This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

ISS 305 final- exam 1


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
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
an attempt to state what is the case Ex) the sky is blue
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
-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

Deck Info