Analytic Philosophy 8/26/15

Analytic philosophy1. Linguistic claritya. Avoid fallacies especially equivocation

i. Example:
1. I always take out cash when I go to the bank.
2. I always go for a swim when I got to the bank.
3. I sometimes takeout cash when I go for a swim.
b. Use words to indicate conclusions
i. Therefore, hence, so, thus, ergo, since
c. Use words to indicate premises
i. Since, because, given that, from that
2. Argumenta. A set of sentences including a set of premises offered in support of a
conclusion
3. Analytic Rigor

Analytic Method:
1. Start using a vexing question:
a. What makes me/you the same person as yesterday?
2. Solicit possible answers or views:
a. Name
b. Foundational opinion
c. Ethnicity
d. Genetic makeup
e. Memory
f. Soul
3. Motivate each view as best you can
a. Name hasnt changed
b. Dont usually change
c. Ethnicity doesnt change
d. Responsible for my appearance and body
e. I remember yesterday
f. I am the only one that bears an essentials relationship to my soul, it
is my essence
4. Offer critical arguments and counter arguments to figure out the best view
a. People change their names, but dont change who they are
i. So, same name does not mean same person
b. Epiphanies/revelations
i. (Siddhartha and Constantine) A revelations a person has can
change their foundational beliefs
ii. You cant change your foundational beliefs and be the same
person
c. Lots of different people have the same ethnicity
i. So ethnicity doesnt make a person the same person
ii. Nobody has the exact same ethnic background

d. Mutations can change genes

e. People with amnesia are still the same person
i. Memory doesnt make a person the same from day to day. So
genes dont make a person the same person
f. No good reason to posit souls
i. If souls are real what make todays souls the same as
yesterdays soul becomes the same question as the original
question, so the soul view makes no progress
5. Offer counter arguments to the critical arguments (examples in previous
step)
6. Repeat 4 and 5 until an definitive answer is found or until we have enough
evidence to support ones argument or view
Evaluating Arguments:
1. Inductivea. The conclusion is made likely by the premises/ if the premises are true
the conclusion is probably true
i. Example:
1. The sun has risen every day for 1000 years
2. The sun will rise tomorrow.
ii. Induction (evaluation)
1. Asses truth of premises
2. Gauge the individual strength of the inference
3. A good inductive argument is a strong inference with true
premises
4. Inductive strength:
a. Is weakened when you can imagine a scenario in
which the premises (as well as other available
background info) are all true, and the conclusion is
probably false.
2. Deductivea. If the premises are true the conclusion must be true/ conclusion is
necessitated by the premises
b. 2 Dimensions of Evaluation
i. Validity: an argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises
to be true and for the conclusion to be false
1. Example:
a. All men are mortal
b. Socrates is a man
c. Socrates is mortal
2. Example 2:
a. Chickens are birds
b. Birds evolved from dinosaurs
c. Chickens evolved from dinosaurs
ii. To challenge validity, you give a counterexample (a conceivable
circumstance in which the premises remain true, but the
conclusion is false)
1. Example:
a. All bird have wings

b. Everything that flies has wings

c. All birds fly
d. Counterexample: Chickens, penguins, emus,
ostriches
2. Example 2:
a. If jack is outside, he is playing soccer
b. Jack is playing soccer
c. Jack is outdoors
d. Counterexample: indoor soccer
iii. Soundness: an argument is sound if it is valid and the premises
must in fact true (however it doesnt matter if they are known)
iv. Question: is a good argument a sound one or just valid? Sound
Science
1. Observation of (a puzzling) phenomenon
2. Form hypothesis that explain this phenomenon
3. Test hypothesis with prediction and experimentation
a. Record observations
4. Repeat the tests
5. Reject or refine hypothesis
6. Repeat 2-5 until consensus is reduced