughter: "I'm so hurt that Todd broke up with me, Mom." 
Mother: "Just think of all the starving children in Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then."

Appeal to Fear: To use threat or harm to advance an argument. Ex: "If we don’t stop petroleum consumption, global warming will increase. Therefore, we need to stop petroleum consumption immediately." 

False Dilemma: It presumes that there are only two alternatives to a given problem, when in fact there are more than two.  

"Either science can explain how she was cured or else, it's a miracle."

"Since there is nothing good on TV tonight, I will just have to get drunk."

"If you are don't accept our climate catastrophe, then you're a denier!"

False Cause: Supposing that two events are connected when in fact they are not. 

"They had a very successful business. Then they decided to adopt a child, and the business went immediately into the red."

Inconsistency: A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims. 

"I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. However, when a person like John Dean can influence our youth , you have to draw a line and say no more."

"This is the truth: truth is subjective."

Etimological fallacy: Believing that the present day meaning of a word of concept should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. 

"So-and-so" (a phrase used in the 19th Century) should not be used anymore. It's very offensive! 

Necessary and sufficient conditions

Necessary conditions:

X is a necessary condition for Y, 

if X is not present, Y doesn't happen.

(yet, to say that X is a necessary condition for Y does not mean that X guarantees Y)

Having gasoline in my car (gasoline engine cars) is a necessary condition for my car to start. Yet,  having gasoline in the car does not guarantee that my car will start. There are many other conditions needed for my car to start.

Having oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is a necessary condition for human life. However, having oxygen will not guarantee human life. There are many other conditions needed for human life other than oxygen in the atmosphere.


Sufficient conditions:

X is a sufficient condition for Y,

if X is present, Y happens (X guarantees Y)

Rain pouring from the sky is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet (not necessary, since the ground could be wet for other reasons).
______

Test yourself: 

*Is sunlight a necessary or sufficient condition for the flowers to bloom?

*Is earning a final grade of C a necessary or sufficient condition for passing the course?

*Is being a male a necessary or sufficient condition for being a father?

*Is having AIDS a necessary or sufficient condition for having the HIV virus?

*Is studying for a test a necessary or sufficient condition for passing a test?

*Is completing all the requirements of your degree program a necessary or sufficient condition for earning your degree?

Homework #2 (deduction, induction)

Are these deductive or inductive?

1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. In triangle #1, angle A is 30°, angle B is 90°. Therefore, angle C is 60°. 
2. If I get an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I probably won't pass this course. 
3. The platypus is not a mammal (google & find out) because no mammal lays eggs, and the female platypus does. (Check this Britannica discussion, defending that the platypus is a mammal)
4. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood. 
5. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be broken. 

are these valid or invalid? 

1. If it rained, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it must have rained. 
2. If Richard Roe is willing to testify then he's innocent. He's not willing to testify therefore he's not innocent. 
3. If Bogotá is north of New Orleans and New Orleans is north of Mexico City, then Bogota is north of Mexico City. 

are these strong or weak? 

4. Every day you've lived has been followed by another day in which you've been alive. Therefore, everyday you ever will live will be followed by another day in which you are alive. 
5. Nobel prize-winning biologist Herbert Ralls says that chlorinated hydrocarbons in our water supply constitute a major threat to the public health. Since no scientists disagree with him on this point. Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of these chemicals is a threat.
6. Every day you've ever lived has been a day before tomorrow, so, every day you will ever live will be a day before tomorrow. 

Socratic axis of knowledge

In the Y axis, I know that I know (certainty) 

In the X axis, I know I don't know (philosophy)

In the -Y axis, I don't know, I know (ignorance)

In the -X axis, I don't know I don't know (blissful ignorance or self-deceit) 

deductive and inductive arguments

PREMISE:

A premise is a reason given.

ARGUMENT:

An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion. Look at this argument:

"Socrates is a man"  first premise
"Men are mortal"    second premise
________
"Socrates is mortal" conclusion

Now, there are deductive and inductive arguments.

Deductive argument are “truth preserving”, because the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. If VALID, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (even if the premises were false).

"Socrates is a man" (T)
"Men are mortal"    (T)
________
"Socrates is mortal"  (T)

the above argument is valid. in addition the premises are true. if the argument is VALID and its premises true, the conclusion must be true. we call this kind of argument SOUND. 

now let's play a bit with truth values:

"Socrates is a man"  (T)
"Men are immortal" (F)
__________
"Socrates is immortal" (F)

the above argument IS VALID, i.e, though the conclusion follows from the premises, though one premise is false. We have a false premise and a false conclusion, yet the above argument is VALID, but UNSOUND

See that deduction is independent from experience beause the reasoning is self contained in the premises. Remember that the premises could be false and the argument still be valid. 

DEDUCTION IS APRIORISTIC. MATHEMATICS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN APRIORISTIC DISCIPLINE. 

______________

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS:

An inductive argument establishes a conclusion with high degree of probability. Here the truth of their premises does not guarantee the truth of their conclusion.

Every windstorm observed so far in this area comes from the north. We can see a big cloud of dust in the distance. So, probably a new windstorm is coming from the north.

Analysis: The above argument is a strong inductive argument. The "so far" in the premise is simple and cautious, and the conclusion uses "probably."  Strong inductive arguments establish the conclusion with high probability IF the premises were true.

 

There are three kinds of inductive arguments: 

Inductive generalization: It goes from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population, or it derives general principles from specific observations.  

Analogical Induction: The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property:

Example:
 

Athenians and spartans are similar with respect to speaking the same language & being Pantheists
An Athenian has been observed to have further property X
Therefore, a Spartan probably also has property X.

Enumerative Induction: It reasons from particular instances to all instances. 

Example: If one observes 100 swans, and all 100 are white, one might infer "All swans are white." 

 

(As you can see, even if the premises are true, it does not entail the conclusion's truth. The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false).

Inference to the best explanation IBE: 

Phenomenon Q.

E provides the best explanation for Q.

Therefore, it is probable that E is true.

________________

As you can see, a big difference between deduction and induction is that the latter depends from experience. 

INDUCTION IS BASICALLY A POSTERIORI. 

SO, WE CAN SAY THAT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE A POSTERIORI, NEVER ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.

Homework #1

1. a) Trata de explicar en tus palabras qué quiere decir Sócrates con su famoso argumento de "una vida sin examen". (pág. 8)

b) Crees que en tu caso (una persona joven que aún no tiene 25 años) este consejo aplica? Sea "sí" o "no" tu respuesta, explica por qué. 

2. Qué crees quiere decir Paul Tillich con esta cita: Astonishment is the root of philosophy?  (pág. 11)

3. Cuál es tu preferido de los presocráticos. Explica por qué.  (págs. 12, 13) 

SOBRE LA HISTORIA Y SUS ACHAQUES

Salvador Dalí, La persistencia de la memoria, 1931

alFredoTriFf

Estudiante: ¿Quién eres? 

Historia: Soy la historia. 

E: ¿Y qué eres? 

H: Soy la que da de sí. Me doy a los sentidos. 

E: ¿Y cómo haces? 

H: Muestro lo que soy. Tú me percibes por tu intelección y tu sentir. 

E: Es algo confuso. 

H: Para nada. Tú eres real. Mi sentir y yo somos reales en tu intelección. Cuando me ves, aparezco como algo “más allá”, distinta a lo que esperabas. Nunca apareceré como suficientemente “real”. Lidio con el pasado y lo pasado YA NO ES. 

E: ¿Entonces es un defecto de fábrica?

H: No creo, se trata de un asunto de composición: la realidad es dura, pero la historia es lo que FUE. Tú me percibes en la memoria, que es un tejido de aproximaciones. 

E: ¿Qué relación hay entre ambas? 

H: La historia es la memoria de la realidad, pero una realidad que YA NO ES.   

E: ¿Y el presente?

H: No existe historia alguna en lo instantáneo. 

E: Estás diciendo que no hay historia en el presente. 

H: Correcto. Pero hay un AÚN... que flota y desde ahí se asoma la dualidad. La incongruencia del momento es que continúa irrepetible.

E: ¿No decía el sabio Heráclito que todo cambia?  

H: La historia no puede ser cambio continuo por encima de la realidad, pues entonces no podría haber historia. 

E: ¿Se repite la historia? 

H: Se repite en sus generalidades. Pero toda generalidad es ciega a los detalles. 

E: ¿Cómo organizo todo eso en mi cabeza?

H: (Algo risueña) Es muy sencillo. La historia es una y se divide en épocas. Llamamos “época” a una secuencia de episodios. El episodio (del griego episodión) consta de dos momentos: “epi”, encima de, y “sodos”, hacia dentro. 

E: Ahora vivimos en un momento.

H: Exacto.   

E: ¿Y el episodio... qué contiene? 

H: El episodio no contiene la realidad propiamente, sino su informe en la memoria. La memoria y el episodio son oblicuos. 

E: ¿Oblicuos?

H: Ahora pienso ese maravilloso quinto postulado de Euclides aplicado a la historia. ¿Sabes cuántas hipótesis existen sobre el origen de la Peste de la Edad Media? 

E: El quinto postulado euclidiano revela que no hay contradicción alguna en suponer que por un punto exterior a una recta puedan pasar más de una paralela a la recta, o incluso ninguna.

 

H: ¡Muy bien! Se ve que te gusta la geometría. Aplica ese razonamiento al momento de la historia. ¿Se te ocurre algún ejemplo?

E: Me interesa ese ejemplo que mencionaste de la Peste negra de 1348.    

H: Pues te diré que hay decenas de versiones del origen de la Peste negra.

E: Y ¿cómo?

H: Cada versión difiere de la otra, algunas se apoyan entre sí y luego divergen. Así es la ciencia.  

E: Entonces ¿no tenemos aún la verdad el origen de la pandemia?

H: Yo diría que tenemos parte de la verdad. Y es suficiente por ahora. 

E: ¡¿Suficiente?! Frustrante dirás. 

H: Si no fuese suficiente tendríamos más de la verdad que lo que tenemos. Cada momento de la realidad es perfecto en sí mismo. 

E:  (Con cara de desesperado) ¿¿¿¿Qué????

H: (Con cara de buena) La realidad no es frustrante... tampoco es hilarante. La realidad –simple y llanamente– ES.

E: (hace silencio)

H: La memoria de la historia es el archivo total de todas sus versiones. No hay memoria sin un ancla en la realidad. Sin embargo (y esto que voy a decirte es importante): la memoria es susceptible de desgaste, extravío, distorsión y pérdida. Y ahora se me hace tarde. Dejémoslo para la próxima. 

(continuará)

Los presocráticos

what is the fundamental "stuff" (arche) of the universe?

Milesian school (born in Miletus)

Anaximander (610-546 BC), a geometer and the first writer on philosophy. He came up with the idea of apeiron , i.e., an undefined, unlimited substance without qualities, out of which the primary opposites. He  invented the first sundial and drew the first map of the world.

Thales of Miletus:  (of the Milesian school) Thales claims that the world rests on water with the view that water is the archē or fundamental principle, and he adds that “that from which they come to be is a principle of all things.” He suggests that Thales chose water because of its fundamental role in coming-to-be, nutrition, and growth, and claims that water is the origin of the nature of moist things. arche is water because as a substance, it contains motion and change.

Heraclitus: The universe is a state of perpetual flux, connected by logical structure or pattern, which he termed logos.

Xenophanes: comes up with the notion of pephuke (explanation), which states that X is really Y when Y reveals the true character of X. 

Pythagoras: the notion that NUMBER (or mathematics) reveals the structure of the universe.

Eleatic School (born in Elea)

Parmenides: is the father of metaphysics and rationalism. His theory is that what IS CANNOT NOT BE. So, BEING (NOUS) is UNCHANGING. For something to change, it has to NOT BE, which is a contradiction because NOTHING cannot exist, and out of nothing, nothing comes.

Atomist School

The Atomists: Leucippus (5th BC) and his pupil Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) from Thrace. the arche are atoms: small primary bodies, infinite in number, indivisible and imperishable, qualitatively similar, but distinguished by their shapes. They move eternally through the infinite void. They collide and unite, thus generating objects that differ in accordance with the varieties in number, size, shape, etc. We are ALL atoms.

The Pluralist School

Empedocles: comes up with the principle of attraction and rejection, or LOVE and STRIFE. One cannot be without the other. Love unites, strife separates.

La filosofía y sus ramas (bilingüe)

Axiology: the study of value. What is value? Think of something in terms of good or bad, i.e., "I hate broccoli." "I love R&B." "I hate roaches." "What she did to her sister was wrong." "Citizens United vs. FEC is a wrong decision and sends a bad message to the American people." "My grandma's chicken soup is still the best."" I'm not crazy about Picasso's art."

Imagine what law, food, art, economy, human relationships would be without axiology. A wasteland.

An important question at this point is this: is the value we posit objective or subjective? In other words,

Is Catena Malbec 2014 good because I lived in Argentina, or am Argentinian, instead of the juice in the bottle?
Or
When we say "Slavery is wrong" are we talking about now, 2017, or about any time in the past or the future?

Axiology is divided into two:

Ethics: the evaluation of human actions, i.e. right and wrong conduct.

Here we have different branches:

Metaethics, the study of the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments.
Descriptive ethics: People's beliefs about morality.
Normative ethics: The branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
Applied ethics: the analysis, from a moral standpoint, of particular issues in private and public life which are matters of moral judgment.

Ponder this: What makes an action right?

the action's results
the action's intentions
the emotive responses towards the action
the action itself
what (people, society, culture) think of it 

Key words: right, wrong.

Aesthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts.

What makes something beautiful, ugly, elegant, awful, attractive, charming, clumsy, mysterious, etc?
Are aesthetic properties objective, subjective or inter-subjective?

Key words: beautiful, ugly, amazing (sublime).

Ponder this: Is the sunset beautiful if no one sees it? or better, is there unseen beauty, majesty?
See that though we didn't witness the Big Bang, the idea of such an event has given physicists plenty to talk about. We've seen simulations of it in the movies.

Epistemology: the study of knowledge.

Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge.

How much do we actually know? More importantly: Is our knowledge warranted?

What is the difference between belief and knowledge?

Do I hold false beliefs?

Key words: belief, truth, justification, explanation.

Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. This is a bit heavy.  We're dealing here with principles. The question in metaphysics is the existence status of any kind of stuff.

Consider the truths of mathematics: how is it that a triangle exists? Are points, lines, or planes really real?

What is a soul?

Under what conditions are these entities possible?

Key words: identity, change, being, necessity, accident, category, etc. 

Las proposiciones en las ramas de la filosofía

Cuando pensamos o hablamos, cuando discutimos, estamos haciendo uso de unidades del pensamiento que contienen lo que llamamos proposiciones. 

Las proposiciones son la gasolina de la filosofía. Aquí tienen algunos ejemplos: 

Epistemología en la conversación diaria (recuerden, la epistemología estudia cuánto sabemos):  

"Sé lo que estoy diciendo", (¿qué quiere decir esto?) 

"Los hombres del XIX eran misóginos", (¿"misógino" en el sentido del siglo XXI?), no olvidemos que las acepciones y las ideas cambian de acuerdo a la época (lo que se denomina Weltanschauung). 

"Odio las matemáticas", (¿estás seguro, o es un autoengaño? Ejemplo: ¿las odias porque le tienes miedo?) 

"Quiero ser enfermera", (¿quieres ser enfermera porque quieres o pueden haber otras razones, digamos, tus padres quieren que lo hagas y no quieres decepcionarlos?). Aquí hay que explorar la diferencia entre querer y querer "realmente".  

Lógica en la conversación diaria (si nuestro proceso de pensamiento es correcto). 

"Pepe tiene síntomas de Covid, luego tiene Covid" (¿puede una persona tener síntomas y no tener la enfermedad?). Por supuesto. Y para complicar las cosas aún más. Hay Covid asintomático.

"Si no me amas entonces me odias" (¿no hay otras posibilidades?) 

Ética en la conversación diaria (lo que está bien y lo que está mal) 

"José no es una buena persona",  ¿Qué significa para ti no ser una buena persona? (uno es bueno y a veces malo, o malo y a veces bueno). 

La estética en la conversación diaria (cuestiones de gusto y subjetividad). 

"Me encanta este coche", (¿es esto una suposición o una buena observación?) 

"Esta es la mejor sopa de pollo que he probado en mi vida", (¿es cierto o es una hipérbole? y supongamos que alguien pregunta ¿por qué? ¿está preparado para explicarlo?) 

Metafísica en la conversación diaria (determinar a qué nos referimos). 

"El amor que sentí por ti no era realmente amor, era más bien un enamoramiento", la persona a la que se le dice esta proposición necesita una definición urgente de la distinción entre ambos, ¿no?

Homework #8 (lo que queda del capítulo 4)

pág. 229, sección  4.2, ejercicios  #1, #3

pág. 233, sección 4.3, ejercicios #1, #4, #5

pág. 241, sección 4.4, ejercicios #1, #3, #4

pág. 245, sección 4.5, ejercicios #1, #4, #5