CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Tools for Evaluating Cyberethics Issues Ad Hominem Argument Slippery Slope Argument Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Arguments and Fallacies
Advertisements

Formal Criteria for Evaluating Arguments
Last week Change minds; influence people Premises Conclusion
Types of Arguments Inductive Argument: An argument in which the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the conclusion is probably true. Strong.
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
Text Table of Contents #5 and #8: Evaluating the Argument.
Understanding Logical Fallacies
Reason & Argument Lecture 3. Lecture Synopsis 1. Recap: validity, soundness & counter- examples, induction. 2. Arguing for a should conclusion. 3. Complications.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 More Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking
Deductive Validity Truth preserving: The conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the.
Moral Reasoning   What is moral reasoning? Moral reasoning is ordinary critical reasoning or critical thinking applied to moral arguments.
Other Info on Making Arguments
Intro to Logic: the tools of the trade You need to be able to: Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people’s claims). Organize arguments.
CSCI102 Introduction to Computing 1B
Logical Arguments an argument can be defined as a: form of reasoning that attempts to establish the truth of one claim (called a conclusion) based on the.
1 Arguments in Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Moral Reasoning   What is moral reasoning? Moral reasoning is ordinary critical reasoning or critical thinking applied to moral arguments.
Basic Argumentation.
Causality, Reasoning in Research, and Why Science is Hard
2.5 Verifying Arguments Write arguments symbolically. Determine when arguments are valid or invalid. Recognize form of standard arguments. Recognize common.
Conditional Statements CS 2312, Discrete Structures II Poorvi L. Vora, GW.
Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
FALSE PREMISE.
The Inverse Error Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13.
Fallacy Argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves on examination not be so. A fallacy is an error in reasoning.
Reasoning and Critical Thinking Validity and Soundness 1.
Argument Diagramming Part II PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 1, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University.
2.8 Methods of Proof PHIL 012 1/26/2001.
Critical Thinking. Critical thinkers use reasons to back up their claims. What is a claim? ◦ A claim is a statement that is either true or false. It must.
Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.
INFORMAL FALLACIES The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize and resist fallacious arguments.
Thinking Mathematically Arguments and Truth Tables.
The construction of a formal argument
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 3.4, Slide 1 3 Logic The Study of What’s True or False or Somewhere in Between 3.
INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS Ethics. Introduction to Ethics What is Ethics  Morality & Ethics  Moral Philosophy/Ethics  Some Classic Moral Problems  Some.
Effective Persuasion Avoiding Logical Fallacies. Avoid Logical Fallacies These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your.
Arguments Analysis and Criticism Week 8. Learning Objectives Benefits Of Arguments Analysis An Approach For Analysis Understanding Fallacies.
Unit 1- Critical Thinking Critical Thinking –Argument Three Characteristics of Argument Crtitical Thinking Skills for Identifying Fallacies –Ad Hominem.
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
Paulina Cabrera, Celina Palafox, Daniela Gomez, Cynthia Avalos.
Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed If spotted one can essentially render an entire line of reasoning invalid.
Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 12. Our Learning  Fallacy Reminder  Summary following Homework NAB  Class NAB.
Analyzing Arguments Section 1.5. Valid arguments An argument consists of two parts: the hypotheses (premises) and the conclusion. An argument is valid.
What is an Argument? What does Monty Python have to say? A philosophical argument is not a disagreement. … is not a dispute. … is not a quarrel. … is not.
UOP CRT 205 Week 7 Assignment Argument Evaluation Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
Chapter 7: Induction.
Types of Arguments Inductive Argument: An argument in which the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the conclusion is probably true. Strong.
Logical Arguments an argument can be defined as a:
FALSE PREMISE.
Understanding Fallacy
Understand and construct logical arguments
Inductive / Deductive reasoning
A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24
Evaluating truth tables
How do we evaluate an argument for effectiveness?
Validity and Soundness
Logic, Philosophical Tools Quiz Review…20 minutes 10/31
Logical Fallacy Study Guide
Making Sense of Arguments
Fallacies.
Validity & Invalidity Valid arguments guarantee true conclusions but only when all of their premises are true Invalid arguments do not guarantee true conclusions.
PROOF SURROGATE Jessica.
Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
How to Think Logically.
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Tools for Evaluating Cyberethics Issues Ad Hominem Argument Slippery Slope Argument Fallacy of Appeal to Authority False Cause Fallacy Begging the Question Fallacy of Composition/Fallacy of Division Fallacy of Ambiguity Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) The Many/Any Fallacy The Virtuality Fallacy

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Constructing an Argument in Ordinary Language (Prose) We must build a national missile defense system (NMD) because without such a system we are vulnerable to nuclear attacks from rogue nations that might arise in the future. Additionally, several engineers and computer scientists have testified that they can design a computer-guided missile defense system that is effective, safe and reliable. Furthermore, it is our obligation as Americans to take whatever measures we can to protect the safety of our citizens.

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Converting to Standard Form Premise 1. Without the new National Missile Defense System, the US is vulnerable to nuclear attacks in the future from "rogue nations. Premise 2. Computer scientists and engineers have testified that they can design a computer-guided missile defense system that is both safe and reliable. Premise 3. The US must do whatever is necessary to preserve the military defense of the nation and the safety of its citizens. ____________________________________________________ Conclusion. Therefore, the US should build the new National Missile Defense System.

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Figure 3-1 Arguments ValidInvalid The assumed truth of the premises is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Premises (even when true) do not guarantee the conclusion.

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 NMD Argument Reconstructed Premise 1. Without the new National Missile Defense System, the US is vulnerable to nuclear attacks in the future from "rogue nations. Premise 2. Computer scientists and engineers have testified before Congress that they can design a computer-guided missile defense system that is both safe and reliable. Premise 3. The US must do whatever is necessary to preserve the military defense of the nation and the safety of its citizens. Premise 4. The national missile defense system is necessary to preserve the defense and safety of the US and its citizens. ____________________________________________________ Conclusion. Therefore, the US should build the new National Missile Defense System.

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Figure 3-2 Valid Arguments Sound Unsound All the premises are true.At least one premise is false.

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Figure 3-3 Invalid Arguments InductiveFallacious Conclusion likely follows from assuming the truth of the premises. Conclusion does not likely follow from assuming the truth of the premises.

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Figure 3-4 Comprehensive View of Arguments Arguments ValidInvalid UnsoundSoundInductiveFallacious Strong ArgumentsWeak Arguments

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Seven-step Strategy for Evaluating Arguments: I Step 1. Convert the argument into standard form. (List the premises first, followed by the conclusion.) Step 2. Test the argument for its reasoning strength to see whether it is valid or invalid. (Assume the premises to be true, and ask yourself whether the conclusion must also be true when those premises are assumed true. Is a counterexample to the argument possible?) Step 3. Is the argument valid? If yes, go to Step 4. If no, go to Step 5. Step 4. Is the (valid) argument also sound? That is, are the premises true in the actual world? 4a. If the argument is valid and if all of the premises are true in the actual world, then the argument is also sound. (To determine truth-values for statements, see Appendix E.) 4b. If the argument is valid, but one or more premises can be shown to be either false or not capable of being verified in the actual world, then argument is unsound. ( Part 1: Steps 1-4)

CSSE442 Computer Security – March 12, 2007 Seven-Step Strategy For Evaluating Arguments: II Step 5. Is the (invalid) argument inductive or fallacious? (How likely will the conclusion be true when the premises are assumed true?) 5a. If the conclusion would likely be true because the premises are assumed true, the argument is inductive. 5b. If the conclusion would not likely be true even when the premises are assumed true, the argument is fallacious. (Keep in mind that a fallacious argument can be made up of Individual claims that are themselves true in the actual world.) Step 6. Determine whether the premises in your argument are either true or false. Step 7: Make an overall assessment of the argument. That is, describe the argument's strength of reasoning in conjunction with the truth conditions of the argument's premises. For example, is the argument inductive with all true premises? Is it inductive with some false premises? Is it fallacious with a mixture of true and false premises, and so forth? Remember that an inductive argument with premises that are all true is stronger than a valid argument with one or more false premises.) (Part II: See Steps 1-4 on previous slide)