Unit 1: Introductory
This argument is [valid/invalid]:
P1. If there will be a football game this weekend, you will ace your midterm.
P2. You will ace your midterm.
C. Therefore, there will be a football game this weekend.
What is invalid?
The one of the following which is NOT a sentence in TFL:
1. P ∧ (¬Q ∨ ¬(P ⊃ R))
2. ψ ∨ ¬φ
3. P ≡ P
4. ¬¬N
5. A
What is #2: ψ ∨ ¬φ?
According to JTB theory, S knows that P if and only if these conditions are fulfilled
What are: S believes that P; S is justified in their belief that P; and P is true?
These are the two rules for a probability function
What are: 1. No numerical values less than 0 and no greater than 1; 2. All add up to 1?
The definition of validity
What is: An argument is valid just in case it is impossible for the premises to be true without the conclusion also being true?
These are the premises and that is the conclusion of the following argument:
"It's not a good day because Tinky-Winky and Dipsy said so, and if Tinky-Winky and Dipsy say it's not a good day then Laa-Laa and Po think it's not a good day, and if Laa-Laa and Po think it's not a good day then it's not."
What are the premises [Tinky-Winky and Dipsy said it's not a good day; if Tinky-Winky and Dipsy say it's not a good day then Laa-Laa and Po think it's not a good day; if Laa-Laa and Po think it's not a good day then it's not] and the conclusion [It's not a good day]?
The main operator of this sentence: ¬¬P ⊃ (P ≡ P)
What is ⊃ (conditional)?
This is a process for escaping an echo chamber in which an individual suspends judgment about trustworthiness
What is a socio-epistemic reboot?
Supposing that the contents of my pockets are {🍪, 🍪, 🍪, 🎲, 🎃, 🎃, 🐷, 🦓, 🐭, 🎱}, this is the probability that I will pull something round out of my pocket
What is 6/10?
What is: any set of sentences in which one of the sentences is the conclusion and the rest are premises offered in support of the conclusion?
This argument is [valid/invalid + sound/unsound] + [counterexample if applicable]:
P1. It's raining outside if and only if there's a volcanic eruption from Mt St Helen's.
P2. There's a volcanic eruption from Mt St Helen's.
C. Therefore, it's raining outside.
The one of these sentences which is NOT a subformula in the constructional history of ¬¬P ⊃ (P ≡ P):
1. P
2. ¬P
3. ¬¬P
4. P ≡ P
5. ¬¬P ⊃ (P ≡ P)
What is #5: ¬¬P ⊃ (P ≡ P)?
According to contextualism, S knows that P if and only if this condition is fulfilled
What is: S’s evidence rules out every possibility in which ¬P except for those that are properly ignored?
Supposing that the contents of my pockets are {🍪, 🍪, 🍪, 🎲, 🎃, 🎃, 🐷, 🦓, 🐭, 🎱}, this is the probability that I will pull something round AND edible out of my pocket
What is 5/10?
Definition of a subformula
What is: any sentence that occurs in the constructional history prior to the final step?
The following is an example of...
"In order for x to be a sandwich, it must be edible and have some type of encasing. If x is a veggie burger, it is a sandwich."
What are necessary and sufficient conditions?
The one of these that is a tautology, the one that is a contradiction, and the one that is a contingency:
1. C ∧ ¬C
2. A ∨ B
3. P ∨ ¬P
What is: #3 (P ∨ ¬P) is a tautology, #1 (C ∧ ¬C) is a contradiction, and #2 (A ∨ B) is a contingency?
This is the difference between an epistemic bubble and an echochamber
What is: an epistemic bubble is a type of epistemic community in which members of the community do not hear information from outside of the community, while an echochamber is when members of the community actively distrust information from outside of the community?
Supposing that the contents of my pockets are {🍪, 🍪, 🍪, 🎲, 🎃, 🎃, 🐷, 🦓, 🐭, 🎱}, this is the probability that I will pull something not round AND not edible out of my pocket
What is 4/10?
Definition of a probability function
What is: a mapping from every sentence of a language to a value in the real valued unit interval?
The following is an example of...
"x is a case of knowledge just in case: S believes that x, x is true, S is justified in believing that x, and S is not relying on any false premises."
What is conceptual analysis?
Fill in the blanks:
- A set of sentences is ____ just in case it is possible for all members of the set to be true;
- Two sentences are ____ just in case they must have the same truth value;
- A set of sentences Γ ____ a sentence φ just in case it could not possibly be the case that every member of Γ is true and φ is false
What is jointly satisfiable; logical equivalence; entailment?
This is one of the Gettier cases (in detail) and what it's meant to show
What is [Fake Barns, Smith and Jones, Sheep Disguise, Broken Clock] and it's a counterexample to the joint sufficiency of the conditions in the JTB Theory of Knowledge?
The final probabilities for each of these sentences:
P | Q | Pr(wi) || ¬P | P ∨ Q | P ∧ Q | P ⊃ Q | P ≡ Q |
T | T | 0.6 || -- | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
T | F | 0.3 || -- | ? | -- | -- | ? |
F | T | 0.0 || 0 | ? | -- | ? | ? |
F | F | 0.1 || 0.1 | -- | ? | ? | 0.1 |
What are: Pr(¬P)=0.1, Pr(P ∨ Q)=0.9, Pr(P ∧ Q)=0.6, Pr(P ⊃ Q)=0.7, and Pr(P ≡ Q)=0.7?
Definition of a counterexample to conceptual analysis
What is: a description of a situation showing either that (at least) one of the conditions is not necessary or that the conditions are not jointly sufficient?