ISS 305 final- exam 1
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- implications that jurors are too quick to believe any eyewitness
- 1- investigators and jurors may trust eyewitness testimony too much 2- officials seeking a conviction may taint eyewitness testimony 3- both intential and unintentional mistakes may lead to false convictions (75% of eyewitness only testimony cases have been overturned by DNA evidence
- skeptic
- a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual -maintain a doubtful attitude toward values, plans, statements or other characters
- negativity effect
- good and bad qualities dont cancel out evenly- little negative information goes a long way -bad information about a person has a stronger impression
- assertion
- an attempt to state what is the case Ex) the sky is blue
- argument
- basic unit of reasoning in which an assertion is derived from another - need more than one (assertion and claim about the assertion) Ex) my name is Baby lamb and here is my birth certificate -a statement describing the world along with evidence to back it up
- illustartion of an argument
- what is the conclusion of the argument? what's the evidence? how good is the evidence?
- deductive argument
- the conclsuion is specific the evidence (premises) are general ex) all men are mortal-> bob is a man-> therefore bob is mortal -can be valid or invalid
- what science is NOT
- -mathematical and statistical techniques -use of elaborate lab equitment -large and useful bodies of knowledge -findings which agree with our common sense -findings which disagree with our common sense/strong held beliefs
- controlled/systematic observations
- -knowing observations can be affected more by their expectations than reality (ex- classifying smart kids in class, get treated better so they end up having better test scores) -knowing when humans know they are being observed they might change their natural behavior (Hawthorne effect) -knowing observations can be altered by chance, coincidence (ex- flipping coin and getting 5 heads on a row; assuming coin must not be a fair coin)
- most people do not engage in presenting this kind of evidence to defend their belief or claim
- conclusive evidence -people tend to simply provide supportive illustrations -ex) does it increase salaries to go to private college? Freds Answer: people i know that graduated from Harvard are rich, so yes.
- reasons an argument can fail
- -based on false or faulty premises/evidence -premises are irrelevant to the conclusion -there's not enough evidence
- publicness
- -science assumes that if something occurs once, it will occur again if the conditions are the same -science only trusts and relys on observations which are replicable or repeatable -science disregards observations only 1 person has ad (ex- alien abduction; unique personal experience)
- what counts as evidence in a scientific argument
- -observation -how well replicable it is -how logical the argument is
- skills of making and evaluating an argument
- -to recognize alternative possibilities -to require relevant evidence on those possibilities -to evaluate and weigh that evidence
- valid deductive argument
- ones which allow you to conclude that the conclusion is true IF the premises are true -if deductive argument is valid and the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true
- affirming the antecedent
- -valid deductive argument - If P then Q; P therefore Q -ex)if you smoke you'll eventually get lung cancer; John smokes therefore he'll get lung cancer -because the form is valid/logical, as long as the premises are true the specific conclusion MUST be true
- Denying the consequent
- -valid deductive argument - If P then Q; not Q therefore not P -if you ever smoke, you'll get lung cancer; John never got lung cancer, therefore John didn't smoke -in valid logical form
- affirming the consequent
- -INvalid deductive argument -if P then Q; q therefore P ex) if you ever smoke you'll get lung cancer; John got lung cancer therefore John smoked
- inductive arguments
- the evidence (premises) are specific while the conclusions are more general ex) i've never seen an adult man without a beard, therefore all adult men have beards -intended to provide probable support for their conclusions
- thoughtful heuristics
- -aka central/systematic -look for all relevant evidence -evaluate all evidence carefully -weigh evidence to reach conclusions -be real skeptic (habitually doubt, question, suspend judgement) -keep asking new questions
- quick & dirty heuristics
- settle for whatever evidence is handy decide quickly and never reconsider -use simple rules/shortcuts to evaluate evidence and decide
- empirical statements
- -convey information about the world which we come to know through experience of our own senses -only use physical senses (smell, taste, etc) -should tell what sense experiences we should have if the statement is true -same meaning about experience for everyone who wants to check it
- falsifying empirical statements
- -should tell us what sense experiences we should have if the statement is false -unless there are some observations which could show that the statement is false, it is not an empirical statement
- what empirical statements are not
- -vague that one can't tell which observations are required to verify/falsify -use weasel words -ex) an unborn fetus is a human life- definition of human life is not the same for everyone