Welcome to PHI 1003 Introduction to Philosophywith Jason Ludington, PhD

(psychology)

Texts

• Philosophy DeMYSTiFieD (required textbook)• The Elements of Moral Philosophy (not

required; for class discussion only)

Introduction to Philosophy

• The syllabus• Assignments– Argumentative Essay– Group Debate (approx _ students / group)

Chapter 1

An Overview of Western Philosophy

What’s philosophy?

• Philos = love, Sophy = wisdom– Endeavoring to gain new understanding

• Our text covers Western philosophy only; I’ll cover Eastern philosophy briefly at the end of the course– Western: focus is on earthly and spiritual knowing– Eastern: focus on earthly and spiritual rewards

What’s philosophy?

• Arp & Watson: “The systematic study of objective reality using good reasoning in order to clarify strange and obscure questions, solve problems that humans find significant, and enrich human work and play (p.4).”

• A terrific definition

The invention of philosophy

• Thales: the first philosopher? 585 BCE– “All things, at one time or another, came from water”

• Prior to Thales’ philosophical account of the world, all other recorded accounts were practical or religious– Practical wisdom: gives useful answers (but no one knows

why it works)– Religious wisdom: gives answers based on truth (but can’t

be challenge)– Philosophical wisdom: asks and answers questions based on

ideas which can be challenged, like science

Then what differentiates philosophy from science?

– Philosophy uses a more limited tool set: reason, language, and experience to tackle problems that are too broad for science to be able to handle.• Science must defines variables to study them, but philosophy can

pose several possible definitions and conclude generally from them

• Science must measure variables to study them, but philosophy can measure value and validity with verbal descriptions and thought experiments alone. This allows philosophers to study things scientists never can: Meaning of life? Moral rightness?

• But the BIGGEST value of philosophy is that it provides thinkers with tools to encourage doubting, teaching us to think for ourselves, and to question our assumptions

Which came first: Science or philosophy?

• Until recently, scientists were called philosophers

• Sir Francis Bacon published his philosophy in 1620, proposing the scientific method

• Physics, biology, and psychology all grew out of philosophy

• PhD: “philosophy doctor”• But before philosophy: medicine, law, politics

Philosophy in its place

• Philosophy is not everything; it is only concerned with thinking and knowing, not with feeling

• It thus does not perfectly correspond to the human experience because we are thinking and feeling creatures– Who is more likely to enjoy philosophy?• Those who use thinking to evaluate things in life• Those who prefer to evaluate issues with feelings

From our text

“Our beliefs are stymied in our commonsense perceptions of the world, engraved by the ‘truths’ that our culture and our education instill in us. Philosophy helps us break through the conceptual fog to see these ideas for what they are, whether useful fairy tales or a genuine glimpse of reality.” (p.18)

Chapter 2

Thinking Critically About Reality

In this chapter you’ll learn:

• The rules of thought• How to tear down an opponent’s arguments• But first, the vocabulary

The claim

• It’s the most fundamental concept in philosophy

• Something supposed true for the sake of reasoning about it

• Examples:– True claim: yellow is a primary color– False claim: yellow is a shape– Not a claim: don’t use yellow on that painting

Operators

• Allow expressing relationships among claims• Use of an operator makes a claim complex – And Sally loves daisies and tulips– Or Sally loves daisies or tulips– Not Sally does not love daisies– If … then If Rob loves daisies, Sally loves Rob.– If and only if Sally loves Rob if and only if he

loves daisies.

What’s the difference between “if…then” and “if and only if”?

• If…(then) allows for alternate possible causes. E.g., If I get a 5 minute head-start, I will win a 1 km running competition. – But I could also win if I am the best runner, or if all other

competitors somehow died in the competition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olT8v8yMUEU

• If and only if does not allow for alternate possible causes. If and only if I get a 5 minute head-start, I will win. This means if I get a 4 minute, or even a 6 minute head start, I will certainly lose, according to the claim. This claim is very much like a rule or dictionary definition.

Arguments

• Near synonyms: reasoning, rational thought• An argument is a set of claims wherein at least

one claim is intended to support the truth of another claim

1. let’s say oysters are round2. round things roll3. so oysters roll

Claim

Claim

Claim

argument

“Logical” arguments

• A logical argument may be true or false• An argument is logical whenever it obeys the

rules of logic– Cats & dogs are animals; thus my pet is an animal– Cats OR dogs are animals; cats are animals

therefore dogs are not animals– If it is raining, our sidewalks are wet. Our

sidewalks are wet. So, it is raining. Logical: Y/N

Validity

• In logic, a logical argument is a valid argument (it follows the rules of logic). Logical = valid, even if you don’t agree with the conclusion.

• E.g., aliens are mammals, mammals are warm-blooded, therefore aliens are warm-blooded

• Is this argument true? Y/N• Is it valid? Y/N• If you were taking a course in Logic, we wouldn’t

care about truth. But this is Philosophy. We care.

Out of logic, into inference

• Deduction: conclusion follows with 100% certainty when supporting claims are true. Focus is on validity or invalidity of argument s.

• Induction: conclusions follow with high or low certainty. If conclusion follows with high certainty, the argument is strong, and if conclusion follows with low certainty, argument is weak– Arguments may be weak due to false premises or

invalid structure.

In the real world, induction rules• In the real world, claims are rarely certain, and we care

about what is more than what should be (using argument validity). It’s more adaptive to reason inductively rather than deductively– E.g., I probably cooked the pork long enough to kill all the

bacteria. Getting sick from pork is usually caused by bacteria from insufficient cooking. Therefore it’s probably safe to eat.

– Good advice, good-looking argument; “invalid” because its conclusion does not follow from its claims 100% of time. You may not have cooked it long enough; the pork might contain another poison.

– But inductive reasoning is crucial to survival.

Evidence

• This is a tricky word, used differently here than in the real world

• The premises of an argument are evidence for the conclusion

Claim 1: Whales are blueClaim 2: The humpback whale is

gray_______Claim 3: The humpback whale is not a

whale

evidence

Argument strategies

1. Modus ponens2. Modus tollens3. Dysjunctive syllogism4. Enumerative induction5. Argument from analogy6. Inductive generalization

Deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning

Argument strategies

1. Modus ponens If A, then B; A, therefore B2. Modus tollens If A, then B; -B, therefore -A3. Dysjunctive syllogism A or B. -A, therefore B4. Enumerative induction A, A, __ most likely A5. Argument from analogy A : Looks like A, so it is6. Inductive generalization: A, A, A, A. 50% of

the population of As must be straight-edged

Checkpoint

1. I am silly2. Monkeys are silly3. Therefore I am a monkey

Which row(s) contain claim(s)?Is this argument strong, medium, or weak?Is this argument valid or invalid?Which (inferential) argument strategy is being used?

The thought experiment

Thought experiments can be used to support or undermine the plausibility of a claim / theory.

The counterexample is used to undermine the plausibility of a claim by constructing similar arguments to come to a different conclusion. There are two types:1. technique of variant cases counterexample2. bare differences counterexample

Technique of variant cases

Show that a conclusion does not follow when making claims on a variant case

Original argument / claim: “STEALING IS EVIL”

Counterexample 1 Counterexample 2Mice steal food Stealing may save lifeMice are not evil Saving life is goodSo stealing is not evilStealing may be good

The bare differences argument

Show that changing the original argument slightly leads to doubts about the original argument

Original argument / claim: “STEALING IS EVIL”

CounterexampleIf stolen items are returned, it’s not evilStolen items might be returnedStealing might not be evil

Inference to best conclusion

• When two or more conflicting claims suggest the same conclusion, which claim is right?

• Measure each claim’s theoretical virtue– Add points for:

• Simplicity: simpler claims are better• Scope: the more a claim explains, the better• Fedundity: the more research it stimulates, the better

– Subtract points for:• Conservatism: how many other beliefs must be sacrificed

to preserve this argument

Fallacies

• Appeal to the people• Appeal to vanity• Appeal to inappropriate authority• Appeal to the person• Straw man• Circular reasoning

Reading Assignment

• Required: p.42-47• Recommended (esp. unclear matter): ch.1 & 2

• Class website:

philosophyram.wordpress.com