Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Reason Continued
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Reason Continued

1,928

Published on

Continuation of Miss Mott-Thornton's ToK presentation on Reason

Continuation of Miss Mott-Thornton's ToK presentation on Reason

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,928
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Reason Continued…
  • 2. Recap types of logic:
    • Deductive Logic
    • Reasoning from the general to particular
    • Example:
      • all metals expand when heated.
      • A is a metal
      • Therefore A expands when heated
    • Its more certain but less informative than induction
    • Inductive logic
    • Reasoning from the particular to the general
    • Example:
      • Metal A expands when heated
      • Metal B expands when heated
      • Metal C expands when heated
      • Therefore all metals expand when heated
    • Its more informative, but less certain than deduction
  • 3. The relationship between reasoning and certainty
    • What percentage of the metal existing on our planet would you guess scientists have tested to see if it expands when heated?
    • What does this tell you about the certainty or otherwise of scientific laws?
  • 4.  
  • 5. What distinguishes good and bad generalisations?
    • Number – you should look at a reasonable amount of instances
    • Variety - You should look at a variety of instances
    • Exceptions – You should actively look for counter examples. This will help to guard against a confirmation bias.
    • Coherence – you should demand more evidence to support surprising claims than to support unsurprising ones.
    • It would take more to convince me that there is life on Mars than to convince me that there is life in the school pond.
    • Subject Area – generalisations are more reliable in some subjects than in others
  • 6. Logic as a pathway to truth
    • We have seen that reason provides a way of laying out information, in a way that sometimes helps us get closer to truth.
    • When using deductive reasoning one must be able to answer ‘yes’ to both of the following questions:
    • Are the premises true?
    • Is the argument valid?
  • 7. Logic as a pathway to truth
    • Premise 1) some Monks are Tibetans
    • Premise 2) All Tibetans are good at yoga
    • Therefore,
    • Conclusion: some monks are good at Yoga
    • Are the premises true?
    • Is the argument valid?
    • ..some evidence of Tibetans who are good at Yoga
    • So Premise 2) is possibly true
  • 8. Preserving truth
    • So, although we can’t be 100% certain of the truth of the 2 nd premise, unless we find evidence from every Tibetan,
    • And unless we have reason to believe that Tibetan monks generally shun yoga,
    • Although the argument is not strictly valid,
    • We can tentatively accept the truth of the conclusion.
    • This is because the scope of the claim could be fairly small .
    • We don’t need to find many Tibetan Monks who are good at Yoga for the conclusion to be true .
  • 9. Filling in the premises to an argument
    • When people argue in everyday life, they rarely set their arguments out in a formal way.
    • If the speaker regards one of the premises as obvious, they may simply imply or assume that these are true, without stating them explicitly as a premises.
    • Therefore, you will sometimes have to fill in the premises to someone else’s argument, if you want it to make logical sense .
  • 10. Fill in the missing premise:
    • 1) Lucy goes to Oxford University
    • 2) Oxford only takes very intelligent students
    • Therefore: Lucy must be very intelligent.
    • 1) Graham is a politician
    • 2) All politicians are probably lying.
    • Therefore: Graham is probably lying
  • 11. Fill in the missing premise:
    • 1) Cheerleaders compete, train, and have a high level of physical fitness.
    • 2) All Olympic events involve competing, training and having a high level of physical fitness.
    • Therefore: Cheerleading should be an Olympic event
    • 1)it is natural to eat meat
    • 2) There is never anything morally wrong with anything natural
    • Therefore: There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat.
  • 12. Using Venn diagrams
  • 13. Venn diagrams help you work out if a syllogism or argument is valid
    • It is sometimes difficult to work out if a syllogism is true or false.
    • One way of working out what is going on is to draw a Venn diagram. Consider the following syllogism:
      • 1) all As are Bs.
      • 2) some As are Cs.
      • Therefore: some Bs are Cs.
    • To work out if this is valid or not, represent the groups of things which are As inside the group of things which are Bs ...
  • 14. Using Venn diagrams
    • ...and to represent ‘ some As are Cs’ have the circle of Cs intersect the circle of As.
    • So it follows that ‘ somes Bs are Cs’
    • the argument is valid.
    B A C
  • 15. Task:
    • Can you use the following venn diagram to make a syllogism?
  • 16.  
  • 17.  
  • 18. Fallacies Types of invalid reasoning
  • 19. Types of Fallacy
    • The types of Fallacy we’ll focus on:
    • Post hoc ergo propter hoc
    • Ad Hominem Fallacy
    • Circular reasoning
    • Equivocation
    • False Dilemma
  • 20. Fallacies
    • Post hoc ergo propter hoc
    • Meaning: ‘ after this, therefore on account of this’
    • consists of assuming that because one thing, B , follows from another thing, A , then A must be the cause of B . eg:
      • 1) at 6pm the girls ate tomato soup
      • 2) at 7pm the girls committed murders
      • Therefore: tomato soup causes girls to murder
  • 21. Fallacies
    • Ad Hominem
    • Meaning: ‘ against the man’
    • consists of attacking or supporting a person rather than the argument itself . eg:
      • Raffles told me to vote conservative at the next election
      • Raffles would say that because he is a conservative counsellor
    • Although the ad hominem fallacy is committed mostly by criticising someone, it can also be committed by supporting them.
    • If I said ‘Martin Luther King jr was a Christian, so Christianity must be true ’
    • Then I am again focusing on the speaker rather than the argument.
  • 22. fallacies
    • Circular reasoning
    • Aka ‘ begging the question ’
    • Consists in assuming the truth of the thing you are supposed to be proving . Eg:
      • “ I know that Jesus was the Son of God because he said he was, and the Son of God would not lie.”
    • this is not an argument, but a reassertion of original position, with no appeal to reasons.
    • Anthony Flew’s example:
    • ‘ Three thieves are arguing about how to divide up 7 pearls they have stolen.
    • One picks up the pearls and gives two to each of the other two, keeping three for himself.
    • “ I get more because I’m the leader”
    • “ how come your the leader?”
    • “ because I’ve got more pearls.”
  • 23.  
  • 24. fallacies
    • Equivocation
    • This occurs when a word is used in two different senses in an argument.
      • 1) a hamburger is better than nothing
      • 2) Nothing is better than good heath
      • Therefore: a hamburger is better than good health.
    • This appears formally valid, because the premises follow from the conclusion.
    • But there is something wrong with it.
    • The problem lies with the word ‘nothing’ because it has a different meaning in each of the premises .
    • In the 1 st premise it means ‘not having anything ’
    • In the 2 nd it means ‘there is not anything’
    • Maybe this is why many argument s end up being about the meanings of words.
  • 25.  
  • 26. Fallacies
    • False Dilemma
    • This is the fallacy of assuming that there are only two alternatives , when there are in fact a wider range of options. Eg:
    • ‘ Do those who advocate an increase in military expenditure want to see schools and hospitals close?’
    • They imply that we only have two choices:
    • Either we increase military expenditure
    • Or we keep our schools and hospitals open.
    • But in fact there may be more than two choices. Eg
    • If taxes are raised we can have both options.
    Keep schools and hospitals open Increase military expenditure

×