Chapter 1: Deductive Argument

Justification: rational defense on the basis of evidence

Assertion: act of stating something as if it were true
Statement, claim: what you say in order to make an assertion
Premise: statement intended to provide rational support for a
conclusion
Conclusion: statement intended to be rationally supported by a set of
premises
Argument: collection of premises that justify a conclusion
Validity: if ALL premises are TRUE, conclusion CANT be FALSE
Soundness: valid + all true premises

Laws of Thought:
Law of Identity – P if and only if P
Law of Non-contradiction – Not both P and not P
Law of Excluded Middle – P or not P

Intuitionistic Logic: does not include Law of Excluded Middle

Dialetheic Logic: does not include Law of Non-contradiction
Fallacious argument: bad argument
Explanation: appeal to some facts in order to make sense of other
facts

Modus Ponens:
If P then Q
P
Therefore, Q

Modus Tollens:
If P then Q,
Not Q
Therefore, not P

Hypothetical Syllogism:
If P then Q
If Q then R
Therefore, if P then R

Disjunctive Syllogism:
P or Q
Not Q
Therefore, P

Method of Counter Example:

Argument is invalid if we can think of ways for the premises to all be
true while the conclusion is false

Valid Argument Forms

Simplification:
P and Q
Therefore, P

Conjunction:
P
Q
Therefore, P and Q

Addition:
P
Therefore, P or Q

Constructive Dilemma
P or Q
If P then R
If Q then S
Therefore, R or S

Destructive Dilemma
If P then R
If Q then S
Not R or not S
Therefore, P or not Q

Truth Conditions
Simple statement: doesn’t contain another sentence as one of its
parts
Conjunctive statement: P and Q is true, if P is true and Q is true
Disjunctive statement: P or Q, true if at least 1 of P and Q is true
Conditional statements: if P then Q, true unless P (antecedent) is
true but Q
(consequent) is false
Negation: Not-P, true if P is false
Double-Negation: not-not-P = P
Chapter 2: Evidence Adds Up
Cogent argument: makes its conclusion rationally credible
(believable)
Logical fallacies: arguments that are invalid and presented as valid
Ampliative argument: conclusion expresses information that is not
obviously or
discreetly expressed by the premises
Defeasible: no matter how confident we are in the cogency of an
inductive argument, it
remains possible that some new information will overturn it
Empirical arguments: based on experience
Inductive argument: draws conclusions about unobserved cases
from premises of
observed cases (truth of premise doesn’t guarantee truth of
conclusion)
Ex: every currently observed rose is red; therefore the next rose
observed will be red
Deductive argument: satisfies the definition of validity and remains
sound
Abductive reasoning: leap to a conclusion that explains a set of facts
Context of discovery: accidental explanations for an Aha judgment
Context of justification: present the evidence that makes it
reasonable to regard the
abductive judgement as one of the successes
Analogical argument: examining a familiar case, noting a feature in
it and arguing that
some other case is relevantly similar
Disanalogies: relevant differences between the 2 things/situations
compared
Reductio Ad Absurdum: proof technique that shows that a
statement/argument leads to
an absurd conclusion and therefore must be false

Mill’s Methods
Method of agreement:
E is in S1 and S2, F is in S1 and S2, than F causes E
Method of difference:
F is in S1 but not in S2, E is in S1, F causes E (control group)
Joint method of agreement & disagreement:
E is in S1 only when F is present, then F causes E
Method of co-variation:
E is observed is proportional to amount of F present, then F is causally
related to E
Method of residues (can’t isolate F):
If we know G causes D (but not E), & in all cases where we see G & F
we
see both E & D, then we can conclude that F likely causes E

Chapter 3: Language, Non-Language and Argument

Rhetorical questions: obvious answer
Implicit: not written out in any form, but intended to be obvious from
context
Presupposition: thing implicitly assumed beforehand at the
beginning of a line of
argument or course of action
Rhetoric: ways of speaking/writing intended to persuade
independently of the strength
of the argument
Quantifier: most, some, plenty, lots and many
Qualifier: “pretty small”
Weasel words: terms chosen to let the arguer weasel out of any
refutation
Vagueness: imprecision
Sorites reasoning: 1 grain of sand is not a heap. And if something
isn’t a heap, then
adding 1 grain of sand to it will not make it a heap. But then no amount
of sand is a heap,
since 1 could get from 1 grain to any number of grains just by adding 1
more grain to a
non-heap.
Ambiguity: imprecise or indeterminate
Syntactic ambiguity: structure that can be read in more than 1 way
Lexical ambiguity: multiple meanings for a single expression
Direct quotation: Larry said, “Mike’s a good guy.”
Indirect quotation: Larry said that Mike’s a good guy.
Misattribution: one speaker’s words are attributed to another
Quote-mining: correctly quoted sentence that is reported without the
surrounding
context that changes its meaning and is therefore falsely presented as
characteristic of the
speaker’s views
Terms of Entailment: thus, therefore, hence, so, because

Chapter 4: Fallacies
Affirming the Consequent:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P
Denying the Antecedent:
If P then Q
It is not the case that P
Therefore, it is not the case that Q
Quantifier Scope Fallacy: consists of misordering of a universal
quantifier (all, every,
each) and an existential quantifier (some, a, the, one)
Argument from ignorance:
We have no evidence that P
Therefore, it is not the case that P
Argument from Conspiracy:
There is not evidence that P
No evidence is exactly what we should expect, if P is true
Therefore, P
Argument from Authority: evaluating a claim on the basis of
irrelevant facts about its
origins, rather than on the basis of evidence for it
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: after, therefore because
Fallacies of relevance: introduce irrelevant factor to the real issue
under discussion
Red Herring: statements that lead the discussion away from the key
points
Straw Man Fallacy: misrepresenting an argument or a view in order
to refute a
dumbed-down version of it
Ad Hominem: dismissing an argument on the basis of personal facts
about the arguer
Poisoning the Well: statement poisons the well if it is a general
attack on the worth of
reliability of an arguer’s utterances
Circular argument: assumes the truth of what it intends to prove
Slanting Language: when a speaker describes some situation in
terms that already
suggest the desired conclusion

Chapter 5: Critical Thinking About Numbers

Quantification: using #s and numerical concepts to characterize

things

Representative #: encode what’s important about that information

Percentages: /100 – consider ratios in terms of a common standard

Loss of information: loss of important contextualizing information
that was carried in
the absolute #s we started out with

Linear Projection: assumption that a rate observed over some

specific duration must
extend into unobserved territory as well – either past or future

Percentile: numerically rank values by how they compare to other

values

Ordinal #s: 1st, 2nd, 3rd

Cardinal #s: 1, 2, 3

Chapter 6 – Probability & Statistics

Unrepresentative sample: no matter how careful out reasoning
about the sample, it will
be misleading with respect to the population
Selection bias: informal polling
Trimmed sample: sample range/time period that isn’t a conventional
round # is a red flag
Standard deviation: measure of spread in the sample data
Correlation: 2 phenomena/variables that move together, they co-vary
in predictable
ways across different circumstances
p-value: denote how probable it is that you would get a sample that
far from the null
hypothesis if the null were true
Confounds: alternative explanations for the observed data
Common cause: X and Y may be correlated because they are both
caused by Z, and not
because X causes Y or vice versa
Statistical significance: measure of the confidence we are entitled
to have in our
probabilistic conclusion & how precise a conclusion we are trying to
draw
Confidence interval
= range of values within which we can be statistically confident that
the true value falls
Margin of error
= half that range, expressed relative to the midpoint of the confidence
interval
Errors in Judging Whether a Correlation or Condition Exists
-No correlation -Genuine
correlation
-Don’t reject null -Correct -Type II
error
-Reject null -Type I error -Correct

Errors in Rejecting Null Hypothesis

TYPE I error: false positives – if you go to the doctors and you are
healthy, but he
decides you are sick
TYPE II error: false negatives – if you go to the doctor and you are
sick, but the doctor
says you are healthy

Two Basic Laws of Probability

1. 0≤ P(e)≤1: probability of any event has a value from 0 to 1
2.Where S is the set of all possible outcomes, P(S) = 1

P(e) = 1 – P(e): probability of e occurs is 1 minus the probability that

it does not occur
Probability = # of relevant outcomes/Total # of possible
outcomes

P(AuB) = P(A) + P(B) – P(A&B):

Probability that either A or B occurs in the probability that A occurs
plus the
probability that B occurs, minus the probability that both A and B
occurs
P(AuB) = P(A) + P(B):
Outcome (AuB) occurs just in case either one of A and B occurs

P(AuBuC) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) – P(A&B) – P(B&C) – P(A&C) +

P(A&B&C)
1. Independent events: P(A&B) = P(A) x P(B)
2. Dependent events: P(A&B) =P(A|B) x P(B)

Chances that an event will occur given another event occurs:

P(B|A) = P(A&B) + P(A)
P(A|B) = P(A&B) + P(B)
Dependent conjoint probability:
P(A&B) = P(A|B) x P(B)
P(A&B) = P(B|A) x P(A)
Chapter 7: Biases Within Reason
Heuristics: problem-solving methods that trade some accuracy for
simplicity & speed
& are usually reliable for a limited range of situations
Repetition effect: tendency of people to judge claims they hear more
often as likelier to
be true
Argument Ad Baculum: Believe that P or suffer the consequences
Bias: disposition to reach a particular kind of endpoint in reasoning or
judgment, being
skewed toward a specific sort of interpretation
Perceptual Biases: senses can mislead us in certain circumstances
-Largely result of basic structure or our perceptual &
neurological mechanisms
Inattentional blindness: when you concentrate on one task, it is
possible for grossly
irregular events to occur right in front of them and not to be noticed
Cognitive Biases: beliefs, desires, suspicions, fears, anticipations,
recollections,
optimism and pessimism influence our decisions
Confirmation bias: beliefs, expectations or emotional commitments
regarding a
hypothesis can lead to its seeming more highly confirmed than
evidence warrants
Situational or structural bias: affect availability of evidence for or
against a
hypothesis
Attentional bias: affect the degree to which we examine and
remember evidence even
if it is available
Interpretive bias: affect the significance we assign to evidence that
we do examine and
remember
Self-fulfilling prophecies: predictions that come true not simply
because the predictor
foresees how events will unfold, but because the prediction itself has
an effect on how
things unfold
Egocentric Biases: tendency to read special significance into the
events that involve us
and into our roles in those events
Attribution theory: approach to studying how people ascribe
psychological states and
explain behavior, including their own
Self-serving bias: I would rather think of myself as talented but lazy,
or modestly gifted
but hard-working
Hindsight bias: error of supposing that past events were predictable
and should have
been foreseen as the consequences of the actions that caused them

Language & Communication Biases

Continued influence effect: the way that information continues to
influence our
judgments even after we know enough to conclude that it was actually
misinfo
Framing effects: influences from a situation on how we think about it
Memory Biases:
Flashbulb memories: memories of traumatic or famous events

Chapter 8: The More We Get Together

Social stereotype: cluster of associated characteristics attributed to
people of a
particular sort – can activate automatic assumption that the whole
cluster of
characteristics applies to that person

Fundamental Attribution Error: bias in favor of explaining

someone’s situation or
behavior in terms of their personality or character while overlooking
context, accidents or
environmental influence

False Polarization Effects: tendency to overestimate: the extent to

which the views of
other resemble the strongest or most stereotypical positions of those
sorts AND the
differences between one’s own view and the views of someone who
disagrees
-As soon as a speaker voices one idea that is of one stereotype or
extreme, the
audience takes her to hold that stereotypical view on every aspect of
the issue

Bandwagon Effect: tendency for our beliefs to shift toward the

beliefs we take to be
widely held by those around us

False Consensus Effect: tendency to overestimate the extent to

which others share our
beliefs and attitudes

Anecdotal evidence: the unmoderated story-telling sort of evidence

that informal
socializing largely provides

Leveling: process by which the elements of a story that are perceives

as minor tend to
get minimized or omitted over successive retellings

Sharpening: occurs when some aspects of a story become

exaggerated as story’s retold

Chapter 9: Critical Reasoning About Science: Cases and

 Lessons
The Function of Science
▪ We have seen reasons to expect problems with: deductive reasoning,
inductive reasoning, data selection, testimony, media, our own perceptions,
our own memories, our own interpretations of data.
▪ How can we get around this?
▪ What is needed is a context of inquiry in which the prospect for
momentary individual error is factored out by a requirement of
repeatability.
▪ The prospect of individual systematic bias is constrained by a
requirement of replicability by any competent practitioner.
▪ The silencing result of false consensus effects and social pressures
against questioning assertions are explicitly set aside:
1 - There are explicit conventions that favour noting confounds
and questioning outcomes.
▪ The prospect of systematic group biases is constrained by the openness of
the practice to anyone who can attain competence in it. (NB: this supports
at least one feminist critique of science as traditionally constituted.)
▪ In short, this is what science is all about: it is a set of practices valuable for
their effectiveness in minimizing the effects of any one specific error or
bias.
▪ There is no tidy description or recipe that explains all of these practices.
Many are domain-specific or vary in importance from discipline to
discipline.
Characteristics of Science

Verifiability is a hallmark of science. In the simplest terms, science

differs from non-scientific areas of human activity because in science
Verifiability
we actually check to see if our claims are true.
?
But giving a precise definition of what is verifiable is at least difficult,
and likely impossible.

Karl Popper famously argued that the defining feature of science is that
it is falsifiable. That is, science differs from pseudo-science in making
Falsifiability
clear predictions. If the prediction does not come out true, we reject the
?
theory. Unfortunately, even good science does not conform to Popper's
strict views on falsifiability.

The Unfortunately, there is not a single unifying strand to the vast group of
Scientific subjects that we call science that we can identify as the scientific
Method? method.
 Starting
The idea that you start with the data and see which theory fits it best is
Only With
at best a guideline rather than a definition of science.
the Data?
How, Then, to Define Science?
▪ Better: A set of discipline-specific methods that bear a broad family
resemblance, plus an appropriate sort of attitude.
▪ Richard Feynman, physicist, graduation speech at Cal-Tech.

▪ "Cargo-cult” science: The idea that by mimicking some of the appearances

of scientific practice, one would thereby be doing science.
"[T]here is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult
science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school - we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that
you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting,
therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific
integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter
honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an
experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it
invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could
possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've
eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked-to make sure
the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
Richard Feynman, physicist, graduation speech at Cal-Tech
Some Hallmarks of Pseudo-science
▪ Pseudo-science frequently requires positing a conspiracy theory about
mainstream science.
▪ Sometimes there are systematic problems with some domain of science:
e.g. corporate-sponsored pharmaceutical R&D.
▪ But such arguments must be informed and made carefully, and can rarely
implicate some sort of global cover-up by scientists.
▪ Critical thinking about science: its practice, publication and popular
representations.
▪ The following are examples of allegedly scientific confirmation of
(more or less) supernatural phenomena. Each of these was
published, or much discussed, and defended/accepted by many
people—including some highly educated people.
Chapter 10: The Mainstream Media
Demarcation problem: problem of finding a definition that
distinguishes science from
non science

Methodological naturalism: rejection of appeal to supernatural

entities or processes in
explanations

Metaphysical naturalism: no supernatural entities

Verifiability: feature that distinguishes science from non science

Falsifiability: requirement that there be specifiable

observations/outcomes under which
a theory would be judged false

Auxiliary hypotheses: assumption and theories external to the

theory being tested,
which help connect to the empirical observation

Control group: test group is compared to, to distinguish test-relevant

effects from other
effects – nothing done to them

Test group: group being tested

Pair-matching: dividing subjects into 2 groups whose members are

matched with
respect to properties that we suspect could make a difference to the
outcome

Placebo effect: people who believe are receiving treatment feel

better or recover

Single-blind: subjects cant know if they are actually being treated

Experimental bias: beliefs, attitudes or emotions influence data

recorder and
conclusions drawn