CHAPTER 10 More Empirical Schemes and the Reasons of Science – Good Reasoning Matters A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking test bank

---

 

Download  file with the answers

Not a member!
Create a FREE account here to get access and download this file with answers

---

CHAPTER 10
More Empirical Schemes and the Reasons of Science

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Strong arguments for a particular causal explanation follow the following scheme. Choose the best option to complete this scheme:
Premise 1: X causes Y.
Premise 2: ________.
Conclusion: This x caused this y.
a) This is the best explanation of the y in question
b) This is the only explanation of the y in question
c) This is the best explanation of the x in question
d) This is the only explanation of the x in question
e) None of the above

2. Particular causal reasoning attempts to establish the cause of some specific state of affairs. A good instance of particular causal reasoning shows that a certain event or state of affairs, y, is caused by x, by showing (1) that this is consistent with good causal principles; and (2) ________.

a) that this provides a convenient explanation of the state of affairs in question
b) that this provides the most plausible explanation of the state of affairs in question
c) that this provides an interesting explanation of the state of affairs in question
d) that this provides an entertaining explanation of the state of affairs in question
e) none of the above

3. Good arguments from ignorance follow the following scheme. Choose the best option to complete this scheme:
Premise 1: We have found no evidence to disprove (or prove) Proposition P.
Premise 2: ________.
Conclusion: Proposition P is improbable (or probable).

a) There has been a responsible attempt to garner evidence
b) There has been a little bit of an attempt to garner evidence
c) There was no attempt to garner evidence
d) Any relevant evidence was considered
e) None of the above

4. It is important to recognize that we can construct a strong argument from ignorance only ________.
a) after we have found the necessary evidence to prove or disprove the claim in question
b) after a careful search for evidence to disprove or prove the proposition that appears in our conclusion
c) when arguing about the presence of extraterrestrials, God, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Yeti
d) when the audience is ignorant of all facts on the matter
e) none of the above

5. Appeals to ignorance attempt to prove or disprove some claim x by appealing to the ________ of evidence for or against it.
a) lack
b) wealth
c) believability
d) ignorance
e) none of the above

6. A good appeal to ignorance claims that x is prob¬able (or improbable) after the failure of ________ attempt to find evidence for its improbability (or probability).
a) an enthusiastic
b) an ignorant
c) a responsible
d) a valiant
e) none of the above

7. Science is a key component of many of the arguments that play a key role in our debates, not only about the nature of the world, but also about ________.
a) public policy
b) the nature of knowledge
c) religious and metaphysical beliefs
d) moral and political issues that are predicated on assumptions about the way the world works
e) all of the above

8. What does it mean to say that we want a test¬able hypothesis?
a) We want a hypothesis that it will be practical to test in one way or another.
b) We want a hypothesis that we can include in final exams.
c) We want a hypothesis that will be able to provide us with tests.
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

9. Identify the antecedent of the following conditional statement:

If the wind doesn’t die down, we’ll have to play zone defence for the whole game.

a) The wind dies down
b) The wind doesn’t die down
c) We’ll have to play zone defence for the whole game
d) We won’t have to play zone defence for the whole game
e) None of the above
10. Identify the consequent of the following conditional statement:

Unless I fail the final exam, I will be happy with my mark in this class.

a) I fail the final exam
b) I don’t fail the final exam
c) I will be happy with my mark in this class
d) I won’t be happy with my mark in this class
e) None of the above

11. Which of the following sentences can best be described as a conditional?
a) The newspaper didn’t arrive on time today, so I won’t be able to bring it to work with me.
b) If we go to Costa Rica for the holidays, I will need to renew my passport.
c) I received a conditional acceptance into the Master’s program; I just need to pass all my courses this year.
d) I brought my umbrella, in case it rains.
e) None of the above

12. Having established a hypothesis, the next step in the scientific method is determining what observable consequences must follow if the hypothesis is correct. Such inferences use argument schemes founded on which of the following premises?
a) “If h is the case, then x would never occur.” Where h is the hypothesis and x is the observable consequence
b) “If h is not the case, then x would have to occur.” Where x is the hypothesis and h is the observable consequence
c) “If h is the case, then x would have to occur.” Where h is the hypothesis and x is the observable consequence
d) “If h is the case, then y would have to occur.” Where h is the hypothesis and x is the observable consideration
e) None of the above

13. In identify¬ing the consequences of a hypothesis we need to identify the ________ in the conditional in the previous question.
a) antecedent
b) consequent
c) antidote
d) consistent
e) none of the above

14. The following is the argument scheme affirming the consequent:
If h, then x.
x.
Therefore, h.

a) It is a deductively valid argument scheme.
b) It is an inductively valid argument scheme.
c) It is a strong argument scheme.
d) It is not a valid argument scheme.
e) None of the above

15. As a general procedure, the scientific method involves five steps for proposing and testing a hypothesis. Identify the step missing from the list, below.
1. Understanding the problem that requires a solution or explanation.
2. Formulating a hypothesis to address the problem.
3. Deducing consequences to follow if the hypothesis is correct.
4. ________.
5. Re-evaluating the hypothesis after testing.

a) Testing the consequences for the hypothesis.
b) Testing the hypothesis for those consequences.
c) Testing the problem for those consequences.
d) Formulating a solution to address the consequences of the problem.
e) None of the above

True or False Questions

1. A good argument against a particular causal explana¬tion must show that it is inconsistent with general causal claims (that the general claim X causes Y is not defensible) or that there is a better causal explanation for the event or circumstance in question.

2. Arguments from ignorance are arguments based on the claims of young children.

3. Arguments from ignorance take our inability to establish a proposition as evidence for its probability or, conversely, our inability to disprove it as evidence against it.

4. Arguments from ignorance have been traditionally regarded as fallacious, and as such there are no instances where they constitute good reasoning.

5. In essence, a good instance of the argument from ignorance scheme demonstrates a responsible attempt to garner evidence that confirms or disconfirms the claim in question.

6. The first premise in an argument from ignorance is usually the most disputable: if some¬one tells you they have found no evidence for a particular event or circumstance, this should probably be called into question.

7. Though we often talk as though all science is based on one approach to understanding, it encompasses many different methods and approaches.

8. Generalizations, polling, causal reasoning, particular causal arguments and appeals to ignorance, are, for example, all common modes of reasoning in the context of science.

9. The use of the scientific method begins with a problem or issue that arises from the examination of some data or phenomena.

10. Once we understand the problem or issue we want to investigate, the next step in the scientific method is the testing of a hypothesis.

11. Having established a hypothesis, the next step in the scientific method is determining what observable consequences must follow if the hypothesis is correct.

12. If a hypothesis is not testable in practice, it will not be testable in principle.

13. The confirmation of the implica¬tions of a hypothesis does not guarantee that it is correct.

14. The following argument scheme is one that is always valid:
If h, then x.
x.
Therefore, h.

15. The confirmation of the implications of a theory does not provide strong evidence for it even if there are no clear counter-hypotheses.

16. In looking at scientific reasoning and arguments about science, it is important to note that they are not limited to what is incorporated in the scientific method.

Short Answer Questions

1. How do we criticize a particular causal explanation?

2. What are some examples of areas where the use of arguments from ignorance might be prominent?

3. What do we need to show when we are arguing against an argument from ignorance?

4. What is the crux of arguments founded on the scientific method?

5. In the scientific method, what is the step that follows the identification of the implications of our proposed hypothesis?

6. What does it mean to say that “there is no ‘final’ step in the scientific method”?

 

Short Answer Questions

1. In showing that the general causal claim that a particular causal explanation depends on is problematic, we must typically appeal to the condi¬tions for good general causal reasoning and show that there is no strong argument for establishing the general claim in question. (p. 253)

2. Arguments from ignorance are prominent in legal proceedings, where an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in scientific reasoning, where hypotheses may be rejected if no confirming evidence is found. (p. 256)

3. When we are arguing against an argu¬ment from ignorance, we will normally need to show that the argument we are criticiz¬ing is not founded on a thorough enough investigation of the issue in question. (p. 256)

4. At the core of the scientific method one finds hypotheses. They are tentative—and sometimes imaginative and ingenious—solutions to a problem or explanations for some strange and unexpected phenomenon. They are designed to be verified or falsified by some subsequent observation or experiment. It is the testing of hypotheses which is the crux of the arguments founded on the scientific method. In the course of confirming and rejecting hypotheses, many different kinds of evidence may be employed. (pp. 259–60)

5. Once we have identified the implications of our proposed hypothesis, the next step in the scientific method is an attempt to devise and conduct tests to determine whether the consequences do follow. Ideally, the tests will be designed to confirm or refute the hypothesis with observable consequences. If a hypothesis is not testable in practice, it should at least be testable in principle. (p. 263)

6. In the scientific method, there is a perpetual consideration and re-evaluation of new hypotheses on the basis of previous and new evidence. This “forward progress” is one of the hallmarks of science that has made it a powerful tool in our attempts to understand the world. (p. 264)