Statistical syllogisms...and why generalizations aren’t always accurate.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
-- in other words, logic is
Advertisements

The Basics of Logical Argument Two Kinds of Argument The Deductive argument: true premises guarantee a true conclusion. e.g. All men are mortal. Socrates.
Argumentation.
Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
© Cambridge International Examinations 2013 Component/Paper 1.
Logic and Reasoning Panther Prep North Central High School.
Deduction: the categorical syllogism - 1 Logic: evaluating deductive arguments - the syllogism 4 A 5th pattern of deductive argument –the categorical syllogism.
Critical Thinking: Chapter 10
Fallacies - Weak Induction. Homework Review: Fallacies » pp , §4.1 “Fallacies in General” » pp , §4.3 “Fallacies of Weak Induction” Inductive.
Logos Formal Logic.
LogicandEvidence Scientific argument. Logic Reasoning –Deductive –Inductive.
UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH RESULTS: STATISTICAL INFERENCE.
Inductive Reasoning The role of argument forms in evaluating probabilities.
ALEC 604: Writing for Professional Publication Week 4: APA, Grammar, & Punctuation.
Building Logical Arguments. Critical Thinking Skills Understand and use principles of scientific investigation Apply rules of formal and informal logic.
1 Morality, Ethics and Philosophy. 2Definitions Morality: set of beliefs and practices about how to lead a good life Ethics : A rational reflection on.
RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Chapter I. Explanations about the Universe Power of the gods Religious authority Challenge to religious dogma Metacognition: Thinking.
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning. Objectives Use a Venn diagram to determine the validity of an argument. Complete a pattern with the most likely possible.
Persuasion Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning.
Today’s Quote Use soft words and hard arguments English Proverb.
KNR 497 Foundations Slide 1 Introduction to research methods 2: Foundations continued 1.
Grading Criteria for Assigment 1 Structure – –sense of time, present and past –conflict with two distinct sides –description of cause of conflict –shared.
Inductive Generalizations Induction is the basis for our commonsense beliefs about the world. In the most general sense, inductive reasoning, is that in.
BUS 290: Critical Thinking for Managers
Evaluations. Step 1 Make an opening statement about how good you think your evidence is. How reliable do you think your results are? Do you think the.
Management 200: Control Chapters 18 & 20 Controlling for Organizational Performance w Learning Objectives: Elements of the control process Measure Compare.
Reasoning Critically about Argument and Evidence Solid versus Sloppy Thinking.
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.
Introduction to Toulmin Logic Scott Hale English
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Notecard 30 Definition: Conjecture: an unproven statement that is based on observations or given information.
Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.
1 Lesson 9: Fallacies SOCI Thinking Critically about Social Issues Spring 2012.
The construction of a formal argument
Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 12 Lecture Notes Chapter 12.
Argumentation.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Logic and Reasoning.
Philosophy 148 Inductive Reasoning. Inductive reasoning – common misconceptions: - “The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or.
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Elements of Persuasion Get what you want. Elements of Persuasion Base your opinions on facts Clarify your position Form at least three distinct arguments.
Philosophy 104 Chapter 8 Notes (Part 1). Induction vs Deduction Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong describe the difference between induction and deduction.
Section 2.3: Deductive Reasoning
Section 2.2 Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Definition: Conjecture an unproven statement that is based on observations or given information.
Deductive reasoning. The curious incident An expensive racehorse has been stolen. A policeman asks Holmes if any aspect of the crime strikes him as significent.
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 12. Our Learning  Fallacy Reminder  Summary following Homework NAB  Class NAB.
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Notecard 29 Definition: Conjecture: an unproven statement that is based on observations. You use inductive reasoning.
ARGUMENTS Chapter 15. INTRODUCTION All research projects require some argumentation An argument simply ‘combines’ existing facts to derive new facts,
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Notecard 30 Definition: Conjecture: an unproven statement that is based on observations or given information.
Evaluate Inductive Reasoning and Spot Inductive Fallacies
PROPOSALS LESSON #17. WRITING TIP OF THE DAY – CAPITALS For proper nouns (names of people, places, publications, titles, etc.), always capitalize the.
Tests for Inductive Reasoning By Annie Downey. Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning is when your conclusions are drawn from certain examples, observations,
Text Table of Contents #4: What are the Reasons?.
Argumentation.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Inductive Argument Forms
Chapter 1 Definition Theory Causality
The second Meeting Basic Terms in Logic.
That’s It! I. Recognizing Arguments II. Analyzing Arguments
Sec. 2.3: Apply Deductive Reasoning
Confirmation The Raven Paradox.
Principles of Argument
Chapter 8 Inductive Reasoning.
Fallacies.
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Concise Guide to Critical Thinking
Section 3-6 Inductive Reasoning.
Presentation transcript:

Statistical syllogisms...and why generalizations aren’t always accurate

What is a statisical syllogism?

Definition type of inductive reasoning based on a probability where the strength of the argument is reliant on the strength of a generalization (major premise)

WHAT COMPOSES a Statistical Syllogism?

MAJOR PREMISE generalizations which state probabilities that form the basis of succeeding assumptions

Minor Premise statement that links the subject/s of the conclusion with the major premise

CONCLUSION The assumption made based on the major premise.

Major Premise 82.5% of IMed students are from PSHS.

Minor premise Jon is an IMed student.

Conclusion Jon is a most probably a graduate of PSHS.

Major Premise 17.5% of IMed students are members of the Med. Choir.

Minor Premise Flo is an IMed student.

Conclusion It is very likely that Flo is not a member of the Med. Choir.

Evaluating the strength of this type of argument is a matter of degree.

The reliability of the argument must be evaluated using three questions.

Are there enough cases to support a universal statement or one that is merely general?

Have the observed cases been found in every variety of times, places and circumstances?

Has a thorough search been made for conflicting cases?

criteria for evaluating the strength of a generalization

The closer the number of the sample to the required number, the more reliable the generalization is. Ex. Most apples are red. (If 100 apples exist in the world, the sample must approach 50 in order to be considered reliable.)

Ex. 75% of Asians are shorter than 5’11”. (The statement would be more reliable if the sample included a greater variety of Asians instead of just one nationality.) The greater the variety of the members of the sample, the more reliable the generalization is.

Ex. 90% of men like chocolates. (If the number of conflicting cases increases in the sample taken, the generalization is made less reliable.) The more thorough the search for conflicting cases, the more reliable the generalization.

Fallacies involving statistical syllogism

accident application of a general rule when circumstances suggest an exception.

Converse accident application of an exception to the rule when the generalization should apply.