Induction and Scientific Reasoning

http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com.

A sample video from the video tutorial course titled "Basic Concepts in Logic and Argumentation". You can preview the full course at the web link above.

Table of Contents

Part 1: What is an Argument?
1.1 Definition of an argument
1.2 Definition of a claim, or statement
1.3 Definition of a good argument (I)
1.4 Identifying premises and conclusions

Part 2: What is a Good Argument?
2.1 The truth condition
2.2 The logic condition
2.3 Valid vs invalid arguments
2.4 Strong vs weak arguments
2.5 Definition of a good argument (II)

Part 3: Deductive versus Inductive Arguments
3.1 Deduction and valid reasoning
3.2 Induction and invalid reasoning
3.3 Induction and scientific reasoning

Category:

Education

Tags:

• critical thinking
• logic
• induction
• scientific reasoning
• inductive argument

[ishwarrior]

At 5:18 you say "it is not an argument from the particular to the general" -- but isn't there a "hidden step" where you make the generalisation "the sun rises in the East every day" from which you then infer that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? Just like scientists inducing the general rule "light increases with temperature" and then inferring the particular prediction "increasing the temperature will increase the light"?

A very clear and concise explanation of induction, regardless!

[PhilosophyFreak]

@ishwarrior Hey, thanks for the comment. On the point you make, I agree that as stated, it's a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. But your modification would make the final inference a deductive one, going from a general rule to a particular instance of that rule, and it would no longer be an example of an inductive argument. The question of what is necessary to make an inductive generlization strong is actually a deep one (I'm working on a tutorial course on this right now...).

[Steve2323ZX]

my real name is John and I am left-handed you insensitive clod!

[cambo61]

Fantastic explanation. Thanks!

[Traveler246]

@Steve2323ZX YOU'RE THE CLOD! ...whatever that means *googling clod*

[Heissenburger]

@PhilosophyFreak so there are two steps: 1. induction 2. deduction. this distinction is actually very very important. many scientists nowadays are either ignorant or arrogant.  either they are unaware of the first step, or hide step 1 from the public, selling it as "pure deduction". please help to educate future scientists properly, so that we don't get fucktards like Richard Dawkins.

[BeatlesFan51620]

This was incredibly helpful! Thank you!

[Dathinkingman]

@Steve2323ZX proof of the fallibility of inductive reasoning... :P

[Forkroute]

Wonderful videos. Thank you.

[ishwarrior]

@PhilosophyFreak I look forward to seeing that!