Subject content: Philosophical terminology — AQA A-Level Philosophy

In AQA A-level Philosophy, terminology must be used precisely. An assertion or claim is something put forward as true or false — a statement with truth-evaluable content, such as 'the table is brown'. A proposition is the content that such a statement expresses, considered apart from the particular sentence or speaker: 'snow is white' and 'la neige est blanche' can express the same proposition. The distinction matters because arguments are assessed in terms of propositions (what is claimed) rather than the words used. A question or command is not normally an assertion because it does not claim anything true or false. When answering, identify whether the item claims something truth-evaluable, then separate the proposition from its wording.

In conditional reasoning, a conditional has the form 'if P then Q'. The antecedent is the 'if' clause (P); the consequent is the clause that follows (Q). For example, in 'if it is raining, then the ground is wet', 'it is raining' is the antecedent and 'the ground is wet' is the consequent. Recognising these parts is essential for assessing valid and invalid inferences: affirming the antecedent (P, therefore Q) is valid, whereas affirming the consequent (Q, therefore P) is invalid. Denying the consequent (not Q, therefore not P) is valid, but denying the antecedent (not P, therefore not Q) is invalid. Precise identification of antecedent and consequent underpins evaluating arguments.

The analytic/synthetic distinction classifies how a proposition's truth relates to its meaning. An analytic proposition is true (or false) in virtue of the meanings of its terms alone, so denying it produces a contradiction: 'all bachelors are unmarried' is analytic because 'bachelor' means unmarried man. A synthetic proposition's truth depends on how the world actually is, adding information beyond the concepts: 'all bachelors are unhappy' is synthetic because it could be true or false depending on facts about bachelors. The distinction is about the source of truth, not about how we come to know it, so keep it separate from a priori/a posteriori. A useful test: ask whether the predicate is already contained in the subject concept. If yes, analytic; if the predicate adds independent content requiring worldly verification, synthetic.

The a priori/a posteriori distinction classifies how a proposition is known or justified. A priori knowledge is independent of experience: it can be justified by reason alone, as with '2 + 2 = 4' or 'all bachelors are unmarried', where no observation is needed to see the truth. A posteriori knowledge depends on experience: 'the cat is on the mat' or 'water boils at 100 °C at sea level' can only be justified by observation or empirical evidence. The distinction concerns justification, not the origin of the concepts, so a proposition can involve empirical concepts yet be known a priori if its justification does not rest on experience. Keep this separate from analytic/synthetic, which concerns the basis of truth rather than how it is known. A useful test: ask whether any observation could overturn or is required to establish the claim.

A necessary truth cannot be false: its denial is self-contradictory, as when we say a bachelor is an unmarried man, or that 7 + 5 = 12. A contingent truth happens to be so but could have been otherwise: 'the kettle is boiling' is contingent because the kettle might have been cold. The distinction concerns modality, not how certain we feel. Test a claim by asking whether a coherent scenario exists in which it fails. If none exists, it is necessary; if one exists, it is contingent. Note that necessity comes in kinds (logical, mathematical, conceptual) and that some philosophers dispute whether any non-trivial necessity is mind-independent. In multiple choice, eliminate options that confuse necessity with certainty, with universal agreement, or with being merely well supported by evidence.

A set of propositions is consistent when they can all be true together: there is at least one possible situation in which every member is true. A set is inconsistent when they cannot all be true together, because at least one must be false if the others are true, as with 'all swans are white' and 'this swan is black'. Consistency is a property of a whole set, not of a single proposition, and it does not require the members actually to be true: two false claims can be perfectly consistent. Nor does consistency require the propositions to support one another; they may be unrelated yet compatible. Test a set by asking whether a coherent description exists in which all members hold. Distinguish this from validity, which concerns whether a conclusion follows from premises, and from truth, which concerns actual fact.

This terminology row asks you to distinguish objective from subjective claims and to use both terms precisely. An objective claim purports to be true or false independently of what anyone thinks or feels: 'water boils at 100 °C at sea level' is offered as a mind-independent fact. A subjective claim depends on a subject's experience, attitude or perspective: 'this soup is too salty for me' reports how it seems or feels to someone. The distinction is about the kind of claim being made, not about how confident the speaker is. A claim can be objective in form yet false, and a subjective report can be sincere and accurate as a report. In multiple-choice questions, test each option by asking whether its truth would change if everyone's attitudes changed. If yes, it is subjective; if the claim purports to hold regardless, it is objective.

This terminology row requires you to recognise and explain a tautology. A tautology is a statement that is true solely in virtue of its logical form or the meanings of its terms, so it cannot be false: 'either it is raining or it is not raining' is true whatever the weather, and 'all bachelors are unmarried' is true by the meaning of 'bachelor'. The negation of a tautology is a contradiction, which cannot be true. Do not confuse a tautology with a merely obvious truth, a repeated word, or a claim that happens to be true. 'Triangles have three sides' is true by meaning; 'grass is green' is not a tautology because we can coherently imagine it false. In multiple-choice questions, test an option by asking whether any possible situation could make it false. If none could, it is tautological; if some could, it is not.

A dilemma is a situation in which an agent faces two (or more) options, each of which carries an unwelcome consequence, so that no choice is cost-free. In philosophy the term is used both for practical dilemmas in ethics and for argumentative dilemmas, where an opponent is offered two alternatives and either leads to a conclusion they must accept. To handle the term, identify the options, state the cost attached to each, and check whether the dilemma is genuine: are the options exhaustive, and are the consequences really unavoidable? A classic illustration is the moral dilemma of whether to break a promise to help someone in urgent need, where keeping the promise and breaking it each carry a moral cost. Distinguish a dilemma from a mere difficulty (one unwelcome option) and from a paradox (an apparently self-contradictory result).

A paradox is a statement or set of statements that, from apparently acceptable premises and apparently valid reasoning, yields a conclusion that seems absurd or self-contradictory. The philosophical interest lies in diagnosing where the trouble arises: an ambiguous term, a false premise, an invalid step, or a genuine tension in our concepts. To handle the term, state the premises, the reasoning and the surprising conclusion, then ask which element should be revised. A classic illustration is the liar-style sentence that says of itself that it is false: if true it seems false, and if false it seems true. Distinguish a paradox from a dilemma (competing costs of choice) and from a plain contradiction (two claims that cannot both be true).

In AQA A-level Philosophy, 'prove' and 'proof' name the relation between premises and a conclusion in deductive argument. A proof succeeds when the premises entail the conclusion: if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. This is validity, and a sound proof also needs true premises. Learners should distinguish proof from mere support: inductive evidence makes a conclusion probable but does not prove it, and a persuasive rhetoric or majority opinion proves nothing. Practise by taking a short argument, identifying its premises and conclusion, then asking whether any situation makes the premises true and the conclusion false. If none does, the argument is valid and the conclusion is proved relative to those premises. Note that proof is always relative to premises, never absolute, and that a valid argument with a false premise proves nothing about the world.

In AQA A-level Philosophy, 'true' and 'false' are truth values attributed to propositions, that is, to claims that can be assessed as correct or incorrect. A proposition is true when it corresponds to how things are, on the correspondence view, though rival theories such as coherence and pragmatist accounts are also studied and debated. Crucially, truth is distinct from belief: a proposition can be true even if nobody believes it, and widely believed claims can be false. Truth also differs from validity, which concerns the form of an argument rather than the truth of its parts, and from justification, which concerns the reasons someone has for holding a claim. When a multiple-choice item asks whether a statement is true or false, identify precisely what is being claimed, then test it against the relevant definition or argument rather than against your intuitions about the topic.

Justification is the part of an argument that supplies the reason for accepting a claim. In AQA A-level Philosophy you must separate three things: the conclusion (what is being claimed), the premise or premises (the reasons offered) and the justification (the support those premises give to the conclusion). A conclusion on its own is assertion, not argument. Justification asks: what makes this claim acceptable? Support may be deductive, where the premises are meant to guarantee the conclusion, or inductive, where they make it probable. A useful method is to ask of any passage, 'What is claimed, and what is offered in its favour?' If nothing is offered, there is no justification. Distinguish justifying a belief from explaining its cause: a psychological explanation of why someone holds a view does not by itself show the view is true.