Case Study Lesson 4: Making Claims And Defining Terms
PHIL 201
Study Guide Lesson 4: Making Claims and Defining Terms
Points:
A) The seven preliminary matters in preparing to philosophize –
1) Philosophizing involves four psychological traits that improve effective communication:
the courage to examine one’s cherished beliefs critically,
a willingness to advance tentative hypotheses and to take the first step in reacting to a philosophical claim, no matter how foolish that reaction might seem at the time,
a desire to place the search for truth above the satisfaction of apparently “winning” the debate or the frustration of “losing” it, and
an ability to separate one’s personality from the content of a discussion
2) Philosophizing is a skill that must be developed with …show more content…
practice
3) One does philosophy as well as studies it (habit of the mind)
4) To do philosophy, one does not just consult one’s personal opinion (personal attitudes can serve as stimulus, but never as a standard to choose between arguments and theories)
5) Productive philosophizing should not be confused with doing psychology – attempt to criticize a person’s philosophical belief by attributing it to a cause in that person’s past = genetic fallacy 6) Philosophy has two sides, one critical, the other constructive > there is no substitute for creative insight, but in philosophy such insight tends to emerge only after it has been nurtured by disciplined critical analysis (criticize a theory + improving on the theory) \
7) In evaluating philosophical claims, make some attempt to gauge the relative strength of your criticism > strong – theory is self-contradicting / weak – you must see more arguments before you are convinced *** seldom all-or-nothing proposition / let your arguments speak for themselves (understatement preferred rather than overstatement) B) The idea of philosophy as an intellectual passion – not merely the abstract application of a technique – to assume that logic will (or can) settle everything is to fall prey to what some philosophers have called the “illusion of technique.” Philosophy is not about winning points or arguments or being clever, although you will inevitably encounter some of this. *** It is caring about the truth and, as the word philosophy itself originally meant, “loving wisdom”
C) The different kinds of claims that can be made and their subpoints (the chart on pp. 55-56 summarize these well) – 1) Empirical – empirical knowledge involves a posteriori beliefs about what contingently happens to be the case; the beliefs are based upon experience > a) one type is determined by simple observation or by generalizing from observed data; b) a second type is determined by experimenting with hypotheses / 2) A Priori – a priori knowledge involves beliefs about what necessarily is or is not the case – they are not based upon experience and not falsifiable by experience > a) tautologies – their truth or falsity is determined purely by examining their logical form; b) definitions – here the meaning of a term is expressly stated; c) a third type includes claims whose truth or falsity is determined by the unstated meanings of the key terms (atheistic Baptist); d) a fourth, more controversial type involves statements whose truth or falsity appears not to depend on the meanings of the key terms (every event is caused) / Normative – prescribe what ought to be the case, not merely what is believed to be the case (general principles or particular judgments, or they may be part of an unstated interpretation buried in, say, an empirical context (not necessarily arbitrary or purely subjective – frequently defended with reasons)
D) Presenting paradigm and borderline examples as a means of clarifying meaning – paradigm examples play a strategic role in clarifying meaning (illustrate the essential meaning of concepts) – function as a point of departure for clarifying concepts (cite example, then identify essential characteristics) – serve both as starting points for a definition and as anchoring points that will hold it firm / borderline examples are used to clarify the limits of a concept’s applicability – they are often helpful when, although we understand the essential meaning of a concept, we are uncertain how far that meaning extends – borderline examples must sometimes be invented when no actual cases readily appear ***denotative definition gives examples
E) The different means to test reportive and reformative definitions – Reportive – there is a very simple technique for evaluating the correctness of reportive definitions – the method of counterexample – that there is no counterexample, however, does not prove that the thesis is an adequate definition > counterexamples work in two directions, and if the thesis is an adequate definition, then there must also be no counterexample to its converse – when there are counteraxamples, the definition is said to be too broad or too narrow or both ***based on empirical facts – reportive definitions must remain true to those facts / although reformative definitions can be arbitrary, they usually are not in philosophy (often conform partially to common meanings with which we are already familiar) – may be evaluated along empirical lines *the definition’s more provocative aspect, however, must be examined in light of the reasons that are advanced for it – bring to the surface meanings we had just never thought of before * competing definitions may be examined and rejected in the process (Plato)
Terms:
1) Metaphysics – above or beyond physics – investigates questions of reality and existence – what is beyond the real world that we see (why does it work, how did it get here) / Cosmological (origin and purpose of reality); Theological (existence of the supernatural – more than what we see); Anthropological (being human – what does it mean to be human); Ontological (nature or being of existence itself – what does it mean to exist)
2) Epistemology – knowledge and truth claims – can we know anything at all (skepticism), how do we know (how arrive), is certainty possible, can we trust our senses, can we know anything apart from our senses (rationalism) versus empiricism (all knowledge comes from our senses), how is knowledge justified (evidence needed), what is truth 3) Axiology – deals with what we consider as value or what we consider to be good 4) Aesthetics – (art) = artifact (anything humanly created) – how is art determined, is it all just your opinion, is there just one meaning or many 5) Ethics – is there a right and wrong, how do we determine the right, what part do consequences play 6) Intellectual Passion – not merely the abstract application of a technique – to assume that logic will (or can) settle everything is to fall prey to what some philosophers have called the “illusion of technique.” Philosophy is not about winning points or arguments or being clever, although you will inevitably encounter some of this. *** It is caring about the truth and, as the word philosophy itself originally meant, “loving wisdom”
7) Empirical Claims – if a thesis can be falsified by the facts of observation or experimentation, it is empirical = contingent = a posteriori = a statement whose truth or falsity is determined by experience > debate is one for simple common sense or science to resolve / Empirical – empirical knowledge involves a posteriori beliefs about what contingently happens to be the case; the beliefs are based upon experience > a) one type is determined by simple observation or by generalizing from observed data; b) a second type is determined by experimenting with hypotheses
8) Contingent – in a metaphysical or existential sense, something is contingent if it is subject to change (for instance, to birth and decay) or is dependent upon the existence of something else for its own existence > in logic, a proposition or sentence is contingent if it is not necessarily true or false; that is, its denial does not involve a contradiction (because its truth or falsity is determined by experience)
9) A Posteriori – something known based upon experience 10) A Priori – something known by reason, independent of experience 11) Tautology – any statement that is necessarily true by virtue of its truth-functional parts (tied together with and, or, and if-then) ; one that involves a fundamental law of logic > Example: it is either raining or it is not / tautologies are usually said to be empty of content, that is, to lack information. 12) Synthetic a priori – a fourth type of a priori claim expresses a necessary truth that does not appear to depend upon the meanings of key terms or upon a particular logical form > typically purports to give us substantive information about the world, not merely about how we have defined certain terms (every event has a cause) * to be sure, the necessary truth of these propositions assumes that we understand the meanings of the key terms (not self-contradictory)
13) Normative Claims – pertaining to a standard or rule for guiding behavior; a regulative principle may be found, for example, in ethics, religion, or politics > normative ethics is the study of fundamental moral standards such as embodied by hedonism, egoism, the golden rule, etc. > whenever one asks “what ought to be the case” as opposed to “what is the case” one is asking a normative question **recommending that a certain attitude or course of action be taken
14) Paradigm Example – paradigm examples play a strategic role in clarifying meaning (illustrate the essential meaning of concepts) – function as a point of departure for clarifying concepts (cite example, then identify essential characteristics) – serve both as starting points for a definition and as anchoring points that will hold it firm (Martin Luther King, Jr.
(civil rights), Albert Einstein (science), Christianity (religion)
15) Borderline Example – borderline examples are used to clarify the limits of a concept’s applicability – they are often helpful when, although we understand the essential meaning of a concept, we are uncertain how far that meaning extends – borderline examples must sometimes be invented when no actual cases readily appear
16) Denotative Definition – that meaning of a term or phrase which is derived from the things or kinds of things to which the term refers > example: philosopher – refers to (or denotes) the class of philosophers, which includes Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. This class is the denotation of the term
17) Connotative Definition – the meaning of a term or phrase, usually expressed as the properties something must have in order to belong to a certain class > example: being a closed, three-sided figure is part of the connotation of “triangle,” for something must possess these properties in order to be a
triangle 18) Reportive Definition – a reportive definition states the meaning (or meanings) or a concept as it is used in our language – it reports what is generally understood to be the meaning of the particular concept (dictionary entries)
19) Counterexample – a counterexample is a fact that allegedly falsifies a certain claim, in this case, a definitional claim
20) Reformative Definition – reformative definitions are intended to improve upon existing definitions, to be better explanations of the meaning of the concept in question – their advocates are less concerned with what others may understand than with the truth of the matter > I’m going to tell you what love really is – profound and interesting, yet troublesome proposals in philosophy * sometimes emphasize one established meaning in preference to others
Study Guide Lesson 4: Making Claims and Defining Terms
Points:
A) The seven preliminary matters in preparing to philosophize –
1) Philosophizing involves four psychological traits that improve effective communication:
the courage to examine one’s cherished beliefs critically,
a willingness to advance tentative hypotheses and to take the first step in reacting to a philosophical claim, no matter how foolish that reaction might seem at the time,
a desire to place the search for truth above the satisfaction of apparently “winning” the debate or the frustration of “losing” it, and
an ability to separate one’s personality from the content of a discussion
2) Philosophizing is a skill that must be developed with …show more content…
practice
3) One does philosophy as well as studies it (habit of the mind)
4) To do philosophy, one does not just consult one’s personal opinion (personal attitudes can serve as stimulus, but never as a standard to choose between arguments and theories)
5) Productive philosophizing should not be confused with doing psychology – attempt to criticize a person’s philosophical belief by attributing it to a cause in that person’s past = genetic fallacy 6) Philosophy has two sides, one critical, the other constructive > there is no substitute for creative insight, but in philosophy such insight tends to emerge only after it has been nurtured by disciplined critical analysis (criticize a theory + improving on the theory) \
7) In evaluating philosophical claims, make some attempt to gauge the relative strength of your criticism > strong – theory is self-contradicting / weak – you must see more arguments before you are convinced *** seldom all-or-nothing proposition / let your arguments speak for themselves (understatement preferred rather than overstatement) B) The idea of philosophy as an intellectual passion – not merely the abstract application of a technique – to assume that logic will (or can) settle everything is to fall prey to what some philosophers have called the “illusion of technique.” Philosophy is not about winning points or arguments or being clever, although you will inevitably encounter some of this. *** It is caring about the truth and, as the word philosophy itself originally meant, “loving wisdom”
C) The different kinds of claims that can be made and their subpoints (the chart on pp. 55-56 summarize these well) – 1) Empirical – empirical knowledge involves a posteriori beliefs about what contingently happens to be the case; the beliefs are based upon experience > a) one type is determined by simple observation or by generalizing from observed data; b) a second type is determined by experimenting with hypotheses / 2) A Priori – a priori knowledge involves beliefs about what necessarily is or is not the case – they are not based upon experience and not falsifiable by experience > a) tautologies – their truth or falsity is determined purely by examining their logical form; b) definitions – here the meaning of a term is expressly stated; c) a third type includes claims whose truth or falsity is determined by the unstated meanings of the key terms (atheistic Baptist); d) a fourth, more controversial type involves statements whose truth or falsity appears not to depend on the meanings of the key terms (every event is caused) / Normative – prescribe what ought to be the case, not merely what is believed to be the case (general principles or particular judgments, or they may be part of an unstated interpretation buried in, say, an empirical context (not necessarily arbitrary or purely subjective – frequently defended with reasons)
D) Presenting paradigm and borderline examples as a means of clarifying meaning – paradigm examples play a strategic role in clarifying meaning (illustrate the essential meaning of concepts) – function as a point of departure for clarifying concepts (cite example, then identify essential characteristics) – serve both as starting points for a definition and as anchoring points that will hold it firm / borderline examples are used to clarify the limits of a concept’s applicability – they are often helpful when, although we understand the essential meaning of a concept, we are uncertain how far that meaning extends – borderline examples must sometimes be invented when no actual cases readily appear ***denotative definition gives examples
E) The different means to test reportive and reformative definitions – Reportive – there is a very simple technique for evaluating the correctness of reportive definitions – the method of counterexample – that there is no counterexample, however, does not prove that the thesis is an adequate definition > counterexamples work in two directions, and if the thesis is an adequate definition, then there must also be no counterexample to its converse – when there are counteraxamples, the definition is said to be too broad or too narrow or both ***based on empirical facts – reportive definitions must remain true to those facts / although reformative definitions can be arbitrary, they usually are not in philosophy (often conform partially to common meanings with which we are already familiar) – may be evaluated along empirical lines *the definition’s more provocative aspect, however, must be examined in light of the reasons that are advanced for it – bring to the surface meanings we had just never thought of before * competing definitions may be examined and rejected in the process (Plato)
Terms:
1) Metaphysics – above or beyond physics – investigates questions of reality and existence – what is beyond the real world that we see (why does it work, how did it get here) / Cosmological (origin and purpose of reality); Theological (existence of the supernatural – more than what we see); Anthropological (being human – what does it mean to be human); Ontological (nature or being of existence itself – what does it mean to exist)
2) Epistemology – knowledge and truth claims – can we know anything at all (skepticism), how do we know (how arrive), is certainty possible, can we trust our senses, can we know anything apart from our senses (rationalism) versus empiricism (all knowledge comes from our senses), how is knowledge justified (evidence needed), what is truth 3) Axiology – deals with what we consider as value or what we consider to be good 4) Aesthetics – (art) = artifact (anything humanly created) – how is art determined, is it all just your opinion, is there just one meaning or many 5) Ethics – is there a right and wrong, how do we determine the right, what part do consequences play 6) Intellectual Passion – not merely the abstract application of a technique – to assume that logic will (or can) settle everything is to fall prey to what some philosophers have called the “illusion of technique.” Philosophy is not about winning points or arguments or being clever, although you will inevitably encounter some of this. *** It is caring about the truth and, as the word philosophy itself originally meant, “loving wisdom”
7) Empirical Claims – if a thesis can be falsified by the facts of observation or experimentation, it is empirical = contingent = a posteriori = a statement whose truth or falsity is determined by experience > debate is one for simple common sense or science to resolve / Empirical – empirical knowledge involves a posteriori beliefs about what contingently happens to be the case; the beliefs are based upon experience > a) one type is determined by simple observation or by generalizing from observed data; b) a second type is determined by experimenting with hypotheses
8) Contingent – in a metaphysical or existential sense, something is contingent if it is subject to change (for instance, to birth and decay) or is dependent upon the existence of something else for its own existence > in logic, a proposition or sentence is contingent if it is not necessarily true or false; that is, its denial does not involve a contradiction (because its truth or falsity is determined by experience)
9) A Posteriori – something known based upon experience 10) A Priori – something known by reason, independent of experience 11) Tautology – any statement that is necessarily true by virtue of its truth-functional parts (tied together with and, or, and if-then) ; one that involves a fundamental law of logic > Example: it is either raining or it is not / tautologies are usually said to be empty of content, that is, to lack information. 12) Synthetic a priori – a fourth type of a priori claim expresses a necessary truth that does not appear to depend upon the meanings of key terms or upon a particular logical form > typically purports to give us substantive information about the world, not merely about how we have defined certain terms (every event has a cause) * to be sure, the necessary truth of these propositions assumes that we understand the meanings of the key terms (not self-contradictory)
13) Normative Claims – pertaining to a standard or rule for guiding behavior; a regulative principle may be found, for example, in ethics, religion, or politics > normative ethics is the study of fundamental moral standards such as embodied by hedonism, egoism, the golden rule, etc. > whenever one asks “what ought to be the case” as opposed to “what is the case” one is asking a normative question **recommending that a certain attitude or course of action be taken
14) Paradigm Example – paradigm examples play a strategic role in clarifying meaning (illustrate the essential meaning of concepts) – function as a point of departure for clarifying concepts (cite example, then identify essential characteristics) – serve both as starting points for a definition and as anchoring points that will hold it firm (Martin Luther King, Jr.
(civil rights), Albert Einstein (science), Christianity (religion)
15) Borderline Example – borderline examples are used to clarify the limits of a concept’s applicability – they are often helpful when, although we understand the essential meaning of a concept, we are uncertain how far that meaning extends – borderline examples must sometimes be invented when no actual cases readily appear
16) Denotative Definition – that meaning of a term or phrase which is derived from the things or kinds of things to which the term refers > example: philosopher – refers to (or denotes) the class of philosophers, which includes Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. This class is the denotation of the term
17) Connotative Definition – the meaning of a term or phrase, usually expressed as the properties something must have in order to belong to a certain class > example: being a closed, three-sided figure is part of the connotation of “triangle,” for something must possess these properties in order to be a
triangle 18) Reportive Definition – a reportive definition states the meaning (or meanings) or a concept as it is used in our language – it reports what is generally understood to be the meaning of the particular concept (dictionary entries)
19) Counterexample – a counterexample is a fact that allegedly falsifies a certain claim, in this case, a definitional claim
20) Reformative Definition – reformative definitions are intended to improve upon existing definitions, to be better explanations of the meaning of the concept in question – their advocates are less concerned with what others may understand than with the truth of the matter > I’m going to tell you what love really is – profound and interesting, yet troublesome proposals in philosophy * sometimes emphasize one established meaning in preference to others