DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Advertisements

Rules of Inferences Section 1.5. Definitions Argument: is a sequence of propositions (premises) that end with a proposition called conclusion. Valid Argument:
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
1 Section 1.5 Rules of Inference. 2 Definitions Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true Proof: demonstration of truth of theorem –consists of.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING We reason deductively when we draw a conclusion from a set of given facts using the laws of logic.
2.4 Deductive Reasoning HW: Lesson 2.4/ 1 – 10, 13.
Targets Use the Law of Detachment. Use the Law of Syllogism. Lesson 2-3: Deductive Reasoning TARGETS.
Logos Formal Logic.
Deduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin. Syllogism A syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. In Aristotle,
Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-08: 1 Critical Issues in Information Systems BUSS 951 Seminar 8 Arguments.
LOGIC CHAPTER 3 1. EULER DIAGRAMS: A PROBLEM-SOLVING TOOL
Basic Argumentation.
Inductive Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning, and False Premise.
Inductive & Deductive Reasoning
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning. Objectives Use a Venn diagram to determine the validity of an argument. Complete a pattern with the most likely possible.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Warm Up 1. How do I know the following must be false? Points P, Q, and R are coplanar. They lie on plane m. They also lie on another plane, plane n. 2.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING SYLLOGISM FALSE PREMISE INDUCTIVE REASONING.
Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements. Section 2.4 Arguments with Quantified Statements.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
Logic in Everyday Life.
10/20/09 BR- Who are the three “brothers” of Argument? Today: Constructing A Logical Argument – Deductive and Inductive Reasoning -Hand in “facts” -MIKVA.
 Find your new seat.  Belonzi, Alison – (1,2)  Benjamin, Jeremy – (1,3)  Falkowski, Taylor – (1,4)  Kapp, Timi – (2,1)  Lebak, Allyson – (2,2) 
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING MOVES FROM A GENERALIZATION THAT IS TRUE OR SELF-EVIDENT TO A MORE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
#tbt #4 Who Owns The Zebra?
10/21/09 BR- Identify the (1)premises and the (2)conclusion in the following deductive argument. Is it valid or invalid? All fish need gills to breath.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. PROBLEM SOLVING Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
Deductive and induction reasoning
It’s All About Logic! Building Mathematics Understanding into Career & Technical Education.
09/17/07 BR- What is “logic?” What does it mean to make a logical argument? Today: Logic and How to Argue (Part 1)
Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
Deductive s. Inductive Reasoning
I think therefore I am - Rene Descartes. REASON (logic) It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence.
p qp q q pq p p  q ~p  ~q ~q  ~p q p September 17, 2014.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Use of Reason and Logic RATIONALISM.  A Rationalist approach to knowledge is based on the belief that we can ascertain truth by thinking and reflection.
Do now Can you make sure that you have finished your Venn diagrams from last lesson. Can you name 5 famous mathematicians (including one that is still.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive reasoning.
Logic Part 2 A Mr. C Production.
Logic.
Deductive and Inductive REASONING
Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Chapter 3: Reality Assumptions
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
MAT 142 Lecture Video Series
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Reasoning, Logic, and Position Statements
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE REASONING Forensic Science.
Philosophy of Research by Zain Ullah Khattak
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
8C Truth Tables, 8D, 8E Implications 8F Valid Arguments
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Presentation transcript:

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1

Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from known or assumed facts. When solving a problem, one must understand the question, gather all pertinent facts, analyze the problem i.e. compare with previous problems (note similarities and differences), perhaps use pictures or formulas to solve the problem.

Deductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning – A type of logic in which one goes from a general statement to a specific instance. The classic example All men are mortal. (major premise) Socrates is a man. (minor premise) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion) The above is an example of a syllogism.

Deductive Reasoning Syllogism: An argument composed of two statements or premises (the major and minor premises), followed by a conclusion. For any given set of premises, if the conclusion is guaranteed, the arguments is said to be valid. If the conclusion is not guaranteed (at least one instance in which the conclusion does not follow), the argument is said to be invalid. BE CARFEUL, DO NOT CONFUSE TRUTH WITH VALIDITY!

Deductive Reasoning Examples: All students eat pizza. Claire is a student at ASU. Therefore, Claire eats pizza. 2. All athletes work out in the gym. Barry Bonds is an athlete. Therefore, Barry Bonds works out in the gym.

Deductive Reasoning 3. All math teachers are over 7 feet tall. Mr. D. is a math teacher. Therefore, Mr. D is over 7 feet tall. The argument is valid, but is certainly not true. The above examples are of the form If p, then q. (major premise) x is p. (minor premise) Therefore, x is q. (conclusion)

Venn Diagrams Venn Diagram: A diagram consisting of various overlapping figures contained in a rectangle called the universe. U This is an example of all A are B. (If A, then B.) B A

Venn Diagrams This is an example of No A are B. U A B

Venn Diagrams This is an example of some A are B. (At least one A is B.) The yellow oval is A, the blue oval is B.

Example Construct a Venn Diagram to determine the validity of the given argument. #14 All smiling cats talk. The Cheshire Cat smiles. Therefore, the Cheshire Cat talks. VALID OR INVALID???

Example Valid argument; x is Cheshire Cat Things that talk Smiling cats x

Examples #6 No one who can afford health insurance is unemployed. All politicians can afford health insurance. Therefore, no politician is unemployed. VALID OR INVALID?????

Examples X=politician. The argument is valid. X Unemployed Politicians People who can afford Health Care. Politicians X Unemployed

Example #16 Some professors wear glasses. Mr. Einstein wears glasses. Therefore, Mr. Einstein is a professor. Let the yellow oval be professors, and the blue oval be glass wearers. Then x (Mr. Einstein) is in the blue oval, but not in the overlapping region. The argument is invalid.

Inductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning, involves going from a series of specific cases to a general statement. The conclusion in an inductive argument is never guaranteed. Example: What is the next number in the sequence 6, 13, 20, 27,… There is more than one correct answer.

Inductive Reasoning Here’s the sequence again 6, 13, 20, 27,… Look at the difference of each term. 13 – 6 = 7, 20 – 13 = 7, 27 – 20 = 7 Thus the next term is 34, because 34 – 27 = 7. However what if the sequence represents the dates. Then the next number could be 3 (31 days in a month). The next number could be 4 (30 day month) Or it could be 5 (29 day month – Feb. Leap year) Or even 6 (28 day month – Feb.)