Similarly, information that is heard repeatedly is sometimes believed to be truth. Knowledge gained by tenacity is things that people consider to be the truth regardless of compelling evidence to the contrary (Jackson, 2009). Rational knowledge is gained when people use logical reasoning to arrive at truth (Jackson, 2009). Logically sound ideas are applied in a precise manner, but ideas that are logically sound are not necessarily accurate. Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms.
The second of Hume’s points is that the causal principle is doubtful. His evidence for this is that we can conceive of things without a cause therefore things without a cause are possible this is also backed up by Mackie who says that the causal principle has no evidence and only exists in a methodological sense. However this argument also has severe faults that discredit it. If the arguments from causality are questionable then that means that the arguments from conceivability are questionable as well. This could also mean that a logically necessary truth could be conceived as false if you don’t completely understand it.
The way to point out the difference between the two is through the conclusions. In a deductive argument the conclusion is already implied within the premises, and in an inductive argument the conclusion is not implied within the premises. Deductive arguments are judged on whether or not they are valid, meaning if the premises are considered true and the conclusion cannot be false, it is valid. If there is a possibility that the conclusion may be false but the premises still are true, then it is invalid. When a deductive argument is invalid, it is automatically considered unsound.
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
If you were using the cognitive approach you would only get qualitative data which could be a problem as not everyone interprets the same answer in the same way. This would be more objective. This would also mean it is not valid as you are measuring why you think
* Is the sample representative? Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
Dissoi Logoi contains opposing arguments that can be argued either way. Its relevance to Rhetoric is that it allows us as readers to see that no argument can be made both bad and good, just and unjust, seemly and shameless. In our own minds we know right versus wrong, but not everyone has the same vision of what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong to one can be right to another and vice versa which appeals to the logos aspect of rhetoric. These notion of contradiction within this writing are rhetoric.
The difference is that compliance is when someone conforms out loud with the views or behaviour but secretly disagrees. In this situation their personal views on the subject do not change. An example of compliance is not stating your own opinion on a subject, because the majority has stated a different opinion leading you to agree with them. Whereas in internalisation, a person is so persuaded by the argument that their opinions begin to change both publically and privately. People internalise the views of others when they are persuaded/convinced the arguments make sense.