START NOTES Logic = shared standard of evaluation psychological tendency towards familiarity correlation does not mean causation

Philosophical Method: Get the best, evaluate as a group Shared standard of evaluation Logic: the study of arguments argument: try to prove something inference: conclusion based on evidence Fallacy: error in logic

Premise: All mammals nurse their young Premise: Horses are mammals Conclusion: Therefore horses nurse their young

1) Does the conclusion follow? 2) Are any of the premises true?

Arguments have evaluations, never true or false, only statements Bad arguments: implausible Conclusion cant be false when premises are true: called deductively valid validity is not enough! observation: at best a cogent inference

Does it follow?

Valid All True Some False Sound Implausible

Strong Cogent Implausible

Weak Implausible Implausible

Implausible: those premises dont prove the conclusion if you have failed to prove a conclusion it doesnt mean its false Look for a sounder proof Black-white fallacy:

You have to get really clear on arguments

Standards of evaluation Good arguments: sound- conclusive evidence, cogent- some evidence

Tacit premises: often false

Does the conclusion follow? Are the premises true?

Valid All True Some False Sound Implausible

Strong Cogent Implausible

Weak Implausible Implausible

1. was the discussion fair and balanced or did it market one position? 2. Did the discussion help identify one position that is more reasonable? 3. Was the discussion intellectually accessible to anyone? 4. Would the discussion change anyone's mind?