Ojie Santillan. Dhen Gania. Joan Singson. Jyrus Cimatu. Ralph Jarvis Hermosilla Alindogan. More From jeffrey. Commission on ElectionsQjs7lm. Popular in Syllogism. Glazy Kim Seco - Jorquia. Kunal Sharma. Wenn Joyrenz Maneclang. Chester Nicole. Marivic Samonte Viluan. Estudante da Vedanta. Joshua Morales. Maya Tuldanes. Mehmet Duman. Camila Cabral. Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms. Urvashi Sikka. Need an account?
Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Inductive and Deductive Arguments presentation. Syafira R. A short summary of this paper. Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. It is a set of supported opinions that are expounded or developed in a logical way.
An argument may be summarized in a single sentence. Primary Ar ument Identi ication Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types; deductive and inductive. Can you tell when people or even yourself are using deductive vs. Can you determine which logic is needed in which situation?
If not, in meetings, when people are recommending a course of action, or are breaking down an argument, see if you can determine if they are using inductive or deductive logic, or no logic at all gut feelings and emotion. And, then figure out your logic and when best to use deductive vs. When you have a significant problem or opportunity you need to solve or build a strategy for, start with a deductive problem solving process.
Use the tools in this module, by defining the problem statement, disaggregating the problem, building a hypothesis tree, prove or disprove hypotheses through facts and analysis. And, then switch to inductive logic when creating creative potential solutions and synthesizing those solutions. A Barrel of Bad Apples Imagine there is a barrel of apples and 5 apples are picked from the barrel, and they were all rotten.
Why is inductive vs. Exercise 1 — Build Your Logic Awareness Can you tell when people or even yourself are using deductive vs. Exercise 2 — Use Deduction, When you should Use Deduction When you have a significant problem or opportunity you need to solve or build a strategy for, start with a deductive problem solving process. Book some time with Joe Newsum , the creator of Stratechi. Get instant access and expertise from a seasoned McKinsey veteran, growth leader, and renowned strategy coach.
When propositions are expressed with the universality and definiteness that belong to scientific statements, they are called laws; and laws, so far as they are not laws of quantity, are tested by the principles of Logic, if they at all admit of proof.
Logic, then, may be briefly defined as the science of proof with respect to qualitative laws and propositions, except those that are axiomatic. Section 2. Proof may be of different degrees or stages of completeness. Absolute proof would require that a proposition should be shown to agree with all experience and with the systematic explanation of experience, to be a necessary part of an all—embracing and self—consistent philosophy or theory of the universe; but as no one hitherto has been able to frame such a philosophy, we must at present put up with something less than absolute proof.
Logic, assuming certain principles to be true of experience, or at least to be conditions of consistent discourse, distinguishes the kinds of propositions that can be shown to agree with these principles, and explains by what means the agreement can best be exhibited. Such principles are those of Contradiction chap. To bring a proposition or an argument under them, or to show that it agrees with them, is logical proof.
The extent to which proof is requisite, again, depends upon the present purpose: if our aim be general truth for its own sake, a systematic investigation is necessary; but if our object be merely to remove some occasional doubt that has occurred to ourselves or to others, it may be enough to appeal to any evidence that is admitted or not questioned. Thus, if a man doubts that some acids are compounds of oxygen, but grants that some compounds of oxygen are acids, he may agree to the former proposition when you point out that it has the same meaning as the [Pg 3]latter, differing from it only in the order of the words.
This is called proof by immediate inference. Again, suppose that a man holds in his hand a piece of yellow metal, which he asserts to be copper, and that we doubt this, perhaps suggesting that it is really gold. Then he may propose to dip it in vinegar; whilst we agree that, if it then turns green, it is copper and not gold.
On trying this experiment the metal does turn green; so that we may put his argument in this way:— Whatever yellow metal turns green in vinegar is copper; This yellow metal turns green in vinegar; Therefore, this yellow metal is copper. Such an argument is called proof by mediate inference; because one cannot see directly that the yellow metal is copper; but it is admitted that any yellow metal is copper that turns green in vinegar, and we are shown that this yellow metal has that property.
Now, however, it may occur to us, that the liquid in which the metal was dipped was not vinegar, or not pure vinegar, and that the greenness was due to the impurity. Our friend must thereupon show by some means that the vinegar was pure; and then his argument will be that, since nothing but the vinegar came in contact with the metal, the greenness was due to the vinegar; or, in other words, that contact with that vinegar was the cause of the metal turning green.
Still, on second thoughts, we may suspect that we had formerly conceded too much; we may reflect that, although it had often been shown that copper turned green in vinegar, whilst gold did not, yet the same might not always happen. May it not be, we might ask, that just at this moment, and perhaps always for the future gold turns, and will turn green in vinegar, whilst copper does not and never will again? He will probably reply that this is to doubt the uniformity of causation: he may hope that we are not serious: he may point out to us that in every action of our life we take such uniformity for granted.
He has come, in fact, to the limits of Logic. Even when our purpose is to ascertain some general truth, the results of systematic inquiry may have various degrees of certainty. If Logic were confined to strict demonstration, it would cover a narrow field. The greater part of our conclusions can only be more or less probable.
It may, indeed, be maintained, not unreasonably, that no judgments concerning matters of fact can be more than probable. Some say that all scientific results should be considered as giving the average of cases, from which deviations are to be expected. Many matters can only be treated statistically and by the methods of Probability. Our ordinary beliefs are adopted without any methodical examination. But it is the aim, and it is characteristic, of a rational mind to distinguish degrees of certainty, and to hold each judgment with the degree of confidence that it deserves, considering the evidence for and against it.
It takes a long time, and much self—discipline, to make some progress toward rationality; for there are many causes of belief that are not good grounds for it—have no value as evidence.
Evidence consists of 1 observation; 2 reasoning checked by observation and by logical principles; 3 memory—often inaccurate; 4 testimony—often untrustworthy, but indispensable, since all we learn from books or from other men is taken on testimony; 5 the agreement of all our results. On the other hand, belief is caused by many [Pg 5]influences that are not evidence at all: such are 1 desire, which makes us believe in whatever serves our purpose; fear and suspicion, which paradoxically make us believe in whatever seems dangerous; 2 habit, which resists whatever disturbs our prejudices; 3 vanity, which delights to think oneself always right and consistent and disowns fallibility; 4 imitativeness, suggestibility, fashion, which carry us along with the crowd.
All these, and nobler things, such as love and fidelity, fix our attention upon whatever seems to support our prejudices, and prevent our attending to any facts or arguments that threaten to overthrow them.
0コメント