Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics. It is commonly supposed that there is a vital difference between ancient ethics and modern morality. For example, there appears to be a vital difference between virtue ethics and the modern moralities of deontological ethics (Kantianism) and consequentialism (utilitarianism). At second glance, however, one acknowledges that both ethical approaches have more in common than their stereotypes may suggest. Oversimplification, fallacious interpretations, as well as a broad variation within a particular ethical theory make it in general harder to determine the real differences and similarities between ancient ethics and modern morality.
But why should we bother about ancient ethics at all? What is the utility of comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the particular approaches? Table of Contents 1. A. When people talk about ethical approaches in Antiquity, they refer to these approaches by using the words “ancient ethics” rather than “ancient morality”. B. Figure 1. I. Ii. Iii. C. I. Ii. Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion.
While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[1] The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.
In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). Description[edit] Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. An example of an inductive argument: For example: Criticism[edit] Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left.
In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning. Simple example[edit] An example of a deductive argument: All men are mortal.Socrates is a man.Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Law of detachment[edit] P → Q. Abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference[2] or retroduction[3]) is a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation".[4] The fields of law,[5] computer science, and artificial intelligence research[6] renewed interest in the subject of abduction.
Diagnostic expert systems frequently employ abduction. History[edit] The American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the term as "guessing".[7] Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation from an observed circumstance is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of course.[8] Thus, to abduce from involves determining that is sufficient, but not necessary, for allows deriving. Rationalism. Rationalism. Logically Speaking. Graham Priest interviewed by Richard Marshall. Graham Priest is one of the giants of philosophical logic. He has written many books about this, including Doubt Truth to be a Liar, Towards Non-Being: the Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality, Beyond the Limits of Thought, In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent and Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. He can be found in Melbourne and New York, and sometimes in St.
Andrews. 3:AM: You’re famous for denying that propositions have to be either true or false (and not both or neither) but before we get to that, can you start by saying how you became a philosopher? Graham Priest: Well, I was trained as a mathematician. 3:AM: Now, you’re interested in the very basis of how we think. GP: Well, first a clarification. 3:AM: So paraconsistent logic is a logic that tries to work out how we might formally understand treating some propositions as being both true and false at the same time.
So for ‘logic’. But more should be said. Logic and Neutrality. The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless. Here’s an idea many philosophers and logicians have about the function of logic in our cognitive life, our inquiries and debates. It isn’t a player. Rather, it’s an umpire, a neutral arbitrator between opposing theories, imposing some basic rules on all sides in a dispute. The picture is that logic has no substantive content, for otherwise the correctness of that content could itself be debated, which would impugn the neutrality of logic.
One way to develop this idea is by saying that logic supplies no information of its own, because the point of information is to rule out possibilities, whereas logic only rules out inconsistencies, which are not genuine possibilities. On this view, logic in itself is totally uninformative, although it may help us extract and handle non-logical information from other sources. Leif Parsons A different dispute in logic concerns “quantum logic.” ArgumentEssayRubric.pdf. ArgumentEssayRubric.pdf. Logos, Ethos and Pathos: 3 Ways to Appeal to an Audience in Essays. Identifying and Understanding the Fallacies Used in Advertising. ReadWriteThink couldn't publish all of this great content without literacy experts to write and review for us. If you've got lessons plans, videos, activities, or other ideas you'd like to contribute, we'd love to hear from you.
More Find the latest in professional publications, learn new techniques and strategies, and find out how you can connect with other literacy professionals. More Teacher Resources by Grade Your students can save their work with Student Interactives. More Home › Classroom Resources › Lesson Plans Lesson Plan. Fallacies. A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The list of fallacies contains 209 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people.
The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief. The list below includes some fallacies of these sorts, but most are fallacies that involve kinds of errors made while arguing informally in natural language. An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content.
The discussion that precedes the long alphabetical list of fallacies begins with an account of the ways in which the term "fallacy" is vague. 1. 2. Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies. Guide to Philosophy on the Internet (Suber) Welcome to my collection of online philosophy resources. If you are stuck in a frame, click here to escape. If you are a frequent visitor, press reload or refresh on occasion to be sure that you are viewing the most recent version of the page, not the version cached on your hard drive from your last visit.
I've marked recommended sites with a red star . Generally the starred sites are those I've found especially helpful for shortening the search for what one wants, as opposed to outstanding sites in themselves for which one ought to search. One day I may rate both. When the whole file loads, use the search command on your browser to find items by keyword.
To register to receive an email announcement whenever this page is revised, see the bottom of this file. If speed is a problem, try one of the mirror sites in Germany (München, single-file version) or Italy (Bari, single-file version), or Italy (Bari, multi-file version). About this guide. Philosophy - Education and Science. Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies. Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Popularity. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Fallacies. Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice.
If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Labossiere (ontologist@aol.com). Other sites that list and explain fallacies include: Constructing a Logical Argument Description of Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning.