Jan 22
What is a philosophical question?
● The philosophical method
○ Philosophers attempt to state their views cleary and precisely and they give
explicit arguments for their claims
○ In a 1948 debate b/w frederick coppleston and bertrand russell, they agree about
how to understand god and the various positioons one can take on the existence
of god
○ While we rely on experts, etc to lane about the world, since one of the goals of
philosophy is to scruntinize received wisdoms it defeats the point of the exercise
to assume that the existing authorities have figured it out alr
○ The federalists papers example: in philosophy, appeeals to authorities or experts
wont cut it (if we want to know how governments should be structured)
● Philosophy and science
○ Since it hasnt kept up with the sciences, including physics, stephen hawking and
leonard mlodinow claim that philosophy is dead
○ But there are many philosophical questions that are currently unaddressed in the
scientific literature
○ Moreover which science describes, predicts, and explains aspects of reality, it
doesnt address normative question
● Why bother
○ We all have to think about how to live and forced to think about normative
questions
○ In pluralistic societies we live with people whose worldviews differ greatly from
our own
○ Even if you arent able to reach your own conclusions…philosophy shows you
something important about the limitations of your knowledge..and helps achieve
a deeper understanding of other peoples views
What are arguments, and how should we evaluate them?
● Due to widespread disagreement, appeals to personal feelings or to authorities or
traditions are inadequate for answering philosophical questions, rather phils give argos
for pos
● Arguments consists of statements or sentences that can be true or false
○ A premise is a statement put forth as a reason or evidence for some conclusion
○ A conclusion is what the claimed to be proven or rationally justified by the
premises
● Example of an agruement for the conclusion that if youre eligible to vite its morally wrong
for you not to do so
○ The quality of government in a country correlates positively with voter turnout the
greater the voter turnout, the better the government. Therefore low voter turnout..
● Premises and conclusions
○ Regimenting arguments
■ Fido didnt come in through the cat flap, its tiny and fido is a large dog
■ P1: the cat flap is tiny
, ■ P1: fido is aa large dog
■ C: fido didnt come in though the cat flap
○ Often enough someone will include extraneous comments or asides that are not
part of the argument, these should be eliminated with regimenting it
○ The following expressions are often used to indicate the conclusion: therefore,
hence, consequently, thus, so , must, etc
○ Other expressions indicate that a statement is a premise: since, because, as,
given that, it is assumed that, etc
● Evaluating arguments
○ Are the premises true
○ Does the conclusion follow the premises
○ Even if it is true tha diet soda drinkers are more likely to be obese than people
who do not drink diet soda, that doesnt show that diet sods causes obesity
○ Dont confuse the question is this a good argument with the question do you
agree with this writers conclusions
Jan 24
What are arguments and how should we evaluate them? cont.
● Deductive validity
○ An arguement is deductively valid when the truth of its premise are sufficient to
show that the conclusion is true
○ If the premises are true, this guarantees the truth of the conclusion
○ An argument is sound when its valid and all of its premises are true
● Induction and abduction
○ Enumeratice induction- in an inductive argument, you start by identifying some
pattern in cases that have been studied; you suggest on this basis that the
pattern will extend to toher cases as well
○ Inductive arguments are deductively invalid but can be strong and convincing
when observed sample mentioned in the premises is sufficiently large and varied
○ Abductive arguments involve an inference ti the best explanation: one puts
forward an explanation for some observations and if that exclamation is adequate
and better than any available alternative, tentatively concludes it is true
■ P1: there is a used bowl, an open crate of milk, and an open box of cereal
on the kitchen table
■ C: my roommate overslept
○ Scientific example: newton started with a collection of observations: observations
of the motions of cannon balls, the planets, the moon, the tides, and so on. He
found that he could explain all of these observations using his theory of
gravitiaion. Since this was better than any other explanation available at the time,
the theory was accepted
○ Abductive argument
■ P1: the front door is ajar
■ P2: some of your valuables are missing
■ P3: your drawers have been opened, and their contents strewn about
■ P4: one of your windows has been broken
, ■ C: you have been robbed
● Multistep arguments
○ If it was the taxi driver who murdered the drummer, there would have been blood
on the seats of the taxi. Buit there was no blood in the taxi. It was either the taxi
driver or the roadie who mudered the drummer. Since it cant have been the taxi
driver, it mustve been the roadie
■ P1: if it was the taxi driver who murdered the drummer, there wouldve
been blood on the seats of the taxi
■ P2: There was no blood in the taxi
■ C1: the taxi driver didnt murder the drummer (from 1&2)
■ P3: it was either the taxi driver or the roadie who murdered the drummer
■ C2: the roadie murdered the drummer (from c1&p3)
Jan 26
What are arguments and how do we evaluate them? Cont.
● Multistep arguments cont
○ The quality of government in a country correlates positively with voter turnout: the
greater the voter turnout, the better the government. Therefore, low voter turnout
causes bad government. So if you’re eligible, and fail to vote, you make the
government worse. What’s more, democracy can only persist if enough people
vote; therefore, if you’re eligible to vote and don’t do so, you imperil democracy
itself. It follows that if you’re eligible to vote, it’s morally wrong for you not to do
so
■ Ex. see slides
● Evaluating multistep arguments
○ From ex. See slides
■ Re 1 - an undecided empirical issue
■ Re 2 - doesnt follow; correlation doesnt imply causation
■ Re 3- doesnt follow; consider an analogy, while the presence of more cars
on the road may cause more accidents, each additional driver doesnt
cause more accidents
■ Re 4- probably true but what counts as enough
■ Re 5- doesnt follow but what if i know that enough others will vote
■ Re 6 - might follow but what if you have something more morally
important to do
○ More evaluating argument ex.
■ See slides
● Some arguments to evaluate
○ See slides
Does god exist
● Why do you think that
○ Thats just what i believe or i dont need a reason or i dont have to justify my
beliefs
● It would seem to be unreasonable for someone to maintain the belief that god exists
without having some reason for holding this belief