Contents
How does an argument differ from an explanation?
An argument is a rationale in which the reason presents evidence in support of a claim made in the conclusion. Its purpose is to provide a basis for believing the conclusion to be true. An explanation is a rationale in which the reason presents a cause of some fact represented by the conclusion.
What makes something justified?
Very generally, justification is the right standing of an action, person, or attitude with respect to some standard of evaluation. For example, a person’s actions might be justified under the law, or a person might be justified before God.
Do all justified beliefs count as propositional knowledge?
A proposition is basically just a claim abuot the world. It can be justified or unjustified; true or false; believed or not believed. For a proposition to count as knowledge, many think that it must be justified true belief.
What is justified reasoning?
Justification logic is a theory of reasoning that enables the tracking of evidence for statements and therefore provides a logical framework for the reliability of assertions.
What is the similarity between explanation and argument?
In a similar vein, building something and taking it apart are two very different activities, but we typically use the same tools for both. Arguments and explanations both have a single sentence as their primary focus. In an argument, we call that sentence the “conclusion”, it’s what’s being argued for.
Are argument and claim the same explain?
Argumentation is a social process of two or more people making arguments, responding to one another–not simply restating the same claims and reasons–and modifying or defending their positions accordingly. Claims are statements about what is true or good or about what should be done or believed.
Is Justified True Belief knowledge explanation?
The analysis is generally called the justified-true-belief form of analysis of knowledge (or, for short, JTB). For instance, your knowing that you are a person would be your believing (as you do) that you are one, along with this belief’s being true (as it is) and its resting (as it does) upon much good evidence.
Is Justified True Belief knowledge summary?
According to Adrian Haddock, knowledge is justified true belief where the justification condition is factive (one cannot justifiably believe that p when p is false) and requires moreover that the fact that provides justification is known by the subject.
Is justification necessary for knowledge?
In other words, we might say, justification, truth, and belief are all necessary for knowledge, but they are not jointly sufficient for knowledge; there is a fourth condition – namely, that no false beliefs be essentially involved in the reasoning that led to the belief – which is also necessary.
What is the difference between an argument and an explanation quizlet?
What is the difference between an argument and an explanation? An argument claims to show THAT something is true, while an explanation aims to show WHY a statement is true.
What does it mean to dispute an argument on the basis of the reasoning?
Disputing an argument on the basis of reasoning simply means to provide facts in order to support our claim.
What is an explanatory argument?
Structure an explanatory argument, when it would be loyal to do so, as follows: the first premise states that if the explanation is correct, then a specified outcome of it will be observable; the second premise states that the outcome has been observed; and the conclusion states that the explanation is thus correct.
Does an explanation have reasons?
An explanation is a rationale in which the conclusion represents an accepted fact and the reason represents a cause of that fact. Its purpose is to help us understand how or why that fact occurs.
Is the argument valid Why or why not?
Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Invalid: an argument that is not valid.
Do all valid arguments have true conclusions?
All valid arguments have all true premises and true conclusions. All sound arguments are valid arguments. If an argument is valid, then it must have at least one true premise.
Can a valid argument have a false conclusion explain?
TRUE: A valid argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion. So if a valid argument does have a false conclusion, it cannot have all true premises. Thus at least one premise must be false.
How do you determine if an argument is valid or invalid?
An argument is valid means that its form is valid. If there is a critical row in which the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid.
What makes an argument valid?
An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well.
When an argument is valid and its premises are true the argument is called?
A sound argument is both valid and has all true premises. Since a sound argument is valid, it is such that if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Since a sound argument also has all true premises, it follows that a sound argument must have a true conclusion. 8. TRUE.
What makes an argument valid and sound?
A valid argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion. On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to have true premises and a true conclusion: Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true.
Can an argument be invalid and sound?
If a deductive argument is valid, then we go ahead and check the factual claim, because only then is it possible that the argument might be sound. An invalid argument is always unsound. An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are all actually true.
Is the argument generally logically acceptable?
In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well.
Related posts:
Is Judith Butler a continental philosopher?
Is it beneficial for you to think in a logically consistent 1 manner?
Is Spinoza really a determinist?
Can the tendency toward social construction of mental illness be decoupled from responsibility?
Epicurus’s claim that the mind is in the heart?
Did Marx ever consider that some work alienation is inevitable for the greater good of society?
Does the principle of sufficient reason imply mechanistic determinism?
Contradiction vs Impossiblity?
What are the benefits of virtue ethics compared to deontology?
What views of government were based on Kantian ethics?