INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE."

Transcription

1 INDUCTION John Stuart Mill wrote the first comprehensive study of inductive logic. Deduction had been studied extensively since ancient times, but induction had to wait until the 19 th century! The cartoon above illustrates Mill s dedication to using philosophy to improve the lives of people, but it leaves out one of Mill s most passionate causes full political equality for women! In an inductive argument, the relationship claimed to exist between the truth of the premises and the truth of the conclusion is probability, not certainty. Example: Most Greeks drink wine. Socrates is a Greek. Therefore, probably, Socrates drinks wine In this argument, the truth of the premises could make the truth of the conclusion likely, but not certain. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. This principle stipulates that well-established patterns observed in the past will persist in the present and future. Therefore, the past can be used to predict what will happen in the near and remote future. Without this assumption, it would be impossible to learn from experience, and therefore neither science nor common sense would be possible. The conclusion of an inductive argument should normally be modified by such words as probably, or it is likely. But sometimes we treat highly probable conclusions as if they were certain. For example, your conclusion that a speeding bus would kill you if you stepped in front of it, is based on patterns observed in the past, and therefore inductive. But would you normally feel compelled to treat it merely as a probable conclusion?

2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMISES & CONCLUSION The logical form of an inductive argument may help illustrate what the argument is trying to accomplish, but it will not show whether the premises and conclusion are properly connected. If the truth of the premises would succeed in making the truth of the conclusion probable in the manner claimed, the relationship is called STRONG (not valid. ). Remember, induction is an attempt to apply the idea of the Uniformity of Nature. Therefore, the common sense rule of induction is that we want as close a match as possible between the evidence we present in the premises, and what we predict in the conclusion. All other criteria for judging inductive arguments are an elaboration of this rule. Here is a summary of the differences between deductive validity and inductive strength. DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY Relationship of certainty All or nothing Logical form is crucial Content is irrelevant INDUCTIVE STRENGTH Relationship of probability Matter of degree Logical form is not decisive Content is crucial CONTRAST DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Consider this valid, deductive argument. All people are mortal. Socrates is a person. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The diagram illustrates that if everything in the set of all people has the property of being mortal, and Socrates is in that set, then he must have that property. We don t need to ADD anything to the diagram, once the premises have been represented. The conclusion is already logically contained by the premises.

3 This is NEVER the case for an inductive argument. We say the conclusion of an inductive argument runs ahead of the premises. In the premises, we are stating the consistent patterns we have observed. In the conclusion, we are predicting things we have not yet observed. Obviously, we want our prediction to be as good a match as possible the patterns we have observed. The closer the match, the stronger the argument. The more flimsy the match, the weaker the argument. Example ~ When a meteorologist predicts a 30% chance of rain, s/he is saying that in 30% of the times we have observed conditions like those we have today, rain has also occurred. Is rain a certainty? No. Is there a likelihood, based on past experience? Yes. TYPES OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS There are many flavors of inductive arguments, but we will examine only two very basic types. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION moves from an observation of some members of a set (a sample) to a prediction about the entire set (a population). Two Examples ~ All the swans I observed were white. I have heard of no exceptions. Therefore, I conclude that probably all swans are white. Most of the swans I observed were white. I have heard of few exceptions. Therefore, I conclude that probably most swans are white. Logical Form = All (or most) observed X have property Y. No (or few) exceptions are known Therefore, (probably) All (or most) X have property Y.

4 Some definitions ~ Generalization = a conclusion about an entire group. Population = the group about which you are generalizing. Sample = the subset of the population you have actually been able to observe. INDUCTIVE ANALOGY An analogy is a comparison. Inductive analogies move: from an observation that an individual resembles some members of a set in regard to particular properties, to a prediction that the individual will resemble those same members as regards other properties. Example ~ Emily, Adrienne, Iris, Alicia, Tori are all swans, all bug-eaters, all female, all white, all migratory. Jennifer is a swan, eats bugs, is female, is white. Therefore, I predict that Jennifer is probably migratory. Logical Form = A, B, C, D, E, all have properties V, W, X, Y, Z. N has properties V, W, X, Y Therefore (probably) N also has property Z.

5 NOTE: The easiest way to distinguish these two forms is to look at the conclusion. In an inductive generalization, the conclusion will be about an entire population. In an inductive analogy, the conclusion will be about an individual. CHECK YOURSELF 1. Why do we never use the words valid or sound to describe inductive arguments? 2. What is the principle of the uniformity of nature? 3. What do we mean when we say an inductive argument is strong or weak? Answers: 1. Validity is a relationship of certainty between the premises and conclusion. In inductive arguments, we never have certainty. To be sound, an argument must be valid and have all true premises. Since inductive arguments cannot be valid, they cannot be sound. 2. Well-established patterns observed in the past will persist in the present and future. Therefore, we can learn from experience in a way that allows us to make reasonable (not certain) predictions about the present and the future. 3. Strong and weak refer to the relationship between the premises and conclusion in an inductive argument. An inductive argument is strong if we have drawn an appropriate conclusion based on our premises, and there is a consistency between what we observed and what we predict. CONFIDENT? READ ON. NOT CONFIDENT? REVIEW!

6 EVALUATING INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - SIX CRITERIA Clearly, inductive reasoning can go wrong. We need criteria for evaluating inductive arguments. We cannot use the same criteria we use for deduction, since we are looking for a different kind of relationship. This next section provides a checklist for evaluating inductive reasoning. CHECK LIST FOR INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS 1. Are the premises true? We normally do not care what follows from false premises, whether we are reasoning deductively or inductively. We need to check the facts, do the math, and get the premises right to the best of our ability. 2. How broad is the sample? The variety in the sample should be a good match for the variety in the population. How narrow is the sample? A sample may be broad in some ways, but narrow in others. Suppose I was given a research grant to study the plumage of all swans. I do my research, and conclude: All the swans I observed were white. I have heard of no exceptions. Therefore, I conclude that probably all swans are white. Now suppose I realize that ALL the swans I observed (my entire sample) were male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, and vegetarian. Oops.

7 My population all swans may contain female or ungendered swans, many age groups, swans from other continents and other habitats, and who eat different diets. Any of this could potentially affect the color of their plumage. My sample in NOT a good match for the population, and so I do not have a strong argument. Applying the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, I have observed patterns only in a sub-group (male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, and vegetarian.) If I try to draw conclusions about ALL swans, my conclusion is running miles ahead of my evidence! Now suppose I do additional research, and include in my sample both male and female swans, and swans of different ages. Is the argument better than it was before? Yes. Does it still have serious weaknesses? Yes. Remember, inductive strength is a matter of degree, and the same argument may be strong in some ways, but weak in others. 3. How big is the sample? Increasing sample size may help if the added numbers make the variety in the sample a better match for the variety in the population. Suppose I have only observed 100 swans. If I go out and observe 1,000 more swans, that may mean I have a better chance of getting a sample that has the same variety as the population. It is not quite that simple, though. What if observe 1,000 more swans, but the 1,000 additional swans are all male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, and vegetarian? My sample is bigger, but not better! 4. How sweeping and confident is the conclusion? The more sweeping or confident, the better the evidence needs to be. Suppose I am unable to do any more research on swans. Since I cannot add to my observations, I can alter my conclusion to make it a better match, by making it less sweeping or less confident. Sweeping = how big a group do we include? If I restricted my conclusion to the plumage of male, 1 year old, North American, swamp-dwelling, vegetarian swans (instead of ALL swans,) my sample would be a much better match! Confident = how strong a connection do I claim exists between my evidence and my conclusion. Instead of concluding Probably, all swans are white, I could conclude something like We have some initial evidence to suspect swans may generally be white, but more research is needed. The tentative, less confident wording of the conclusion makes the conclusion a better match for the actual evidence. 5. Have we made a conscientious effort to examine all the relevant evidence? Unless we are omniscient, we cannot be sure we have examined all the relevant evidence. (Of course, if we were omniscient, why would we need induction?)

8 We can, however, make a conscientious effort. If someone making an inductive argument has clearly omitted important sources of evidence, the premises become suspect! For example, did I look at scientific journals, and reputable scientific web sites, to see what others had observed? If not, I may have missed important data! No, actually I have never met Natalie Portman. 6. For an analogy, have looked at the whole pattern, weighing significant similarities against significant differences? Earlier, we used this example of an inductive analogy. Emily, Adrienne, Iris, Alicia, Tori are all swans, all bug-eaters, all female, all white, all migratory. Jennifer is a swan, eats bugs, is female, is white. Therefore, I predict that Jennifer is probably migratory. We saw a pattern of similarity between the individual (Jennifer) and the group described in the first premise. What if we also saw a pattern of differences? For example ~ What if Jennifer is an Australian swan, and the others are North American swans? What if Jennifer is 10 years old, and the others are all 2 years old? What if the others live in a flock, and Jennifer is a solitary swan? If the pattern of difference is as strong, or stronger than the pattern of similarity, then the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature does not support predicting Jennifer is migratory. You must weigh the pattern of similarity against the pattern of differences to draw your conclusion. READY FOR PRACTICE EXERCISES? PART ONE: Answer TRUE or FALSE, and give a FULL EXPLANATION of your answer. Define important terms as part of your explanation. 1. If an inductive argument is strong, it can still have a false conclusion.

9 2. A good inductive argument must have true premises, and be valid. 3. If an inductive argument has true premises and a true conclusion, then it is strong. ANSWERS ~ 1. True. In induction, the truth of the conclusion is NEVER guaranteed. 2. False. We do want true premises, but if the form is valid, then by definition we are looking at a deductive argument, not an inductive argument. 3. False. Strong refers to the relationship between the premises and conclusion. You may have true premises and a true conclusion, but they may not be properly related to one another. PART TWO: Choose the one best answer, and defend your choice. Most of the Hindus I have known have been vegetarians. Gupta is a Hindu. I d bet he s a vegetarian. 1. This argument is an example of: a. Inductive generalization. b. Inductive analogy. 2. If we conducted our observations only in vegetarian restaurants, that would make our conclusion: a. Weaker, because the sample is more narrow. b. Weaker, because the sample is more broad. c. Stronger, because the sample is more narrow. d. Stronger, because the sample is more broad. 3. If all the Hindus we observed to be vegetarians also came from the same area as Gupta and worshipped at the same temple as Gupta, that would make the argument: a. Weaker, because the sample has more in common with Gupta. b. Weaker, because the sample is more narrow. c. Stronger, because the sample has more in common with Gupta. d. Stronger, because the sample is more broad.

10 ANSWERS ~ 1. b, inductive analogy. The conclusion is about an individual (Gupta,) not a group. 2. a, weaker because the sample is too narrow. You are likely to find vegetarians at a vegetarian restaurant, regardless of whether they are Hindu, Catholic, Atheist or whatever. 3. c, stronger because the sample has more in common with Gupta. Remember, in an inductive analogy, the greater the pattern of resemblance, the stronger the argument. CONFIDENT? IF YES, THEN DO THE EXERCISES BELOW. For #1 & #2, answer true or false and explain your answer. Be sure to define key terms in your explanation. 1. Making the sample bigger will always make an inductive generalization stronger. 2. A strong inductive argument must have a highly probable conclusion. For # 3 - #5, choose the one best answer, and explain your answer 3. Most of the students, who I know personally, refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Yusif is also a student. Therefore, I d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from partying before exams.

11 This argument above (#3) is an example of: a) invalid deductive reasoning. b) inductive analogy. c) inductive generalization.. 4. Most of the students, who I know personally, refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Yusif is also a student. Therefore, I d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from partying before exams. If most of the students I know were from Chicago, that would make the argument: a) stronger, because the sample is more narrow. b) weaker, because the sample is more narrow. c) stronger, because the sample is more broad. d) weaker, because the sample is more broad. 5. Most of the students I know personally refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Yusif is also a student. Therefore, I d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from partying before exams. Suppose most of the students I know were from Chicago, were Muslims, and were younger than 25 years old. If Yusif is also from Chicago, a Muslim, and younger than 25 years old, that would make the argument: a) weaker because the sample is smaller. b) weaker, because the sample is like Yusif. c) stronger, because the sample is more like Yusif. d) stronger, because the sample is more broad. 6. Most of the students, who I know personally, including Yusif, refrain from partying before exams. I know many students. Therefore, I d guess that probably most students refrain from partying before exams. This argument above (#6) is an example of: d) invalid deductive reasoning. e) inductive analogy. f) inductive generalization.

INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

INDUCTION John Stuart Mill wrote the first comprehensive study of inductive logic. Deduction had been studied extensively since ancient times, but induction had to wait until the 19 th century! The cartoon

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

There are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.

INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds

1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

I. LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION 1 A. LOGIC 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. 3. It doesn t attempt to determine how people in fact reason. 4.

Review Deductive Logic. Wk2 Day 2. Critical Thinking Ninjas! Steps: 1.Rephrase as a syllogism. 2.Choose your weapon

Review Deductive Logic Wk2 Day 2 Checking Validity of Deductive Argument Steps: 1.Rephrase as a syllogism Identify premises and conclusion. Look out for unstated premises. Place them in order P(1), P(2),

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference

1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of

Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion.

ACADEMIC SKILLS THINKING CRITICALLY In the everyday sense of the word, critical has negative connotations. But at University, Critical Thinking is a positive process of understanding different points of

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

National Qualifications 06 06 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 06 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only

Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic teaches us to develop a system of methods and principles to use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others to guide us in constructing arguments

Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning First Steps to Analyzing an Argument In the following slides, some simple arguments will be given. The steps to begin analyzing each argument

1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments

M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 26 26 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts 19. All ethnic movements are two-edged swords. Beginning benignly, and sometimes necessary to repair injured collective

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan

CRITICAL THINKING Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LECTURE 4! Nondeductive Success: Statistical Syllogism, Inductive Generalization, Analogical Argument Summary In this week

1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview

1. Introduction 1.1. Formal deductive logic 1.1.0. Overview In this course we will study reasoning, but we will study only certain aspects of reasoning and study them only from one perspective. The special

Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 1 - Basic Training 1.1 Introduction In this logic course, we are going to be relying on some mental muscles that may need some toning

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating

Critical Reasoning for Beginners: Four. Marianne Talbot Department for Continuing Education University of Oxford Michaelmas 2009

Critical Reasoning for Beginners: Four Marianne Talbot Department for Continuing Education University of Oxford Michaelmas 2009 Last week we learned how to analyse arguments and set them out logic-book

Introduction to Philosophy Crito. Instructor: Jason Sheley

Introduction to Philosophy Crito Instructor: Jason Sheley Recall again our steps for doing philosophy 1) What is the question? 2) What is the basic answer to the question? 3) What reasons are given for

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument

ARGUMENT Questions for Critically Reading an Argument What claims does the writer make? What kinds and quality of evidence does the writer provide to support the claim? What assumptions underlie the argument,

PHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT 1. ARGUMENTS PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1.1 DEDUCTIVE VS INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

PHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1. Arguments 1.1 Deductive vs Induction Arguments 1.2 Common Deductive Argument Forms 1.3 Common Inductive Argument Forms 1.4 Deduction: Validity and Soundness

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.

Basic Concepts and Skills!

Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for

Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument

Inductive Logic. Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.

Inductive Logic Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence. An inductive leap is the intellectual movement from limited facts to a general conviction. The reliability

PHIL 251 Varner 2018c Final exam Page 1 Filename = 2018c-Exam3-KEY.wpd

PHIL 251 Varner 2018c Final exam Page 1 Your first name: Your last name: K_E_Y Part one (multiple choice, worth 20% of course grade): Indicate the best answer to each question on your Scantron by filling

Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments

5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions

Handout 1 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions In our day to day lives, we find ourselves arguing with other people. Sometimes we want someone to do or accept something as true

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

2017 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

National Qualifications 07 07 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 07 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only

Critical Thinking: Present, Past and Future 5 April, 2015

Critical Thinking: Present, Past and Future 5 April, 2015 V1 1 Critical Thinking: Present, Past & Future Milo Schield Augsburg College April 5, 2015 St. Paul Critical Thinking Club www.statlit.org/pdf/2015-schield-ctc-slides1.pdf

Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)

UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:

THE ESSAY. Some tips for writing good introductions Strategies for writing good introductions

THE ESSAY Thesis statements Introductions The body Conclusions Some tips for writing good introductions Strategies for writing good introductions 1. The funnel method 2. Defining a word or phrase 3. Asking

Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

chapter 36 Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn In 1666 a young scientist was sitting in a garden when an apple fell to the ground. This made him wonder why apples fall straight down, rather

Phil-004 (Galindo): Spring 14 - Quiz #4

Ch 8: Choose the best categorical claim translation of the claims below. (1pt each) 1. Which is the best translation for this claim: "Every baseball player is an athlete. a. All baseball players are athletes.

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around

Test Item File. Full file at

Test Item File 107 CHAPTER 1 Chapter 1: Basic Logical Concepts Multiple Choice 1. In which of the following subjects is reasoning outside the concern of logicians? A) science and medicine B) ethics C)

The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism

The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.

SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question.

Exam Name SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question. Draw a Venn diagram for the given sets. In words, explain why you drew one set as a subset of

What could be some limitations to using fingerprints as evidence? Sep 2 12:58 PM

2 4 Deductive Reasoning Learning Targets: I understand deductive reasoning I can use the Law of Detachment I can use a Venn diagram to draw conclusions I can use the Law of Syllogism What other evidence

Experimental Design. Introduction

Ecologists generally, and marine biologists in particular, do not spend sufficient time, at least according to the available literature, in introspection about the nature of the science that they do Underwood

Chapter 4: More Inductive Reasoning

Chapter 4: More Inductive Reasoning Let s review. You ve learned about the structure of arguments (premises and a conclusion), how to recognize arguments, and about deductive and inductive arguments. Now,

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me?

Page 1 of 10 10b Learn how to evaluate verbal and visual arguments. Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Download transcript Three common ways to

A level Religious Studies at Titus Salt

Component 2 Philosophy of Religion Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God deductive This theme considers how the philosophy of religion has, over time, influenced and been influenced by developments

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7

Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments

Proof as a cluster concept in mathematical practice. Keith Weber Rutgers University

Proof as a cluster concept in mathematical practice Keith Weber Rutgers University Approaches for defining proof In the philosophy of mathematics, there are two approaches to defining proof: Logical or

Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning

Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning In chapter 1, I mentioned deductive and inductive arguments. This chapter goes into more depth on deductive reasoning in particular, but also provides a contrast with

Introduction to Logic. Instructor: Jason Sheley

Introduction to Logic Instructor: Jason Sheley In this section we will learn: What is the difference between Deduction and Induction? Why use different types of logic? What is a valid argument? Invalid?

PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING

PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING By John Bloore Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy, written by John Wttersten, http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#h7 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905 1997) Known for Deductive-Nomological

MARK KAPLAN AND LAWRENCE SKLAR. Received 2 February, 1976) Surely an aim of science is the discovery of the truth. Truth may not be the

MARK KAPLAN AND LAWRENCE SKLAR RATIONALITY AND TRUTH Received 2 February, 1976) Surely an aim of science is the discovery of the truth. Truth may not be the sole aim, as Popper and others have so clearly

PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES

PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES LECTURE CONTENTS LECTURE 1: CLAIMS, EXPLAINATIONS AND ARGUMENTS LECTURE 2: CONDITIONS AND DEDUCTION LECTURE 3: MORE DEDUCTION LECTURE 4: MEANING

1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis

Analysis Breaking down an idea, concept, theory, etc. into its most basic parts in order to get a better understanding of its structure. This is necessary to evaluate the merits of the claim properly (is

A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

1 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 5 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 1.1 Arguments Arguments crop up in conversations, political debates, lectures, editorials, comic strips, novels, television programs,

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did. Man: You didn t Mr Vibrating: I did! Man: You didn t! Mr Vibrating: I m telling you I did! Man: You did not!!

Arguments Man: Ah. I d like to have an argument, please. Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before? Man: No, I haven t, this is my first time. Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have

ISSA Proceedings 1998 Wilson On Circular Arguments

ISSA Proceedings 1998 Wilson On Circular Arguments 1. Introduction In his paper Circular Arguments Kent Wilson (1988) argues that any account of the fallacy of begging the question based on epistemic conditions

PHLA10 Reason and Truth Exercise 1

Y e P a g e 1 Exercise 1 Pg. 17 1. When is an idea or statement valid? (trick question) A statement or an idea cannot be valid; they can only be true or false. Being valid or invalid are properties of

National Quali cations

H SPECIMEN S85/76/ National Qualications ONLY Philosophy Paper Date Not applicable Duration hour 5 minutes Total marks 50 SECTION ARGUMENTS IN ACTION 30 marks Attempt ALL questions. SECTION KNOWLEDGE AND

Ethics and Science. Obstacles to search for truth. Ethics: Basic Concepts 1

So far (from class and course pack) Moral dilemmas: e.g., euthanasia (class), Churchill decision in World War 2 Ethics ultimately concerned with how to live well. One part of that involves choice of actions

Inductive Inference and Paradigms. What are the assumptions?

Inductive Inference and Paradigms What are the assumptions? What is inference? The process of forming a belief (conclusion), on the basis of evidence (or data, or premises) is called an inference. Some

Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion TOPIC: Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments.

TOPIC: Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments. KEY TERMS/ GOALS: Cosmological argument. The problem of Infinite Regress.

A Layperson s Guide to Hypothesis Testing By Michael Reames and Gabriel Kemeny ProcessGPS

A Layperson s Guide to Hypothesis Testing By Michael Reames and Gabriel Kemeny ProcessGPS In a recent Black Belt Class, the partners of ProcessGPS had a lively discussion about the topic of hypothesis

Plato s Allegory of the Cave

Logic Plato s Allegory of the Cave The First Word of the Day is Troglodyte From the Greek word for cave (trōglē). The Troglodytae (Τρωγλοδῦται) or Troglodyti (literally cave goers ) are those who live

1 What God Could Have Made By Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky I. Introduction Atheists have argued that if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then God would have made

Chapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment

Chapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment Understanding What Science Is Scientific understanding of life and its environment is based on scientific method. Science

LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010

LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010 LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH. LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES,

Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe.

Overview Philosophy & logic 1.2 What is philosophy? 1.3 nature of philosophy Why philosophy Rules of engagement Punctuality and regularity is of the essence You should be active in class It is good to

Introduction to Logic

University of Notre Dame Fall, 2015 Arguments Philosophy is difficult. If questions are easy to decide, they usually don t end up in philosophy The easiest way to proceed on difficult questions is to formulate

Introduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments

Introduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments 1. HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT Example 1. Socrates must be mortal. After all, all humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human. What does the author of this

Introduction Questions to Ask in Judging Whether A Really Causes B

1 Introduction We live in an age when the boundaries between science and science fiction are becoming increasingly blurred. It sometimes seems that nothing is too strange to be true. How can we decide

Three Kinds of Arguments

Chapter 27 Three Kinds of Arguments Arguments in general We ve been focusing on Moleculan-analyzable arguments for several chapters, but now we want to take a step back and look at the big picture, at

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one?

Argument What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument Vs Persuasion Everything s an argument, really. Argument: appeals strictly by reason and logic Persuasion: logic and emotion The forum of your argument

1.2. What is said: propositions

1.2. What is said: propositions 1.2.0. Overview In 1.1.5, we saw the close relation between two properties of a deductive inference: (i) it is a transition from premises to conclusion that is free of any

Overview: Application: What to Avoid:

UNIT 3: BUILDING A BASIC ARGUMENT While "argument" has a number of different meanings, college-level arguments typically involve a few fundamental pieces that work together to construct an intelligent,

Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church September 8, 2011

Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church http://www.fbcweb.org/doctrines.html September 8, 2011 Building Mental Muscle & Growing the Mind through Logic Exercises: Lesson 4a The Three Acts of the

The Appeal to Reason. Introductory Logic pt. 1

The Appeal to Reason Introductory Logic pt. 1 Argument vs. Argumentation The difference is important as demonstrated by these famous philosophers. The Origins of Logic: (highlights) Aristotle (385-322

Argument Writing. Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job

Argument Writing Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job promotion as well as political and personal decision-making

Why Science Doesn t Weaken My Faith

Why Science Doesn t Weaken My Faith EASEA SYMPOSIUM 09.FEB.2018 Kenneth E. Caviness Physics & Engineering Dept. SOUTHERN ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY Proof Texts! Holy Scriptures?? ? Holy Scriptures? Proof! U

Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871

Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871 DAY & DATE: Wednesday 27 June 2012 READINGS: Darwin/Origin of Species, chapters 1-4 MacNeill/Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions

Philosophy 1100: Ethics

Philosophy 1100: Ethics Topic 1 - Course Introduction: 1. What is Philosophy? 2. What is Ethics? 3. Logic a. Truth b. Arguments c. Validity d. Soundness What is Philosophy? The Three Fundamental Questions

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers Diagram and evaluate each of the following arguments. Arguments with Definitional Premises Altruism. Altruism is the practice of doing something solely because

Chapter 5: Ways of knowing Reason (p. 111)

Chapter 5: Ways of knowing Reason (p. 111) Neils Bohr (1885 1962) to Einstein: You are not thinking. You are merely being logical. Reason is one of the four ways of knowing: Perception Language Emotion

Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI

Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI Precising definition Theoretical definition Persuasive definition Syntactic definition Operational definition 1. Are questions about defining a phrase

Genre Guide for Argumentative Essays in Social Science

Genre Guide for Argumentative Essays in Social Science 1. Social Science Essays Social sciences encompass a range of disciplines; each discipline uses a range of techniques, styles, and structures of writing.

6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010

6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010 Deduction vs. induction reviewed In chapter 14, we spent a fair amount of time

Skim the Article to Find its Conclusion and Get a Sense of its Structure

Pryor, Jim. (2006) Guidelines on Reading Philosophy, What is An Argument?, Vocabulary Describing Arguments. Published at http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html, and http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html

Phil 3304 Introduction to Logic Dr. David Naugle. Identifying Arguments i

Phil 3304 Introduction to Logic Dr. David Naugle Identifying Arguments Dallas Baptist University Introduction Identifying Arguments i Any kid who has played with tinker toys and Lincoln logs knows that

Phil. 103: Introduction to Logic The Structure of Arguments

Phil. 103: Introduction to Logic The Structure of Arguments Spring 2005 c 2005 GFDL 1 Diagramming Arguments Directions: First, indicate whether the passages quoted below are arguments. If a passage is

PHI Introduction Lecture 4. An Overview of the Two Branches of Logic

PHI 103 - Introduction Lecture 4 An Overview of the wo Branches of Logic he wo Branches of Logic Argument - at least two statements where one provides logical support for the other. I. Deduction - a conclusion

Handout 2 Argument Terminology

Handout 2 Argument Terminology 1. Arguing, Arguments, & Statements Open Question: What happens when two people are in an argument? An argument is an abstraction from what goes on when people arguing. An

Notes on types of Arguments (for Philosophy of Science) by Justin C. Fisher

1. Arguments Notes on types of Arguments (for Philosophy of Science) by Justin C. Fisher An argument is a set of statements (called premises ) offered in support of a conclusion. Philosophers typically

Courses providing assessment data PHL 202. Semester/Year

1 Department/Program 2012-2016 Assessment Plan Department: Philosophy Directions: For each department/program student learning outcome, the department will provide an assessment plan, giving detailed information

Introduction Symbolic Logic

An Introduction to Symbolic Logic Copyright 2006 by Terence Parsons all rights reserved CONTENTS Chapter One Sentential Logic with 'if' and 'not' 1 SYMBOLIC NOTATION 2 MEANINGS OF THE SYMBOLIC NOTATION

Module 9- Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Inquire: Types of Argumentative Reasoning Overview Sometimes, when we write an essay, we re setting out to write a really compelling and convincing argument. As we begin