REASON

INTRODUCTION

There is a scene in a Broadway play where a guest at a party meets a priest. The guest asks Dont you hear some terrible things in confession?. The priest replies Oh yes. In fact when I was just starting out as a priest, the first man who came to me for confession told me he had committed a murder. Later on in the play a newcomer joins the party, and on being introduced to the priest says I met you long ago Father. In fact I was the first person to come to you for confession.
You have combined 2 pieces of information to produce a third. This is how knowledge is gained through rational means, via logic, to look at what you know (think you know) and to analyse it to see if it holds any other information.

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive Definition Reasoning from the specific to the general Metal A expands when heated; Metal B expands when heated; Metal C expands when heated. Therefore all metals expand when heated More informative but less certain than deduction Reasoning from the general to the specific All metals expand when heated. A is a metal. Therefore A expands when heated. Deductive

Example

Value More certain, but less informative than induction

In practice however deduction turns out to be no more certain than induction. This is because the premises that deductive reasoning are based on must be derived from induction!

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive Reasoning
A rule governed method which allows a specific conclusion to be drawn from a set of general statements. If one things follows necessarily from the other, e.g. All bachelors are unmarried. John is a bachelor, therefore John is unmarried.

Inductive Reasoning
Allows a general conclusion to come from a collection of specific cases. Swan 1 is white, swan 2 is white..swan 1000 is white therefore all swans are white.

Carry out the exercise to decide if the cases given to you represent a form of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Example
1. The Scientists in Prague formulated the experiment on cold fusion. They got positive results on the first 3 trials. Scientists in Tokyo, Moscow and Helsinki also claimed similar positive results. The editor of the Journal of Modern Chemistry concluded that the results of the Prague group were worthy of publication. 2. Kent said that his computer was not able to open the Physics experiment database. He decided that it was because of a faulty hard drive or because of the security settings on the firewall. He checked the hard drive and it was functioning properly. So he concluded it was because of the firewall settings. 3. Ms Kim said that everyone who did not do the assignment would get an F grade for the term. Daniel did not do the assignment. I am not surprised that he got an F. 4. The first 5 terms of sequence are 5,7,9,11,13. The next term is 15. 5. Each of the 1st 6 test slides that Dr Brandon looked at had tested positive. It appears as though the entire population of mice is infected with the virus. 6. I was trying to check my solution for x=3 and y=5, so I plugged it into the 1st 3 equations in the system. All 3 equations yielded true results. I felt that I could go ahead and write x=3 and y=5 as a solution. 7. I started to do my homework last night at about 7pm. The phone rang just as I started it and it was Lucy. She was upset because she had broken up with her boyfriend. Then at 7.20pm the phone rang again. This time it was Cyrus. He had forgotten his Physics assignment and wanted to know if I had it. At 7.30pm the phone rang again. This time it was Ms Rowlands. She wanted to know if I would be on the student council. At that point I gave up on homework. I knew that I wouldnt get any done with the phone ringing.

Deductive or Inductive Reasoning?

THE PROBLEMS WITH INDUCTION

We use induction all the time.

What truths do we know about the world through the process of induction? What would the world be like if induction ceased to be reliable? Think about your group 4 subject give examples of how you use inductive reasoning. Do we rely on inductive reasoning to arrive at beliefs about things we have not observed before, namely the future?

Justify the use of inductive reasoning:

It has always worked before It is probably correct. Are these good justifications?

Are they based on an assumption that nature is uniform? We cant know independently of experience that nature is uniform. Our five senses provide our only window to the world. Our knowledge of nature is dependent on their use

To justify induction you must first justify the claim that nature is uniform and to do that relies on induction!!

EXERCISES ON INDUCTION P76/77

a.

b.

a.

Many examples in the past, the proposed course of action is closely related to examples in the past, the examples in the past cover a wide range of situations First four more likely; 5th no difference and 6th less likely 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th make it more likely and 3rd and 5th less likely

THE CHRISTMAS TURKEY

Consider the turkey who is fed every day by the farmer. Being a philosophical sort of turkey, after a few weeks it applies induction and comes out to greet the farmer each morning, expecting food. One day the farmer rings its neck.

PROBLEM OF INDUCTION..
A:Youre suggesting that what weve observed to happen so far gives us no clue at all as to what will happen in the future? B:Yes. Things may continue in the same manner. The sun may continue to rise. Chairs may continue to support our weight. But we have no justification whatsoever for believing any of these things. A: Let me get this straight. If someone were to believe that a huge bunch of tulips will appear over the horizon tomorrow morning, that chairs will vanish when sat on, that in future water will be poisonous and objects will fall upwards when released, we would ordinarily think them insane. Correct? B: Yes, we would A: But if youre right, these insane beliefs about the future are actually just as well supported by the available evidence as is our sensible belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Rationally, we should accept that these insane beliefs are just as likely to be true!

PROBLEM OF INDUCTION..
B: Thats correct A: You really believe that? You really believe its just as likely that a million-mile wide bowl of tulips will appear over the horizon tomorrow morning? B: Well, actually, no. I dont. A: Oh?

B: I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow. For some reason I just cant help myself. I see that rationally I shouldnt believe. But while I realise that my belief is irrational I cant stop believing!
It seems that humans can not help but reason inductively!!! Humans do this on purely pragmatic grounds!!

AN ARGUMENT

A combination of statements such that a given set of premises leads to a conclusion. Logical arguments can be inductive or deductive.

Premises are synonymous with reasons, evidence, data, propositions, proofs and verifications. Conclusions are synonymous with claims, actions, verdicts and opinions.
An argument that is logically correct i.e. the conclusion is true whenever all the premises are true An argument that is not valid (also called a fallacy).

Valid Argument

Invalid Argument

DEDUCTIVE LOGIC - ARGUMENTS

The introduction involving the priest was an example of the use of deductive logic. They involve statements and if one thing follows from another then a conclusion can be reached. In the following two cases suppose that A and B are true. Must C also be true?

A: No monkeys are soldiers B: All monkeys are smelly C: Some smelly creatures are not soldiers A: No emperors are dentists B: All dentists are feared by little children C: No emperors are feared by little children

DEDUCTIVE LOGIC - ARGUMENTS

The previous two examples can be quite hard to get your head around. A useful tool for helping you is a venn diagram.

monkeys

Soldiers Smelly creatures

IDENTIFYING VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

If my house is bombed it will be reduced to rubble My house is not bombed

Therefore: My house will not be reduced to rubble

If my house is bombed it will be reduced to rubble My house is reduced to rubble

Therefore: My house must have been bombed

If my house is bombed it will be reduced to rubble My house is not reduced to rubble

Therefore: My house can not have been bombed

All monetarists control the money supply George Bush controlled the money supply

Therefore: George Bush was a monetarist.

IDENTIFYING AN ARGUMENT - NEWSPAPER

Exercise: Find an argument in a newspaper, identify its premises and conclusion. Identify any implicit Premises as well.

Points to pay attention to:

There will usually be more than 2 premises Some premises considered obvious wont be stated explicitly Words or phrases such as because, so, then, hence, thus, consequently, and it follows that indicate that what is said next is the conclusion.

IDENTIFYING AN ARGUMENT - NEWSPAPER

Is the major premise of the argument true? Is the argument valid? How do you know? Assuming that the other premises are also true. Is the conclusion also true? How do you know?

TRUTH AND VALIDITY

All IB students are geniuses I am an IB student Therefore I am a genius The major premise is a general statement and the minor premise is a particular statement. They attempt to support the conclusion.

All IB students are intelligent Stephen Hawkins is intelligent Stephen Hawkins is an IB student Notice the difference between this one and the one above. The connection made between the major and minor premise was made from the category that followed all. In this example the connection is with the word intelligent which is further from all. This leads to invalidity.

TRUTH AND VALIDITY

For an argument to be valid the premises much follow logically. Decide if the following two arguments are valid:

All P is Q R is P R is Q All P is Q R is Q R is P

TRUTH AND VALIDITY

If the premises are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true. This a sound argument.

Truth of Premises
True false Conclusion may be true or false Conclusion may be true or false

Logic

Valid Invalid

Conclusion must be true Conclusion may be true or false

TRUTH AND VALIDITY

Below are some arguments. Decide if the premises are true/false, whether the logic is valid /invalid and hence whether or not the conclusion must be true. All Thai cities are in the Northern Hemisphere; Jakarta is not a Thai city;

Therefore: Jakarta is not in the Northern hemisphere All Australian states are in the southern hemisphere; Queensland is an Australian state; Therefore: Queensland is in the southern hemisphere All American states have beaches; Hawaii is an American state; Therefore: Hawaii has beaches Sha Tin College has over 300 students in year 12 and 13; All Sha Tin College year 12 and 13 students study TOK; Therefore: Over 300 students study TOK at Sha Tin College Most people in England speak English; Most people in New Zealand speak English; Therefore: Most people in China speak English

TRUTH AND VALIDITY

What do you find from doing the previous exercise?

It is possible to arrive at true conclusions from false premises It is possible to arrive at true conclusions using invalid logic

Therefore logic is NO guarantee of truth!! As a TOK student you should be looking to question arguments either by questioning the premises or faulting the logic of the argument.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS

The key assertion of deductive reasoning: If all premises are true and the argument is valid then the conclusion must be true

The key assertion gives us 2 tools to counter-argue the conclusion stated in the argument: 1. You can counter-argue that the reasoning is invalid 2. You can counter-argue that one of the premises is uncertain, questionable or false
Looking at your newspaper argument. What counter-arguments could you use to weaken the stated conclusion?

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS

Counter-claims These are found in criterion C of the TOK essay assessment criteria.

They are similar to counter-arguments but more interesting. Instead of weakening someone elses argument, you attempt to weaken your own. By asking What can be said against my argument? and addressing its weaknesses yourself, you strengthen your argument by doing this by showing that youve carefully and thoughtfully considered your own premises and chain of logic.