Ethics of Belief & Propaganda
Since we "sign up" for the deception by these people for entertainment purposes, their work would not fall under "propaganda".
Who are magicians? (you may reference other entertainers, too)
Deductive arguments are arguments such that the premises have this relationship to the conclusion.
What is "the premises guarantee/necessarily lead to the conclusion"?
This is why all sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.
What is: We could have false premises in valid arguments, but sound arguments require ~both~ validity and true premises?
This view states that I have direct access to reality in perception, such that what I see in front of me is reality as it is.
What is direct realism?
If I have the proper form of a deductive argument, as well as true premises, I have this kind of argument.
What is a sound argument?
According to this thinker, it is wrong in all cases to act on beliefs that we are not justified in believing.
Who is Clifford?
In this type of argument, no matter how strong it is, it is still possible to have true premises and a false conclusion.
What is an inductive argument?
If somebody claims to prove something to me (i.e., deductive argument), and yet I know that the conclusion is false, what are the two possible ways in which the argument went wrong?
What is (1) the argument is not valid, or (2) at least one premise is false?
For something to count as knowledge, we tend to think it must meet these three conditions.
What is justification, truth, and belief.
Hallucinations, illusions, dreams, and perceptual relativity typically fall under this category and seriously challenge direct realism.
What is perceptual error?
In this approach, even though we don't know for sure whether or not God exists, considering the benefits of believing vs not believing leads us to see the value in believing in God.
What is Pascal's Wager?
This is a way that this argument could be improved: "I have offended a student in my Intro class. Therefore, all students are fragile "cupcakes" that need "safe places" whenever something controversial is said."
What is...[Some possibilities: more students are offended, I am more specific about what offended the student (and it fits my criticism), I change "all" to "some", I add something like "it might be the case that all...", etc.]
Here is a valid Modus Tollens form of argument using this conditional statement: "If I teach philosophy, I will get excited."
What is: "If I teach philosophy, I will get excited. I did not get excited on Sunday. Therefore, I did not get teach philosophy on Sunday."
If we are using psychological continuity for our personal identity, and giving memory as our major source of that continuity, these are some issues that come with this.
What is that memories mold in different ways each time we access them, can serve cognitive biases, lack reliability in general, can be influenced by third parties, etc.
"If this hypothesis is true, condition 'x' will follow. I have confirmed condition 'x.' Therefore, this hypothesis is true." This fallacious argument is easy to catch in quite a bit of pseudoscience.
What is Affirming the Consequent?
This is how you would defend both calling out deceptive means of persuasion and developing critical and logical thinking skills.
What is...(we never accepted it as a public, propaganda causes us to think and act in ways we wouldn't otherwise, the things we are deceived about are not very good for us in many cases, we prefer to be informed before making decisions and to make better decisions, we can be good models for the rest of the public...)
"I have seen three dogs in my lifetime, and they were all yappy. Therefore, all dogs are probably yappy." This is a way to try to improve my argument...
What is to meet or research on more dogs, and see if they too are yappy (this would confirm my generalization--not prove it!), compare types or sizes of dogs or describe the breeds I've seen (it may be that only some small breeds are yappy), or show one that isn't (which would actually refute it)?
These are the two major invalid forms of conditional arguments using this statement: "If I wake up before everybody else, I can get some work done early."
What is Denying the Antecedent: "If I wake up before everybody else, I can get some work done early. I did not wake up before everybody else. Therefore, I cannot get some work done early." and Affirming the Consequent: "If I wake up before everybody else, I can get some work done early. I got some work done early. Therefore I did wake up before everybody else." ?
This is the argument from illusion or hallucination used to make us skeptical about our link of perception to reality.
What is, "Illusions/hallucinations are intrinsically indistinguishable from an ordinary sense experience. Hence what is directly seen has the same merits in both illusory/hallucinatory experiences and sensory experiences. But what is directly seen in an illusion/hallucination is not the real thing; therefore what is seen in a normal sensory experience is not the real thing."
Give an example to show that true belief is not enough to count as knowledge.
answer varies
Here are two dangerous examples with which we act on unjustified beliefs regularly. (Hint: consider driving or measles)
Answers differ. (I think of being against vaccinations and texting while driving)
Here is something wrong with the argument in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki-ZzM8C2uA
many correct responses...
This is an example of a valid but unsound argument using a really bad movie.
examples differ...
Explain the difference between appearance and reality according to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
What is .....(reference to shadow-play world as appearance and outside of cave world as reality; also the enlightened slave being killed)
Use two fallacies to convince me to quit my job and go back to doing lawn maintenance for a living.
Responses differ..