TOK - Emotion And reason

Emotion and reason 3 types of reason Deductive- reasoning that moves from general to particular All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore fido is a mammal. Inductive- reasoning that moves from particular to general Metal A expands when heated Metal B expands when heated Metal C expands when heated, therefore all metals expand when heated Informal- Post hoc ergo propter hoc ; after this, therefore on account of this When one event “A” is regularly followed by “B”, “A” must be the cause of “B” Problem, A may not necessarily influence B

Useful Reason Vocabulary Syllogism: 2 premises and a conclusion, 3 terms that are repeated, quantifiers like “all/some/no Truth: property of statements (either a statement is valid or invalid) – use Venn Diagram to validate Belief Bias: believing an argument is true because you agree with a conclusion Enthymeme: arguments with an incomplete premise (because an argument is true does not mean it is valid) Ad hominem fallacy: attacking or supporting a person rather than the argument Circular reasoning: assuming the truth of something you are supposed to be proving Special pleading: making an exception in your own case that you would not find acceptable if it came from someone else Equivocation: a word used in two different senses in an argument Argument Ad ignorantiam: claim something s true on grounds there is no evidence to disprove it False analogy: assuming that because two things are alike in some respects they are alike in all respects False dilemma: assuming that only two black and white alternatives exist Loaded questions: a question that is biased because it contains a built-in assumption Useful Reason Vocabulary

5. That can’t be right, none of my friends would believe it. In the 15 cases below, state which of the following best applies to the argument A) VALID B) Invalid Syllogism C) Hasty generalization D) Post Hoc ergo propter hoc E) Circular reasoning F) Ad Hominem fallacy G) Special Pleading H) Argument ad ignorantium I) False dilemma J) False analogy K) Equivocation L) Loaded question 1. Since strict gun control laws were introduced in Dodge City, the crime rate has risen. This shows that gun control does nothing to reduce crime. 2. Arisa said she trusted me, and she must be telling the truth because she wouldn’t lie to someone that she trusted. 3. The ends justify the means. After all, if you want to make omelets, you have to break eggs 4. Since the English always talk about the weather, if you meet someone who talks about the weather you can be sure they are from England 5. That can’t be right, none of my friends would believe it. 6. Since many great scientist have believed in God, there must be some truth in religion. 7. We got on very well on both of our dates together. We are clearly well suited. Let’s get MARRIED! 8. Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem? 9. I agree that everyone should pay their taxes. But since I'm short of money this year and want to take my family on a holiday, its OK if I don’t declare my full income. 10. The average US family has 2.5 children. The Smiths are average people. Therefore they must have 2.5 children 11. Since no one has been able to prove that we are alone in the universe, we must conclude that alien life forms exist 12. Are all your family stupid, or is it just you? 13. Many great artists were not recognized in their own lifetimes. Since my work has not been recognized, I must be a good artist. 14. Since there are 2 candidates for student president- Boris and Bertha-and I know he did not vote for Boris, He must have voted for Bertha 15. As no one succeeds without hard work, the fact that you failed your exams shows how idle you have been

How many of the 20 fallacies can you find? Thursday’s New York Times carried an op-ed on Syria by Vladimir Putin. Below we run what we imagine was the original draft before the Times’ editing: MOSCOW — Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and your leaders. After the president’s speech Tuesday night, let me say what you all know to be true: Barack, I own you. Or as we say in Russia, the wolf felt pity for the lamb, so he left the skin and bones. Mr. President, we have much in common. People fear what we might do. We each have a media eating out of our hands. We both hate George W. Bush. I also share with you the outrage at President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons on women and children. And I have made Russia’s displeasure clear to him. Bashar, I said, if you have to murder women and children, conventional arms like the ones I used at Grozny or the rescue at Beslan are just as deadly. Lord knows I have supplied Syria with more than enough weaponry. Now I have given you an out on Syria. And you know what? I’ve become the man of peace. Me, the KGB guy. I don’t know how many legions the pope has these days, but I’m pretty sure they’re on my side, too. I tried to tell you at the G-8 in June we Russians are not the crude caricatures you Americans think. We value negotiations, and we appreciate the UN. Indeed, we share with this great international body for peace and human rights the view that American military action is always an act of aggression. That, and blame the Jews. Our two nations can be grateful for the dialogue we saw Thursday in Geneva when John Kerry received his marching orders from my foreign minister. Now begins the protracted negotiations that will keep Assad in power while relieving you of having to do anything so long as there is ongoing diplomacy. Can anyone say, Reset? Once you commanded cheering masses and were awarded the Nobel Prize simply for being elected. Now re-runs of “Cheers” get better ratings than a prime-time presidential address, and the world sees you as the warmonger. Still, I will not abandon you. Join me in Oslo next year when I accept my own Nobel Peace Prize, and I will give you your full due for the flexibility you have shown in promoting my plan for Syria. Together we will make history. Do svidaniya. How many of the 20 fallacies can you find?

Laws of thought 1. The law of identity: if A, then A. If something is a banana, then it is a banana 2. the law of non-contradiction: nothing can be both A and not A Nothing can be both a banana and not a banana 3. The law of excluded middle: Everything is either A or not A Everything is either a banana or not a banana If something is a banana, then it must be a banana. Given that it’s a banana, then it cannot be a banana. If you put all the bananas in the universe on your left, and all non bananas on your right, there is nothing left in the middle hovering uncertainly between being a banana and not being a banana.