This lecture will summarize the key concepts covered in the course and demonstrate how different sociological theories and methods can be applied to develop explanations of social phenomena. It will also discuss the exam format. Previous lectures covered observing and describing social phenomena, generating theories to explain phenomena, deriving testable hypotheses from theories, and applying theories to shape policies. The course aims to teach students how to develop and apply good theoretical explanations using methods like simplicity, fertility, and surprise. It also discusses evaluating competing explanations by deriving contradictory predictions from each.
The document discusses explanations and predictions. It provides an example of explaining the 1989 revolution in East Germany. To explain why many people participated in protests, a possible explanation is that many were dissatisfied with living conditions and decided to protest. However, this explanation has problems, as it's unclear what specifically caused people to protest. The document discusses testing explanations and formulating theories about general social phenomena to provide more rigorous explanations.
This document discusses different types of logical reasoning that can be used to develop theories: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and retroduction (abductive) reasoning. It provides examples of deductive and inductive arguments and their components. Several nursing theories developed using different logical reasoning approaches are also listed, including theories by Nightingale, Roy, Johnson, Neuman, and others. The document encourages the reader to choose a nursing theory and explain the logical form used by its theorist.
This document provides an introduction to critical thinking and the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning. It defines logic and reasoning, and explains that deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific conclusions, while inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations. Examples of each type of reasoning are provided. The key differences are that deductive reasoning establishes absolute truths if the premises are true, while inductive reasoning reaches tentative conclusions.
The document discusses deductive reasoning and categorical syllogisms. It defines deductive reasoning as reasoning from general statements or premises to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning uses if-then propositions, where if the condition is met then the conclusion follows. However, deductive validity does not guarantee truthfulness, which depends on the premises. Categorical syllogisms comprise premises stating categories or classes that terms belong to, with terms representing all, some, or none of a category. Syllogisms can have valid or invalid conclusions depending on the combination of premises. People also use heuristics and biases when solving syllogisms.
This document summarizes a lecture on logical theories that was given by Dr. Akhlas Ahmed. It introduces the concepts of arguments, premises, conclusions, deductive arguments, and inductive arguments. A deductive argument aims to establish a conclusion as certainly true, while an inductive argument claims a conclusion is likely or probable but not certain. The document provides examples of valid and invalid deductive arguments, as well as sound versus unsound arguments. It concludes with examples for a class activity.
The document discusses the theory of deduction and categorical propositions. It explains that Aristotelian logic focuses on arguments with categorical propositions that relate classes or categories to each other. There are four standard forms of categorical propositions - universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E), particular affirmative (I), and particular negative (O). Each relates the subject and predicate classes in a different way. For example, an A proposition states that all members of the subject class are members of the predicate class, while an O proposition states that at least one member of the subject class is not a member of the predicate class.
1) Logic is the study of valid reasoning and establishing criteria to determine whether reasoning is valid or invalid. Valid reasoning is where conclusions truly follow from previous statements, while invalid reasoning is where conclusions do not follow.
2) Logic examines reasoning in a topic-neutral way, focusing on universal logical principles rather than empirical facts. Logical truths are necessary, in that their validity does not depend on how the world happens to be.
3) The principles of logic tell us what must be true given certain assumptions, but do not guarantee those assumptions are sound. Logic guides implication rather than truth directly.
This document provides an overview of key terms and concepts related to logic and argument analysis for chapters 2-3 of a course. It defines terms like paraphrasing, diagramming, types of definitions and disputes. It also provides examples of paraphrasing and diagramming arguments, including premises, conclusions and the relationships between them. The objectives are to be able to paraphrase, diagram and analyze different types of arguments using these techniques.
The document discusses explanations and predictions. It provides an example of explaining the 1989 revolution in East Germany. To explain why many people participated in protests, a possible explanation is that many were dissatisfied with living conditions and decided to protest. However, this explanation has problems, as it's unclear what specifically caused people to protest. The document discusses testing explanations and formulating theories about general social phenomena to provide more rigorous explanations.
This document discusses different types of logical reasoning that can be used to develop theories: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and retroduction (abductive) reasoning. It provides examples of deductive and inductive arguments and their components. Several nursing theories developed using different logical reasoning approaches are also listed, including theories by Nightingale, Roy, Johnson, Neuman, and others. The document encourages the reader to choose a nursing theory and explain the logical form used by its theorist.
This document provides an introduction to critical thinking and the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning. It defines logic and reasoning, and explains that deductive reasoning moves from general premises to specific conclusions, while inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations. Examples of each type of reasoning are provided. The key differences are that deductive reasoning establishes absolute truths if the premises are true, while inductive reasoning reaches tentative conclusions.
The document discusses deductive reasoning and categorical syllogisms. It defines deductive reasoning as reasoning from general statements or premises to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning uses if-then propositions, where if the condition is met then the conclusion follows. However, deductive validity does not guarantee truthfulness, which depends on the premises. Categorical syllogisms comprise premises stating categories or classes that terms belong to, with terms representing all, some, or none of a category. Syllogisms can have valid or invalid conclusions depending on the combination of premises. People also use heuristics and biases when solving syllogisms.
This document summarizes a lecture on logical theories that was given by Dr. Akhlas Ahmed. It introduces the concepts of arguments, premises, conclusions, deductive arguments, and inductive arguments. A deductive argument aims to establish a conclusion as certainly true, while an inductive argument claims a conclusion is likely or probable but not certain. The document provides examples of valid and invalid deductive arguments, as well as sound versus unsound arguments. It concludes with examples for a class activity.
The document discusses the theory of deduction and categorical propositions. It explains that Aristotelian logic focuses on arguments with categorical propositions that relate classes or categories to each other. There are four standard forms of categorical propositions - universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E), particular affirmative (I), and particular negative (O). Each relates the subject and predicate classes in a different way. For example, an A proposition states that all members of the subject class are members of the predicate class, while an O proposition states that at least one member of the subject class is not a member of the predicate class.
1) Logic is the study of valid reasoning and establishing criteria to determine whether reasoning is valid or invalid. Valid reasoning is where conclusions truly follow from previous statements, while invalid reasoning is where conclusions do not follow.
2) Logic examines reasoning in a topic-neutral way, focusing on universal logical principles rather than empirical facts. Logical truths are necessary, in that their validity does not depend on how the world happens to be.
3) The principles of logic tell us what must be true given certain assumptions, but do not guarantee those assumptions are sound. Logic guides implication rather than truth directly.
This document provides an overview of key terms and concepts related to logic and argument analysis for chapters 2-3 of a course. It defines terms like paraphrasing, diagramming, types of definitions and disputes. It also provides examples of paraphrasing and diagramming arguments, including premises, conclusions and the relationships between them. The objectives are to be able to paraphrase, diagram and analyze different types of arguments using these techniques.
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning. It defines them as the two types of arguments: deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support to conclusions while inductive arguments provide probable support. Deductive arguments are based on laws and principles, using premises to logically derive a conclusion. Inductive arguments are based on experience and observation, using specific examples to generalize to broader conclusions. Examples of deductive arguments using major and minor premises are provided, along with discussions of constructing valid deductive arguments and indirect deductive methods like reductio ad absurdum. The differences between strong, weak, and cogent inductive arguments are also outlined.
This document summarizes the contributions of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to Western philosophy and the development of logic. It discusses how Socrates developed the Socratic method of questioning beliefs and ideas. It describes how Plato was Socrates' student and founded the Academy, and how Aristotle was Plato's student and founded his own school, the Lyceum. The document then outlines Aristotle's development of formal logic and the scientific method. It provides examples of deduction, induction, syllogisms, and analyzing assumptions to determine the validity of arguments.
This document provides an overview of the key concepts in logic. It defines logic as the study of correct reasoning and distinguishes it from the psychology of reasoning, which studies how people actually reason. It provides examples of valid arguments and explains that logic is concerned with validity, not soundness or truth. The document also notes that logic establishes necessary principles of reasoning that are topic-neutral, unlike empirical sciences.
The document provides an overview of logical theories, including the concepts of arguments, premises, conclusions, deductive arguments, inductive arguments, valid arguments, and sound arguments. It defines key terms and provides examples to illustrate different types of arguments. The document also includes sample "class activity" questions and riddles.
This document provides an overview of logic and arguments. It discusses the components of arguments, including premises and conclusions. It also discusses the validity and invalidity of arguments, which can be determined using truth tables. The document goes on to explain how to construct truth tables based on the number of statements, and provides examples of truth tables involving conjunction, disjunction, and conditionals. It concludes by summarizing when arguments are considered true for different logical connectives.
The document discusses various concepts related to logic and arguments, including:
- Logic is defined as an organized body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop methods for evaluating arguments and constructing strong arguments.
- There are two main types of arguments - deductive arguments, which rely on necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments, which rely on probabilistic reasoning.
- Key elements of arguments are identified as premises, conclusions, and logical structures like categorical syllogisms. Various forms of deductive and inductive arguments are outlined.
This document discusses the importance of logic and reasoning in philosophy. It explains the concepts of deductive and inductive arguments, provides examples of each, and emphasizes that correctly applying logical reasoning is important to avoid faulty conclusions that can lead to poor decisions or justify harmful actions. Specifically, it analyzes Sherlock Holmes' deductive reasoning in solving a crime based on a dog that did not bark, and provides examples from South Park to illustrate deductive and inductive arguments.
The document discusses inductive and deductive approaches to research. Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to more specific conclusions, taking a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories in a "bottom-up" approach. Arguments based on rules and principles use deduction, while observations tend to use induction. While deduction leads to certain conclusions, induction draws conclusions that are probable but not certain from observations.
One of the central attributes that distinguishes man from other living organisms is the ability to think. Without this distinctive characteristic, life would be hard to live. This course on logical reasoning is out to demonstrate the importance of logical reasoning in your daily lives in general and in your respective professions in particular.
Logic is the science of reasoning. There are three laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. There are two inferential processes in logic: immediate deductive inference such as conversion and obversion, and mediate deductive inference using syllogisms. Induction involves generalizing from particular instances and establishing causal relationships through methods like agreement, difference, and concomitant variation. Scientific theories are conjectures that can be falsified, not proven absolutely true, with science progressing through falsification and modification of theories.
The document discusses different philosophical approaches to evaluating the validity of statements or propositions based on the types of questions asked. Gottfried Leibniz focuses on rational justification independent of empirical data. John Locke focuses on empirical data and statistical analysis. Immanuel Kant looks for a combination of data and theoretical justification. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel examines alternative views and the potential for synthesis of ideas. Peter Singer considers whether the right questions are being asked and perspectives considered. Mitroff and Turoff note that each approach reflects a different way of understanding communication and that many more exist.
The document discusses different philosophical approaches to evaluating the validity of statements or propositions based on the types of questions asked. Gottfried Leibniz focuses on rational justification independent of empirical data. John Locke focuses on empirical data and statistical analysis. Immanuel Kant looks for a combination of data and theoretical justification. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel examines alternative views and the potential for synthesis. Peter Singer considers whether the right questions are being asked and perspectives considered. Mitroff and Turoff note that each approach reflects a different way of understanding communication and that many other approaches exist.
1) The document discusses explanations and predictions of social phenomena using models. It provides an overview of the Lave and March model of scientific discovery and the Hempel and Oppenheim model of explanation.
2) An example experiment is described where participants allocate points to a personal or common fund, demonstrating incentives in public good games. Predictions are made using a law-like statement and antecedent condition.
3) A class activity involves adequately explaining the 1989 East German revolution using the Hempel and Oppenheim model, citing relevant literature on the roles of groups, networks, and coordination. Key factors inducing participation are identified.
This document discusses the meaning, definitions, characteristics, formulation, and ways of stating hypotheses. Some key points:
- A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the solution of a problem, temporarily accepted as true based on current knowledge.
- Important definitions characterize a hypothesis as a provisional guess, shrewd inference, or testable proposition that can be verified.
- For a hypothesis to be good, it should be simple, clear, precise, testable, state relationships, be consistent with facts, and explain what it claims.
- Formulating hypotheses involves surveying data, abstracting similarities, and deducing a proposition, though the process is vague and idiosyncratic.
-
Cuban Missile Crisis Essay - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. Essay Cuban Missile Crisis | Cuban Missile Crisis | Nikita Khrushchev. Which country is most responsible for the Cuban missile crisis Essay .... Essay websites: The cuban missile crisis essay. The Cuban Missile Crisis - PHDessay.com. History Essay Cuban Missile Crisis | John F. Kennedy | Nikita Khrushchev. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Causes and Consequences - GCSE History .... ≫ Cuban Missile Crisis and Quarantine of Cuba Free Essay Sample on .... Cold war cuban missile crisis essay. The Cuban Missile Crisis - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. Why was the Cuban Missile Crisis a turning point in Cold War Relations .... Cuban Missile Crisis Essay Questions. Free cuban missile crisis Essays and Papers - 123helpme. ≫ Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com. key features of the cuban missile crisis - GCSE History - Marked by .... Cuban missile crisis essay thesis proposal. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. The Cuban Missile Crisis. - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. The Cuban Missile Crisis - A-Level History - Marked by Teachers.com.
This document discusses logical reasoning and its importance in humanitarian analysis. It defines key logical terms like statements, premises, conclusions, and inferences. There are four main types of logical reasoning: deduction works from general to specific, induction from specific to general, abduction explores plausible explanations, and retroduction reconstructs past events. Together these forms of reasoning are the framework for any research or analysis. The document also provides examples and discusses evaluating arguments and distinguishing arguments from non-arguments.
This document provides an overview and summary of Norman Geisler's book concerning the "preconditions" of evangelical theology. It discusses that evangelical theologians believe the Bible is infallible and true, coming from God, which presupposes certain philosophical beliefs. These include beliefs in God, miracles, revelation, and that revelation follows the laws of logic and can be objectively interpreted. It then examines the three laws of rational thinking - noncontradiction, identity, and excluded middle. Next it discusses deductive logic through categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms. It also covers inductive logic and degrees of probability. The key point is that for evangelical theologians, God
T.L,earnlngHvvh-tDObjectives1,. Give an example of.docxdeanmtaylor1545
T.
L,earnlngHvvh-**t**D
Objectives
1,. Give an example of
a nomothetic causal
ilr;;;,i,"il;,;.*ili;:;;;J
explanation.
2. Discuss the role of the
I dentifrrrg causes-figuring out why things happen-is the goal of most social
I science research. Unfortunately, valid explanations of the causes of social
phenomena do not come easily. Why did the rate of homicides rise in the early
1990s and then begin a sustained drop that has continued in the 2000s, even
during the2008-2010 recession, to a level last seen in 1968 (Federal Bureau
of Investigation 2018) (Exhibit 6.1)? Arizona State Llniversify criminologist
Scott Decker points to the low levels of crime committed by illegal immigrants
to explain the falling crime rate in his state (Archibold2010), and sociologist
RobertJ. Sampson (2008) draws attention to the rising level of immigration in
cities through the 1990s to help explain the national decline in the crime rate.
Criminal justice advocates in Texas point to the state's invesffnent in communiry
treatment and diversion programs (Grissom}Ol1). Police officials in NewYork
City point to the effectiveness of CompStat, the city's computer program that
indicates to the police where crimes are clustering (Dewan 2004a,M5; Dewan
200+b,A1; Kaplan 2002, A3), but other New Yorkers credit the increase in the
ranks of New York's police officers because of its Safe Streets, Safe Cities
program (Rashbaum 2002).Yet another possible explanation in New York City
was the declining level of crack cocaine use (Dewan 2004b, Cl6).But then
should we worry about the increasing number of drug arrests nationally (Bureau
ofJustice Statistics 2011) and a rise in the abuse of prescription drugs (Good-
nough 2010)? We also know from Desmond, Papachristos, and Kirk (2016) that
we should take into account the factors that affectpolice reporting, such as trust
in the police. How can we design research that can help us answer these kinds
of questions?
In this chapter, we first discuss the meaning of causation from two differ-
ent perspectives-nomothetic and idiographic-and then review the criteria
for achieving causally valid explanations. During this review, we give special
attention to several k.y distinctions in research design that are related to our
ability to come to causal conclusions: the use of an experimental or nonexperi-
mental design and reliance on a cross-sectional or longitudinal design. By the
end of the chapter, you should have a good grasp of the different meanings of
causation and be able to ask the right questions to determine whether causal
inferences are likely to be valid. You also may have a better answer about the
causes of crime and violence.
/.. ulscuss tne role oI itne
counterfactual in nomothetic
causal explanation.
CAUSATION AND RESEARCH DESIGN
CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS
A cause is an explanation for some characteristic, attitude,
or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities (such
as families, organizations, or cities) or for events. M.
Assingment of ir taha amir bs dss importance of theory in irtahaamir4
This document is a student assignment submitted by Taha Amir to Dr. Naveed Qaiser for the course SPIR100 at BS-DSS 1st semester evening. The topic of the assignment is the importance of theory in international relations. The student discusses that theories are needed to organize knowledge, test hypotheses, and construct new frameworks. Theories help make sense of complexity in international relations by placing specific events in broader patterns and structural explanations. Major theorists like Waltz, Guzzini, and Hollis and Smith are discussed regarding how theories explain state behavior, allow understanding of the world, and further academic debates. Theories have important real-world applications like allowing countries to analyze others' behaviors and predict outcomes to inform
The document provides an introduction to answering exam questions about media concepts. It discusses the concepts of genre, narrative, representation, audience and media language that exam questions may be based on. It also provides examples of past exam questions, tips on how to structure a response, and focuses on explaining the concept of narrative. Key aspects of narrative discussed include its structure, the role of characters and time. Theories of narrative from theorists like Propp, Todorov and Levi-Strauss are also summarized.
Introduction to logic and prolog - Part 1Sabu Francis
The document provides an introduction to logic and Prolog programming. It discusses:
1) Alan Turing's invention of the modern computer to solve complex problems like decoding encrypted messages. This established the concept of algorithms being carried out through linear instruction processing.
2) Prolog programming focuses solely on logic and removes concerns about procedural elements like instruction pointers. It allows programmers to focus only on the problem's logic.
3) Logic is a tool for reasoning that uses concepts like true, false, if-then statements, and, or, etc. It helps clarify reasoning but cannot validate conclusions on its own if premises are flawed.
Week 14 April 28 & 30 - Love and Death Castillo, Chap. 9 .docxmelbruce90096
Week 14: April 28 & 30 - Love and Death
Castillo, Chap. 9 “Sofia, Who Would Never Again Let Her Husband Have the Last Word…”
Chap. 10 “Wherein Sofia Discovers La Loca’s Playmate…”
Chap. 11 “The Marriage of Sofia’s Faithful Daughter to her Cousin”
Chap. 12 “Of the Hideous Crime of Francisco el Penitente…”
1. For all chapters, identify the four levels of analysis: 1) metaphoric/symbolic; 2) literary; 3) sociological; and spiritual.
Chapter 9 “Sofia, Who Would Never Again Let Her Husband Have the Last Word…”
2. In this chapter, Sofia begins a transformation of her own. What is this transformation and what role does Esperanza play?Chapter 10
3. In this chapter, we return to La Loca, reading from her point of view. What do we learn from this, the youngest of Sofi’s daughters?
4. As Fe leaves Sofia’s home we realize she has not come to terms with what she went through when Tom broke off the engagement. What is Fe like now? Has she also changed?
5. What about Esperanza, what news about her? And what about “La Llorona, Chicana international astral-traveler”?
Chapter 11
6. Much happens to Fe in this chapter. Be able to recount all of Fe’s experiences and the relationship to big business, the U.S. government, and the medical profession.Chapter 12
7. What to make of this last chapter in Caridad and Francisco’s lives? What are the recurring themes and metaphors/symbolizes, etc.?
In preparation for the Opposing Viewpoints short paper due in Module Five, you will outline a position (thesis) on a topic of your choosing.
Using the Prewriting Template provided, outline two to three of your reasons for supporting your thesis and then also outline the objection’s position. Please note that the main purpose of this assignment is to formulate the strongest possible objection to your own position before responding to it.
You will be required to use at least four outside (i.e., other than the textbook) sources for this paper, two for each side of the issue. You do not need to do extensive reearch before completing the outline.
Possible topics: Affirmative Action, Abortion, State-Financed Health Care, Flat Tax...or anything you want. It is best to choose a position for which you can find reasonable arguments on both sides.
Click on the title above to turn in your outline.
First Paper (Opposing Viewpoints):
Critical Elements
Distinguished
Proficient
Emerging
Not Evident
Value
Main Elements
Includes almost all of the main elements and requirements and cites ample appropriate support to illustrate each element
(23-25)
Includes most of the main elements and requirements and cites appropriate support to illustrate each element
(20-22)
Includes some of the main elements and requirements
(18-19)
Does not include any of the main elements and requirements
(0-17)
25
Inquiry and Analysis
Explores multiple reasons and offers in-depth analysis of evidence to make informed conclusions about the issue
(18-20)
Explores so.
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning. It defines them as the two types of arguments: deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support to conclusions while inductive arguments provide probable support. Deductive arguments are based on laws and principles, using premises to logically derive a conclusion. Inductive arguments are based on experience and observation, using specific examples to generalize to broader conclusions. Examples of deductive arguments using major and minor premises are provided, along with discussions of constructing valid deductive arguments and indirect deductive methods like reductio ad absurdum. The differences between strong, weak, and cogent inductive arguments are also outlined.
This document summarizes the contributions of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to Western philosophy and the development of logic. It discusses how Socrates developed the Socratic method of questioning beliefs and ideas. It describes how Plato was Socrates' student and founded the Academy, and how Aristotle was Plato's student and founded his own school, the Lyceum. The document then outlines Aristotle's development of formal logic and the scientific method. It provides examples of deduction, induction, syllogisms, and analyzing assumptions to determine the validity of arguments.
This document provides an overview of the key concepts in logic. It defines logic as the study of correct reasoning and distinguishes it from the psychology of reasoning, which studies how people actually reason. It provides examples of valid arguments and explains that logic is concerned with validity, not soundness or truth. The document also notes that logic establishes necessary principles of reasoning that are topic-neutral, unlike empirical sciences.
The document provides an overview of logical theories, including the concepts of arguments, premises, conclusions, deductive arguments, inductive arguments, valid arguments, and sound arguments. It defines key terms and provides examples to illustrate different types of arguments. The document also includes sample "class activity" questions and riddles.
This document provides an overview of logic and arguments. It discusses the components of arguments, including premises and conclusions. It also discusses the validity and invalidity of arguments, which can be determined using truth tables. The document goes on to explain how to construct truth tables based on the number of statements, and provides examples of truth tables involving conjunction, disjunction, and conditionals. It concludes by summarizing when arguments are considered true for different logical connectives.
The document discusses various concepts related to logic and arguments, including:
- Logic is defined as an organized body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop methods for evaluating arguments and constructing strong arguments.
- There are two main types of arguments - deductive arguments, which rely on necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments, which rely on probabilistic reasoning.
- Key elements of arguments are identified as premises, conclusions, and logical structures like categorical syllogisms. Various forms of deductive and inductive arguments are outlined.
This document discusses the importance of logic and reasoning in philosophy. It explains the concepts of deductive and inductive arguments, provides examples of each, and emphasizes that correctly applying logical reasoning is important to avoid faulty conclusions that can lead to poor decisions or justify harmful actions. Specifically, it analyzes Sherlock Holmes' deductive reasoning in solving a crime based on a dog that did not bark, and provides examples from South Park to illustrate deductive and inductive arguments.
The document discusses inductive and deductive approaches to research. Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to more specific conclusions, taking a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories in a "bottom-up" approach. Arguments based on rules and principles use deduction, while observations tend to use induction. While deduction leads to certain conclusions, induction draws conclusions that are probable but not certain from observations.
One of the central attributes that distinguishes man from other living organisms is the ability to think. Without this distinctive characteristic, life would be hard to live. This course on logical reasoning is out to demonstrate the importance of logical reasoning in your daily lives in general and in your respective professions in particular.
Logic is the science of reasoning. There are three laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. There are two inferential processes in logic: immediate deductive inference such as conversion and obversion, and mediate deductive inference using syllogisms. Induction involves generalizing from particular instances and establishing causal relationships through methods like agreement, difference, and concomitant variation. Scientific theories are conjectures that can be falsified, not proven absolutely true, with science progressing through falsification and modification of theories.
The document discusses different philosophical approaches to evaluating the validity of statements or propositions based on the types of questions asked. Gottfried Leibniz focuses on rational justification independent of empirical data. John Locke focuses on empirical data and statistical analysis. Immanuel Kant looks for a combination of data and theoretical justification. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel examines alternative views and the potential for synthesis of ideas. Peter Singer considers whether the right questions are being asked and perspectives considered. Mitroff and Turoff note that each approach reflects a different way of understanding communication and that many more exist.
The document discusses different philosophical approaches to evaluating the validity of statements or propositions based on the types of questions asked. Gottfried Leibniz focuses on rational justification independent of empirical data. John Locke focuses on empirical data and statistical analysis. Immanuel Kant looks for a combination of data and theoretical justification. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel examines alternative views and the potential for synthesis. Peter Singer considers whether the right questions are being asked and perspectives considered. Mitroff and Turoff note that each approach reflects a different way of understanding communication and that many other approaches exist.
1) The document discusses explanations and predictions of social phenomena using models. It provides an overview of the Lave and March model of scientific discovery and the Hempel and Oppenheim model of explanation.
2) An example experiment is described where participants allocate points to a personal or common fund, demonstrating incentives in public good games. Predictions are made using a law-like statement and antecedent condition.
3) A class activity involves adequately explaining the 1989 East German revolution using the Hempel and Oppenheim model, citing relevant literature on the roles of groups, networks, and coordination. Key factors inducing participation are identified.
This document discusses the meaning, definitions, characteristics, formulation, and ways of stating hypotheses. Some key points:
- A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the solution of a problem, temporarily accepted as true based on current knowledge.
- Important definitions characterize a hypothesis as a provisional guess, shrewd inference, or testable proposition that can be verified.
- For a hypothesis to be good, it should be simple, clear, precise, testable, state relationships, be consistent with facts, and explain what it claims.
- Formulating hypotheses involves surveying data, abstracting similarities, and deducing a proposition, though the process is vague and idiosyncratic.
-
Cuban Missile Crisis Essay - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. Essay Cuban Missile Crisis | Cuban Missile Crisis | Nikita Khrushchev. Which country is most responsible for the Cuban missile crisis Essay .... Essay websites: The cuban missile crisis essay. The Cuban Missile Crisis - PHDessay.com. History Essay Cuban Missile Crisis | John F. Kennedy | Nikita Khrushchev. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Causes and Consequences - GCSE History .... ≫ Cuban Missile Crisis and Quarantine of Cuba Free Essay Sample on .... Cold war cuban missile crisis essay. The Cuban Missile Crisis - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. Why was the Cuban Missile Crisis a turning point in Cold War Relations .... Cuban Missile Crisis Essay Questions. Free cuban missile crisis Essays and Papers - 123helpme. ≫ Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com. key features of the cuban missile crisis - GCSE History - Marked by .... Cuban missile crisis essay thesis proposal. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. The Cuban Missile Crisis. - GCSE History - Marked by Teachers.com. The Cuban Missile Crisis - A-Level History - Marked by Teachers.com.
This document discusses logical reasoning and its importance in humanitarian analysis. It defines key logical terms like statements, premises, conclusions, and inferences. There are four main types of logical reasoning: deduction works from general to specific, induction from specific to general, abduction explores plausible explanations, and retroduction reconstructs past events. Together these forms of reasoning are the framework for any research or analysis. The document also provides examples and discusses evaluating arguments and distinguishing arguments from non-arguments.
This document provides an overview and summary of Norman Geisler's book concerning the "preconditions" of evangelical theology. It discusses that evangelical theologians believe the Bible is infallible and true, coming from God, which presupposes certain philosophical beliefs. These include beliefs in God, miracles, revelation, and that revelation follows the laws of logic and can be objectively interpreted. It then examines the three laws of rational thinking - noncontradiction, identity, and excluded middle. Next it discusses deductive logic through categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms. It also covers inductive logic and degrees of probability. The key point is that for evangelical theologians, God
T.L,earnlngHvvh-tDObjectives1,. Give an example of.docxdeanmtaylor1545
T.
L,earnlngHvvh-**t**D
Objectives
1,. Give an example of
a nomothetic causal
ilr;;;,i,"il;,;.*ili;:;;;J
explanation.
2. Discuss the role of the
I dentifrrrg causes-figuring out why things happen-is the goal of most social
I science research. Unfortunately, valid explanations of the causes of social
phenomena do not come easily. Why did the rate of homicides rise in the early
1990s and then begin a sustained drop that has continued in the 2000s, even
during the2008-2010 recession, to a level last seen in 1968 (Federal Bureau
of Investigation 2018) (Exhibit 6.1)? Arizona State Llniversify criminologist
Scott Decker points to the low levels of crime committed by illegal immigrants
to explain the falling crime rate in his state (Archibold2010), and sociologist
RobertJ. Sampson (2008) draws attention to the rising level of immigration in
cities through the 1990s to help explain the national decline in the crime rate.
Criminal justice advocates in Texas point to the state's invesffnent in communiry
treatment and diversion programs (Grissom}Ol1). Police officials in NewYork
City point to the effectiveness of CompStat, the city's computer program that
indicates to the police where crimes are clustering (Dewan 2004a,M5; Dewan
200+b,A1; Kaplan 2002, A3), but other New Yorkers credit the increase in the
ranks of New York's police officers because of its Safe Streets, Safe Cities
program (Rashbaum 2002).Yet another possible explanation in New York City
was the declining level of crack cocaine use (Dewan 2004b, Cl6).But then
should we worry about the increasing number of drug arrests nationally (Bureau
ofJustice Statistics 2011) and a rise in the abuse of prescription drugs (Good-
nough 2010)? We also know from Desmond, Papachristos, and Kirk (2016) that
we should take into account the factors that affectpolice reporting, such as trust
in the police. How can we design research that can help us answer these kinds
of questions?
In this chapter, we first discuss the meaning of causation from two differ-
ent perspectives-nomothetic and idiographic-and then review the criteria
for achieving causally valid explanations. During this review, we give special
attention to several k.y distinctions in research design that are related to our
ability to come to causal conclusions: the use of an experimental or nonexperi-
mental design and reliance on a cross-sectional or longitudinal design. By the
end of the chapter, you should have a good grasp of the different meanings of
causation and be able to ask the right questions to determine whether causal
inferences are likely to be valid. You also may have a better answer about the
causes of crime and violence.
/.. ulscuss tne role oI itne
counterfactual in nomothetic
causal explanation.
CAUSATION AND RESEARCH DESIGN
CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS
A cause is an explanation for some characteristic, attitude,
or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities (such
as families, organizations, or cities) or for events. M.
Assingment of ir taha amir bs dss importance of theory in irtahaamir4
This document is a student assignment submitted by Taha Amir to Dr. Naveed Qaiser for the course SPIR100 at BS-DSS 1st semester evening. The topic of the assignment is the importance of theory in international relations. The student discusses that theories are needed to organize knowledge, test hypotheses, and construct new frameworks. Theories help make sense of complexity in international relations by placing specific events in broader patterns and structural explanations. Major theorists like Waltz, Guzzini, and Hollis and Smith are discussed regarding how theories explain state behavior, allow understanding of the world, and further academic debates. Theories have important real-world applications like allowing countries to analyze others' behaviors and predict outcomes to inform
The document provides an introduction to answering exam questions about media concepts. It discusses the concepts of genre, narrative, representation, audience and media language that exam questions may be based on. It also provides examples of past exam questions, tips on how to structure a response, and focuses on explaining the concept of narrative. Key aspects of narrative discussed include its structure, the role of characters and time. Theories of narrative from theorists like Propp, Todorov and Levi-Strauss are also summarized.
Introduction to logic and prolog - Part 1Sabu Francis
The document provides an introduction to logic and Prolog programming. It discusses:
1) Alan Turing's invention of the modern computer to solve complex problems like decoding encrypted messages. This established the concept of algorithms being carried out through linear instruction processing.
2) Prolog programming focuses solely on logic and removes concerns about procedural elements like instruction pointers. It allows programmers to focus only on the problem's logic.
3) Logic is a tool for reasoning that uses concepts like true, false, if-then statements, and, or, etc. It helps clarify reasoning but cannot validate conclusions on its own if premises are flawed.
Week 14 April 28 & 30 - Love and Death Castillo, Chap. 9 .docxmelbruce90096
Week 14: April 28 & 30 - Love and Death
Castillo, Chap. 9 “Sofia, Who Would Never Again Let Her Husband Have the Last Word…”
Chap. 10 “Wherein Sofia Discovers La Loca’s Playmate…”
Chap. 11 “The Marriage of Sofia’s Faithful Daughter to her Cousin”
Chap. 12 “Of the Hideous Crime of Francisco el Penitente…”
1. For all chapters, identify the four levels of analysis: 1) metaphoric/symbolic; 2) literary; 3) sociological; and spiritual.
Chapter 9 “Sofia, Who Would Never Again Let Her Husband Have the Last Word…”
2. In this chapter, Sofia begins a transformation of her own. What is this transformation and what role does Esperanza play?Chapter 10
3. In this chapter, we return to La Loca, reading from her point of view. What do we learn from this, the youngest of Sofi’s daughters?
4. As Fe leaves Sofia’s home we realize she has not come to terms with what she went through when Tom broke off the engagement. What is Fe like now? Has she also changed?
5. What about Esperanza, what news about her? And what about “La Llorona, Chicana international astral-traveler”?
Chapter 11
6. Much happens to Fe in this chapter. Be able to recount all of Fe’s experiences and the relationship to big business, the U.S. government, and the medical profession.Chapter 12
7. What to make of this last chapter in Caridad and Francisco’s lives? What are the recurring themes and metaphors/symbolizes, etc.?
In preparation for the Opposing Viewpoints short paper due in Module Five, you will outline a position (thesis) on a topic of your choosing.
Using the Prewriting Template provided, outline two to three of your reasons for supporting your thesis and then also outline the objection’s position. Please note that the main purpose of this assignment is to formulate the strongest possible objection to your own position before responding to it.
You will be required to use at least four outside (i.e., other than the textbook) sources for this paper, two for each side of the issue. You do not need to do extensive reearch before completing the outline.
Possible topics: Affirmative Action, Abortion, State-Financed Health Care, Flat Tax...or anything you want. It is best to choose a position for which you can find reasonable arguments on both sides.
Click on the title above to turn in your outline.
First Paper (Opposing Viewpoints):
Critical Elements
Distinguished
Proficient
Emerging
Not Evident
Value
Main Elements
Includes almost all of the main elements and requirements and cites ample appropriate support to illustrate each element
(23-25)
Includes most of the main elements and requirements and cites appropriate support to illustrate each element
(20-22)
Includes some of the main elements and requirements
(18-19)
Does not include any of the main elements and requirements
(0-17)
25
Inquiry and Analysis
Explores multiple reasons and offers in-depth analysis of evidence to make informed conclusions about the issue
(18-20)
Explores so.
The document provides guidance on elucidating concepts through definition, explication, and clarification. It discusses definition techniques like formal definition using genus and differentia, extended definition using synonyms, etymology, examples, and negation. Explication is explained as a deductive process of refining a general concept and testing it through close reading to uncover deeper meaning. Clarification strategies include explaining cause and effect relationships and using theories to make ideas clearer and avoid misconceptions. The overall aim is to define key terms, explain complex ideas, and clarify points to enhance understanding.
This document discusses the role and usefulness of economic theory. It argues that theories are always false approximations of reality since they necessarily ignore certain details. However, theories can still be useful for creating a common language to discuss concepts, checking intuitions, and generating unexpected insights and new research directions. The key question about a theory is whether it is useful rather than whether it is literally true. Theories aim to simplify reality in a way that facilitates understanding, even if this means ignoring certain real-world complexities.
How to Write My Personality Essay: Example Included!. ≫ Understanding Your Personality Traits Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com. Essay on Personality Development | Role of Education in Personality .... My Personality Essay – Our strength and weakness in describe your .... 003 Personality Essay Help Essays Psychology Writing Service Uk .... Personality Inventory and Personality Group Summary Sheet Essay Example .... Personality Essay. personality essay - GCSE Psychology - Marked by Teachers.com. My favourite personality essay creativesavantz.com. Calaméo - Zoology Essay - Personality: To Tame or to Continue Omitting?. My Personality Essay - PHDessay.com. My Personality Essay | Sample Essay on My Personality for Students and .... Personality Essay | PSYC104 - Introduction to Psychology I | Thinkswap. Phenomenal What Inspires You Essay ~ Thatsnotus. Personality and Psychology in Life Essay Example | Topics and Well .... Personality Assessment - Free Essay Sample. Introduction to Personality - PHDessay.com.
How to Write My Personality Essay: Example Included!. ≫ Understanding Your Personality Traits Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com. Essay on Personality Development | Role of Education in Personality .... My Personality Essay – Our strength and weakness in describe your .... 003 Personality Essay Help Essays Psychology Writing Service Uk .... Personality Inventory and Per
[David m. kreps]_game_theory_and_economic_modellin(b-ok.org)Saúl Pillaca Yupanqu
This document provides an introduction to a book about game theory and its applications in economic modeling. It discusses how game theory has become a central methodology in economics over the past few decades. The author aims to answer questions about the successes of game theory, its deficiencies, and how it may continue to evolve and remain relevant. The author acknowledges their personal stake in promoting game theory due to their own research, but aims to provide a balanced perspective on both its achievements and limitations from the view of the broader academic community.
The document provides examples and explanations of different types of logical reasoning and empirical testing of theories. It includes questions about:
1. Describing a critical test to empirically distinguish between two competing theories about residential segregation.
2. Deciding whether an argument about political inactivity is valid.
3. Demonstrating the validity of a hypothetical syllogism using a truth table.
4. Evaluating the validity of syllogistic arguments using the star test and Venn diagrams.
5. Comparing the empirical content of pairs of statements.
The document provides worked examples and evaluation criteria for critically assessing different logical arguments and empirical tests of theories.
This document provides an overview of using theories to develop policy advice. It discusses:
1. The key criteria for a good theoretical basis for policy advice is having a valid explanation for how the expected effects of a proposed policy logically follow from an explicitly formulated theory.
2. The steps to take from theory to advice are: 1) identify related phenomena to explain, 2) develop a valid explanation for these phenomena using a theory, 3) derive predictions from the theory for how a proposed policy will achieve its intended effects.
3. A problem with applying theories to real-life problems is overlooking implicit "ceteris paribus" assumptions in the reasoning. To address this, theories should specify under what conditions premises
The document discusses using theories to inform policy advice. It provides the example of school segregation in the US in the 1960s. James Coleman's research found that racial mixing in schools increased educational achievement for black students. The problem was that schools were highly segregated. The advice given was to implement busing policies to desegregate schools and increase racial mixing, based on the theory that interethnic contact improves outcomes for minority students. The document outlines the steps of developing policy advice from theory, including having an evidence-based theory that adequately explains the problem being addressed.
The document discusses a theory to explain the relationship between Italy's non-transparent recruitment system and brain drain. The theory proposes that:
1) A non-transparent recruitment system leads educated citizens to perceive lower chances of employment in Italy.
2) This perception of lower chances then makes them more likely to search for jobs outside of Italy.
3) Therefore, a non-transparent recruitment system indirectly increases the likelihood that educated citizens will seek jobs abroad, contributing to the phenomenon of "brain drain" from Italy.
Individual behavior can explain collective social phenomena through an individualistic approach. This involves making assumptions about individual decision-making and behavior, and then showing how the aggregation of individual actions at a macro level can result in observed social outcomes. An individualistic explanation of a social phenomenon consists of linking micro-level individual choices and actions to the macro-level phenomenon through bridge and transformation assumptions. While making incorrect predictions signals the need to reexamine assumptions, individualistic explanations provide an alternative to purely structural explanations that view social phenomena as independent of individual behavior.
The document describes rational choice theory and how it can be used to explain individual decision-making and social outcomes. It outlines the central assumptions of rational choice theory, which are that decision-makers have logically consistent goals and choose the best available option given those goals. Experimental methods and laboratory experiments are also discussed as ways to test rational choice theory by studying individual behavior in controlled settings with financial incentives.
This document discusses how to evaluate and criticize theories or explanations. It begins by asking questions about how to criticize theories, what defines a good explanation, and how to determine if an explanation is good. It then provides four conditions that a good explanation should meet according to Hempel and Oppenheim: 1) the explanation must logically follow from the explanatory statements, 2) the explanation must include at least one general law and one singular statement, 3) the explanatory statements must have empirical content, and 4) all explanatory statements must be true. The document questions how these conditions relate to Popper's ideas about verifiability and falsifiability. It ends by discussing how to formulate informative theories and what to do with incorrect explanations
The document provides an introduction and overview of formal logic and syllogistic logic. It defines key terms and concepts used in formal logic like categories, individuals, well-formed formulas (WFFs), and the star test for determining validity of syllogisms. It also provides examples of translating statements into syllogistic form and using the star test to evaluate arguments.
The document provides an introduction to formal logic. It discusses how to formulate valid arguments through propositional logic and syllogistic logic. Propositional logic uses truth tables to evaluate combinations of propositions and operators like negation and conjunction. Syllogistic logic examines implications of general statements using domains and categories. The key rules of inference for valid arguments are hypothetical syllogism, modus ponens, and modus tollens.
1. The document discusses Thomas Schelling's model of how people choose seats at a conference based on their behavior and choices in relation to others.
2. It introduces Schelling's observation of empty front rows and full back rows at a conference, and his use of Lave and March's 4 step model to speculate about the processes that could produce this pattern.
3. Key points discussed include linking micro-level individual behavior to macro-level aggregate outcomes, and how people's choices depend on and respond to the choices of others around them in complex ways that are not simple extrapolations.
The document discusses the difficulty of explaining social problems and phenomena. It argues that social problems are neither simple nor unscientific as commonly believed. While common sense helps navigate social rules and environments, it can also undermine our ability to understand them scientifically. The document provides examples showing how social phenomena like behavior in the army or decisions in economic games are not as straightforward or obvious as they seem, and large-scale studies are needed to truly understand them.
The document summarizes the results of 11 practical experiments conducted as part of a Social Networks course. It provides the key metrics and outcomes for each practical, including average points earned, payoffs, and rankings. The document concludes by showing the final accumulated average payoffs and rankings for each participant.
Network games model strategic interactions between players on a network. In these games, players care about the actions of their neighbors and payoffs depend on both a player's own action and those of their neighbors. Three key aspects of network games are: games with strategic complements where players' payoffs increase as more neighbors take an action; games with heterogeneous players who have different preferences over actions; and games with endogenous link formation where players strategically form connections. An experiment on network games found that when player preferences conflict, networks tend to segregate based on preferences and players aim to coordinate within their segregated subgroups rather than achieve the socially optimal outcome.
The document discusses how network structure impacts behavior, specifically in the context of contagion. It provides an example of a girls' dormitory social network and how a disease might spread through it. Real-life social networks often have properties like heavy-tailed degree distributions, small diameters, and high clustering that influence contagion. These network structures determine the extent to which infections, ideas, or behaviors can diffuse.
The document discusses strategic network formation and pairwise stability in networks. It provides some basic intuition about modeling network formation as individuals making choices to form links based on costs and benefits. Links may be undirected or directed. Networks can be modeled as a game where each node announces links and a link only forms if both nodes name each other. A network is pairwise stable if no node benefits from removing a link and no two nodes both benefit from adding a new link. An example of collaboration networks with negative externalities is provided, where the network evolves from an empty network to a fully connected network due to individual link formation incentives.
This document discusses key concepts in social network analysis including structuralism, social capital theory, homophily, reciprocity, and centrality. It addresses how (1) social networks can be viewed as social capital that individuals use to achieve goals; (2) both network structure and individual characteristics influence each other; and (3) real-world networks tend to exhibit properties like homophily where similar individuals connect, reciprocity in relationships, and certain influential centralized individuals.
This document provides an overview of social networks and their structure. It discusses how social networks form and influence individual behavior. Key concepts introduced include:
- Nodes represent individuals and links represent relationships between nodes in a social network.
- Basic network properties like degree, neighborhood, paths, and components help describe network structure.
- Real-world networks tend to have short path lengths and exhibit clustering, degree distributions, and transitivity.
- Understanding network structure can provide insights into how behaviors and outcomes spread through social ties.
This document provides an overview of key concepts in game theory, including:
1. It defines dominance, best response, Nash equilibrium, and Pareto dominance.
2. It gives an example game to illustrate dominance and best responses, showing that strategy C dominates R for player 2.
3. Nash equilibrium is defined as a strategy profile where each player's choice is a best response to the other players' choices. The battle of the sexes game is used to show multiple Nash equilibria can exist.
This document discusses strategic interaction and game theory concepts through the example of a grading game. It introduces the grading game payoff matrix and explores it from self-regarding and other-regarding preference perspectives. It discusses four rules of strategic thinking: 1) Do not play strictly dominated strategies 2) Rational choices can lead to inefficient outcomes 3) Payoffs matter 4) Put yourself in others' shoes to think strategically. It provides examples applying these rules by changing the payoffs and preferences of players to illustrate how outcomes can change depending on the strategic situation.
Experiments on social preferences show that individuals exhibit other-regarding behavior and do not always act rationally in a selfish manner. In dictator, ultimatum, gift exchange, trust, and public goods games:
(1) People share resources and reject unfair offers, even when selfish behavior would maximize their outcomes;
(2) Reciprocation and trust exist, as seen by positive responses to generous acts and trust in others; and
(3) Conditional cooperation leads to initial cooperation that declines over time without enforcement, even between partners. The ability to punish free-riders can stabilize cooperation.
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit InnovationTechSoup
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
Gender and Mental Health - Counselling and Family Therapy Applications and In...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
3. In this lecture we will:
Summarize what we have learned in this course!
!
!
!
!
!
4. In this lecture we will:
Summarize what we have learned in this course!
!
Integrate insights from separate lectures and demonstrate how the
different methods can be applied to develop an adequate explanation
of a sociological prediction!
!
5. In this lecture we will:
Summarize what we have learned in this course!
!
Integrate insights from separate lectures and demonstrate how the
different methods can be applied to develop an adequate explanation
of a sociological prediction!
!
Discuss the setup of the exam
7. Aims of this course
Learning how to develop and apply good explanations of social phenomena!
!
!
!
8. Aims of this course
Learning how to develop and apply good explanations of social phenomena!
!
Social phenomenon X: observation, description!
!
9. Aims of this course
Learning how to develop and apply good explanations of social phenomena!
!
Social phenomenon X: observation, description!
!
Theory: why do we observe X?
10. Aims of this course
Learning how to develop and apply good explanations of social phenomena!
!
Social phenomenon X: observation, description!
!
Theory: why do we observe X?!
!
Generating (new) testable hypotheses with the theory:!
If this is why we see X, then what else should we see (Y, Z)?!
And, under what conditions should we see X, Y and Z?
11. Aims of this course
Learning how to develop and apply good explanations of social phenomena!
!
Social phenomenon X: observation, description!
!
Theory: why do we observe X?!
!
Generating (new) testable hypotheses with the theory:!
If this is why we see X, then what else should we see (Y, Z)?!
And, under what conditions should we see X, Y and Z?!
!
Application: If our theory is right, what would be a good policy to influence X,
Y and Z?!
!
This course focuses on methods and standards for developing and applying
theoretical explanations.
13. Do it yourself
Theories consist of assumptions (= speculation)!
!
Explanation:!
!
Logically derive phenomenon from assumptions!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
14. Do it yourself
Theories consist of assumptions (= speculation)!
!
Explanation:!
!
Logically derive phenomenon from assumptions!
!
Clearly state what you want to explain!
!
!
!
!
!
!
15. Do it yourself
Theories consist of assumptions (= speculation)!
!
Explanation:!
!
Logically derive phenomenon from assumptions!
!
Clearly state what you want to explain!
!
Clearly state what you assume!
!
!
!
!
16. Do it yourself
Theories consist of assumptions (= speculation)!
!
Explanation:!
!
Logically derive phenomenon from assumptions!
!
Clearly state what you want to explain!
!
Clearly state what you assume!
!
If needed: think up your own assumptions!!
!
!
17. Do it yourself
Theories consist of assumptions (= speculation)!
!
Explanation:!
!
Logically derive phenomenon from assumptions!
!
Clearly state what you want to explain!
!
Clearly state what you assume!
!
If needed: think up your own assumptions!!
!
Use your theory creatively: always think of new ways how you can test and
apply your theories
18. Features of good explanations
(Lave & March)
Simplicity!
Few and clear assumptions!
!
!
!
!
!
!
19. Features of good explanations
(Lave & March)
Simplicity!
Few and clear assumptions!
!
Fertility!
Make your explanations as generally applicable as possible:!
Generate many new testable predictions!
!
!
20. Features of good explanations
(Lave & March)
Simplicity!
Few and clear assumptions!
!
Fertility!
Make your explanations as generally applicable as possible:!
Generate many new testable predictions!
!
Surprise!
Counter-intuitive predictions (i.e., unintended consequences)
22. Competing explanations:Think of
a critical test
Suppose you have two explanations of the same phenomenon!
!
Then derive from both underlying theories two contradicting predictions for the
same situation!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
23. Competing explanations:Think of
a critical test
Suppose you have two explanations of the same phenomenon!
!
Then derive from both underlying theories two contradicting predictions for the
same situation!
!
And, test them for this situation: only one can be right!
!
!
!
!
!
!
24. Competing explanations:Think of
a critical test
Suppose you have two explanations of the same phenomenon!
!
Then derive from both underlying theories two contradicting predictions for the
same situation!
!
And, test them for this situation: only one can be right!
!
!
Example: Two competing explanations for residential segregation!
!
Housing prices and income inequality!
!
Racial homophily
26. Participation in Monday
demonstrations in GDR 1989
Source: Table 1 from Braun, Norman. 1995.
Individual Thresholds and Social Diffusion.
Rationality and Society 7:167-182.
28. Structural approach
Strategy: Argue that the macro-phenomenon “Protest in GDR” was caused by
another macro-phenomenon
Events showing
regime weakness
Revolution
29. Structural approach
Strategy: Argue that the macro-phenomenon “Protest in GDR” was caused by
another macro-phenomenon
Events showing
regime weakness
Revolution
30. Structural approach
Strategy: Argue that the macro-phenomenon “Protest in GDR” was caused by
another macro-phenomenon
Events showing
regime weakness
Revolution
For instance:!
Political changes in the Soviet Union (Glasnot, Perestrojka)!
Gorbachev’s speech in Berlin: Life punishes those who come too late!
Negotiations between US and SU!
Reformation/revolution in Hungary and Poland
31. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
General law
32. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
33. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
34. What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation where all conditions of adequacy are met
Hempel/Oppenheim, week 2)
35. What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation here all conditions of adequacy are met
Hempel/Oppenheim, week 2)
Condition 1: The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
36. What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation here all conditions of adequacy are met
Hempel/Oppenheim, week 2)
Condition 1: The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
Condition 2: The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one
singular statement (... necessary to derive the explanandum)
37. What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation here all conditions of adequacy are met
Hempel/Oppenheim, week 2)
Condition 1: The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
Condition 2: The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one
singular statement (... necessary to derive the explanandum)
Condition 3: The explanans must have empirical content
38. What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation here all conditions of adequacy are met
Hempel/Oppenheim, week 2)
Condition 1: The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
Condition 2: The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one
singular statement (... necessary to derive the explanandum)
Condition 3: The explanans must have empirical content
Condition 4: All statements of the explanans must be true
40. Stop and think....
think about how condition 4 relates to what Popper (reading week 3) is saying
about the difference of “verifiability” and “falsifiability” as criteria for good theories
(pg. 40)
Condition 4: All statements of the explanans must be true
41. Some things to note about the
material in week 2
Understand the example about the importance of the -often implicit- ceteris
paribus assumption!
!
!
42. Some things to note about the
material in week 2
Understand the example about the importance of the -often implicit- ceteris
paribus assumption!
!
Durkheim’s theory about suicide, versus data on suicide and marital status in
the Netherlands, controlling for age
44. Operator 4: Implication
Symbol: ⊃ (horseshoe) or →
Read: “if p then q”
p q p
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 1
0 0 1
The implication of p and q is false
only if p is true and q is false
Example: If Popper is a sociologist, then he is a Marxist.
Popper is a sociologist + Popper is a Marxist : wff is valid
Popper is a sociologist + Popper is not a Marxist : wff is invalid
Popper is not a sociologist + Popper is a Marxist : wff is valid
Popper is not a sociologist + Popper is not a Marxist : wff is valid
45. Working with truth tables
Example: Let us demonstrate for which combination of truth values
of p and q is it is correct to state: “p and q are equivalent (p≡q)”. Thus,
we want to show that:
46. Working with truth tables
Example: Let us demonstrate for which combination of truth values
of p and q is it is correct to state: “p and q are equivalent (p≡q)”. Thus,
we want to show that:
(if p, then q) and (if q, then p)
47. Working with truth tables
Example: Let us demonstrate for which combination of truth values
of p and q is it is correct to state: “p and q are equivalent (p≡q)”. Thus,
we want to show that:
(if p, then q) and (if q, then p)
p q p q (p
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Definition of an equality
This proves that: (p≡q)≡((p⊃q)·(q⊃p))
48. When is a rule of inference valid?
It is always true (for every combination of truth values of the
elementary propositions p, q, etc.) that the conclusion is an
implication of (follows logically from) the conjunction of the
premises.
49. Formulating wffs in syllogistic logic
To formulate a correct wff, you need only five words:
50. Formulating wffs in syllogistic logic
To formulate a correct wff, you need only five words:
all!
no!
some!
is !
not
51. Formulating wffs in syllogistic logic
There are only eight (8) forms of wffs:
52. Formulating wffs in syllogistic logic
There are only eight (8) forms of wffs:
all A is B All swans are white!
no A is B There are no white swans!
some A is B Some swans are white!
some A is not B Some swans are not white!
x is B This swan is white!
x is not B This swan is not white!
x is y This is the only white swan!
x is not y This is not the white swan
Any sentence can be translated into a wff of one of these forms
53. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
The star test consist of three steps:
54. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
The star test consist of three steps:
Step 1: Find the “distributed letters”
A letter is distributed if it occurs just after “all” or anywhere after “no”
or “not”
55. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
The star test consist of three steps:
Step 1: Find the “distributed letters”
A letter is distributed if it occurs just after “all” or anywhere after “no”
or “not”
all A is B!
no A is B!
x is A!
x is not y
Underline the
distributed letters
57. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 2: Star premises letters which are distributed and conclusion letters which
are not distributed
58. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 2: Star premises letters which are distributed and conclusion letters which
are not distributed
all A is B!
some C is A!
-----------------!
some C is B
59. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 2: Star premises letters which are distributed and conclusion letters which
are not distributed
all A* is B!
some C is A!
-----------------!
some C* is B*
61. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 3: Decide. A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is
starred exactly once.!
&!
if there is exactly one star on the right hand side
62. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 3: Decide. A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is
starred exactly once.!
&!
if there is exactly one star on the right hand side
all A* is B!
some C is A!
-----------------!
some C* is B*
63. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 3: Decide. A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is
starred exactly once.!
&!
if there is exactly one star on the right hand side
all A* is B!
some C is A!
-----------------!
some C* is B*
Each capital letter is starred exactly once
64. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 3: Decide. A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is
starred exactly once.!
&!
if there is exactly one star on the right hand side
all A* is B!
some C is A!
-----------------!
some C* is B*
Each capital letter is starred exactly once
There is exactly one star at the right hand
side (see the B)
65. Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
Step 3: Decide. A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is
starred exactly once.!
&!
if there is exactly one star on the right hand side
all A* is B!
some C is A!
-----------------!
some C* is B*
Each capital letter is starred exactly once
There is exactly one star at the right hand
side (see the B)
Thus, this syllogism is valid.
66. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
67. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
all E is R!
!
! E R
68. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
all E is R!
g is E !
! E Rg
69. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
all E is R!
g is E
----------!
g is R
E Rg
70. Example:A valid explanation
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
all E* is R!
g is E
----------!
g is R*
E RThis is valid g
71. Some things to note about the
material in week 3
Check the differences between sound and valid
73. To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate)
meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
74. To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate)
meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:!
!
Clarity of concepts (definitions)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
75. To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate)
meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:!
!
Clarity of concepts (definitions)!
!
Validity of arguments in the theory!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
76. To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate)
meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:!
!
Clarity of concepts (definitions)!
!
Validity of arguments in the theory!
!
Does the theory contain statements that contradict each other?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
77. To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate)
meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:!
!
Clarity of concepts (definitions)!
!
Validity of arguments in the theory!
!
Does the theory contain statements that contradict each other?!
!
Is it reasonably possible to operationalize the concepts about which the theory
generates predictions (empirical content)!
!
!
!
78. To criticize a theory:
Critically examine whether a theory (or, the explanations a theory can generate)
meet the adequacy conditions. Think of:!
!
Clarity of concepts (definitions)!
!
Validity of arguments in the theory!
!
Does the theory contain statements that contradict each other?!
!
Is it reasonably possible to operationalize the concepts about which the theory
generates predictions (empirical content)!
!
Something to note:!
!
What to do if a theory is wrong? (see examples in weeks 4 and 5)
79. All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
80. S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
1
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
81. S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
1
2
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
82. S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
1
2
3
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
83. S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
1
2
4
3
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
84. S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
1
2
4
3
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
4 (3) has more empirical content than 2 (1)!
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
85. S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree in
Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a university
degree in Sociology
G=df. Everybody who can
interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who can
explain what a regression is
1
2
4
3
Theories should be as informative as
possible- Comparing empirical content of
implications
4 (3) has more empirical content than 2 (1)!
4 (2) has more empirical content than 3 (1)
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). (S⊃G)
86. Week 5: Explaining social
phenomena based on theories
about individual behavior
87. A valid macro-explanation: Our
example.
Political events which demonstrate the weakness of a certain
political system (E) trigger revolutions in states where this
system is implemented (R)
In GDR 1989 (g), the political events demonstrated the
weakness of the ruling political system (E)
In GDR 1989 (g), a revolution was triggered (R)
General law
Assumption to
apply law to
specific
conditions
Explanandum
all E* is R!
g is E
----------!
g is R*
E RgThis is valid
88. Why macro-explanations are not
enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide
information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
89. Why macro-explanations are not
enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide
information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:!
!
A micro-level explanation will serve three purposes:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
90. Why macro-explanations are not
enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide
information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:!
!
A micro-level explanation will serve three purposes:!
Explain why there is a macro-level relationship!
!
!
!
!
!
91. Why macro-explanations are not
enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide
information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:!
!
A micro-level explanation will serve three purposes:!
Explain why there is a macro-level relationship!
Explicate what sort of political events have effects!
!
!
!
!
92. Why macro-explanations are not
enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide
information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:!
!
A micro-level explanation will serve three purposes:!
Explain why there is a macro-level relationship!
Explicate what sort of political events have effects!
Explain why the macro-law appears to be false in some settings!
!
!
!
93. Why macro-explanations are not
enough?
In the lecture on explaining collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior, we learned that micro-level explanations have the potential to provide
information that might be overlooked if only macro-explanations are considered:!
!
A micro-level explanation will serve three purposes:!
Explain why there is a macro-level relationship!
Explicate what sort of political events have effects!
Explain why the macro-law appears to be false in some settings!
!
Example: After the financial crises, Greece and Island experienced critical political
crises. However, there was no revolution in European countries. This suggests that
the macro-law holds only under certain conditions.
98. Main elements of an
individualistic explanation(i.e., Coleman, Lindenberg)
Independent!
Macro-variable
Dependent!
Macro-variable
Input individual choice:!
Choice options!
Information!
Costs and benefits...
Output: !
Individual choice
Explanandum: !
Macro relationship
Theory !
of action
Bridge !
assumptions
Transformation !
assumptions
99. Step 1: Explain the macro-to-micro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
People who perceive a political change in a similar country,
infer that the same is possible in their home country
General law
100. Step 1: Explain the macro-to-micro
relationship
People who perceive a political change in a similar country,
infer that the same is possible in their home country
General law
Auxiliary
assumption
Many people in GDR perceived changes in similar countries
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
101. Step 1: Explain the macro-to-micro
relationship
People who perceive a political change in a similar country,
infer that the same is possible in their home country
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
General law
Auxiliary
assumption
Explanandum
Many people in GDR perceived changes in similar countries
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
102. Step 1: Explain the macro-to-micro
relationship
People who perceive a political change in a similar country,
infer that the same is possible in their home country
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
General law
Auxiliary
assumption
Explanandum
Many people in GDR perceived changes in similar countries
Why do we expect this?
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
103. Step 1: Explain the macro-to-micro
relationship
People who perceive a political change in a similar country,
infer that the same is possible in their home country
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
General law
Auxiliary
assumption
Explanandum
Many people in GDR perceived changes in similar countries
Why do we expect this?
This law could be derived from another
general theory: Heider’s Balance theory
Changes happen
My country Other country
This is perceivedInferred
Similar
+ +
+
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
104. Is the argument valid?
People who perceive a political change in a similar country
(P), infer that the same is possible in the home country (I)
all P is I!
!
!
E I
P
105. Is the argument valid?
People who perceive a political change in a similar country
(P), infer that the same is possible in the home country (I)
Many people in GDR (E) perceived changes in similar
countries (P)
all P is I!
some E is P
------------------!
E I
P
106. Is the argument valid?
People who perceive a political change in a similar country
(P), infer that the same is possible in the home country (I)
Many people in GDR (E) perceived changes in similar
countries (P)
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too (I)
all P is I!
some E is P
------------------!
some E is I
E I
x
P
107. Is the argument valid?
People who perceive a political change in a similar country
(P), infer that the same is possible in the home country (I)
Many people in GDR (E) perceived changes in similar
countries (P)
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too (I)
all P* is I!
some E is P
------------------!
some E*is I*
This is valid
E I
x
P
108. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
109. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
110. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
111. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
112. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?!
Theory would be refuted if there was not a correlation between (s·c) and p!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
113. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?!
Theory would be refuted if there was not a correlation between (s·c) and p!
!
Test 2: Similar test as test 1, but also measure perceptions concerning China (in
China, protests were not successful)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
114. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?!
Theory would be refuted if there was not a correlation between (s·c) and p!
!
Test 2: Similar test as test 1, but also measure perceptions concerning China (in
China, protests were not successful)!
Thus, one would expect that people who consider the Chinese system as similar
and were informed about unsuccessful protests (s·~c) would not consider change
possible in GDR (~p).!
!
!
!
!
115. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?!
Theory would be refuted if there was not a correlation between (s·c) and p!
!
Test 2: Similar test as test 1, but also measure perceptions concerning China (in
China, protests were not successful)!
Thus, one would expect that people who consider the Chinese system as similar
and were informed about unsuccessful protests (s·~c) would not consider change
possible in GDR (~p).!
!
General problem: There have been very few empirical studies in GDR. Might be
difficult to gather data but not impossible).!
!
116. How could one test the macro-to-
micro relationship?
Test 1: Measure three variables!
Did people perceived other countries as similar (s)?!
Were people informed about changes (c) (consider that media was not free)?!
Did people think that same dynamics were possible (p)?!
Theory would be refuted if there was not a correlation between (s·c) and p!
!
Test 2: Similar test as test 1, but also measure perceptions concerning China (in China,
protests were not successful)!
Thus, one would expect that people who consider the Chinese system as similar
and were informed about unsuccessful protests (s·~c) would not consider change
possible in GDR (~p).!
!
General problem: There have been very few empirical studies in GDR. Might be
difficult to gather data but not impossible).!
However, the law is general. !
Thus, it can be falsified also in alternative settings (Arab countries, experiments)
117. Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
118. Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible,
then they will participate in protest
General law
Already in 1954, !
there have been protests
119. Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible,
then they will participate in protest
General law
Explanandum
of step 1
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
Already in 1954, !
there have been protests
120. Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible,
then they will participate in protest
Many people in GDR participated in political protest
General law
Explanandum
of step 1
Explanandum
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
Already in 1954, !
there have been protests
121. Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible,
then they will participate in protest
Many people in GDR participated in political protest
General law
Explanandum
of step 1
Explanandum
Why do we expect this?
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
Already in 1954, !
there have been protests
122. Step 2: Explain the theory of action
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible,
then they will participate in protest
Many people in GDR participated in political protest
General law
Explanandum
of step 1
Explanandum
Why do we expect this?
This follows from the Theory of rational
action!
Individuals have preferences (i.e.,
dissatisfaction) and perceive restrictions
(chances of success)!
They choose the action alternative
(protest vs. no protest) that maximizes
their utility
Many people in GDR inferred that political change is possible
in GDR too
Already in 1954, !
there have been protests
123. Is the argument valid?
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible
(I), then they will participate in protest (O)
all I is O!
!
!
E O
I
124. Is the argument valid?
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible
(I), then they will participate in protest (O)
all I is O!
some E is I
------------------!
E O
x
I
Many people in GDR (E) inferred that political change is
possible in GDR too (I)
125. Is the argument valid?
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible
(I), then they will participate in protest (O)
Many people in GDR (E) participated in political protest (O)
all I is O!
some E is I
------------------!
some E is O
E O
x
I
Many people in GDR (E) inferred that political change is
possible in GDR too (I)
126. Is the argument valid?
If dissatisfied citizens expect that political change is possible
(I), then they will participate in protest (O)
Many people in GDR (E) participated in political protest (O)
all I* is O!
some E is I
------------------!
some E*is O*
This is valid
E O
x
I
Many people in GDR (E) inferred that political change is
possible in GDR too (I)
127. Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
128. Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If a regime realizes that it lost control and power, then it will
resign
General law
129. Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If a regime realizes that it lost control and power, then it will
resign
General law
Explanandum
of step 2, plus
aux. assumption
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime
realized that it lost control and power
130. Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If a regime realizes that it lost control and power, then it will
resign
The GDR regime resigned
General law
Explanandum
of step 2, plus
aux. assumption
Explanandum
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime
realized that it lost control and power
131. Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If a regime realizes that it lost control and power, then it will
resign
The GDR regime resigned
General law
Explanandum
of step 2, plus
aux. assumption
Explanandum
Why do we expect this?
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime
realized that it lost control and power
132. Step 3: Explain the micro-to-macro
relationship
Political
events
Revolution
Perception of
increased
chances of
success
Participation
in protest
If a regime realizes that it lost control and power, then it will
resign
The GDR regime resigned
General law
Explanandum
of step 2, plus
aux. assumption
Explanandum
Why do we expect this?
This follows from the Theory of rational
action!
the regime might have realized that it
had lost the possibility to regain power.
The rational thing to do was to give up!
This will be very difficult to test.
Nevertheless, the law has empirical
content
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime
realized that it lost control and power
133. Is the argument valid?
If a regime realized that it lost control and power (L), then it
will resign (S)
all L is S!
!
! L S
134. Is the argument valid?
If a regime realized that it lost control and power (L), then it
will resign (S)
all L is S!
h is L
------------------!
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h)
realized that it lost control and power (L)
L Sh
135. Is the argument valid?
If a regime realized that it lost control and power (L), then it
will resign (S)
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h)
resigned (S)
all L is S!
h is L
------------------!
h is S
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h)
realized that it lost control and power (L)
L Sh
136. Is the argument valid?
If a regime realized that it lost control and power (L), then it
will resign (S)
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h)
resigned (S)
all L* is S!
h is L
------------------!
h is S*
This is valid
After the unstopped protests in Leipzig, the GDR regime (h)
realized that it lost control and power (L)
L Sh
137. We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-
level variables, using individual-level variables!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Summary
138. We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-
level variables, using individual-level variables!
!
In this process, we have added many new assumptions. The disadvantage is that
the theory becomes much more complex!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Summary
139. We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-
level variables, using individual-level variables!
!
In this process, we have added many new assumptions. The disadvantage is that
the theory becomes much more complex!
!
On the other hand, the elaborated micro-theory points to many new conditions of
political revolutions. This might help explain why there are no revolutions in many
countries or why socialism could prevail for so long even though people had been
very dissatisfied!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Summary
140. We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-
level variables, using individual-level variables!
!
In this process, we have added many new assumptions. The disadvantage is that
the theory becomes much more complex!
!
On the other hand, the elaborated micro-theory points to many new conditions of
political revolutions. This might help explain why there are no revolutions in many
countries or why socialism could prevail for so long even though people had been
very dissatisfied!
!
Conditions:!
!
!
!
!
!
Summary
141. We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-
level variables, using individual-level variables!
!
In this process, we have added many new assumptions. The disadvantage is that
the theory becomes much more complex!
!
On the other hand, the elaborated micro-theory points to many new conditions of
political revolutions. This might help explain why there are no revolutions in many
countries or why socialism could prevail for so long even though people had been
very dissatisfied!
!
Conditions:!
People perceive changes in similar countries!
People infer from this perception that political change is possible!
Regime realizes that it lost control and power!
!
!
Summary
142. We have provided a valid explanation of the relationship between two macro-
level variables, using individual-level variables!
!
In this process, we have added many new assumptions. The disadvantage is that
the theory becomes much more complex!
!
On the other hand, the elaborated micro-theory points to many new conditions of
political revolutions. This might help explain why there are no revolutions in many
countries or why socialism could prevail for so long even though people had been
very dissatisfied!
!
Conditions:!
People perceive changes in similar countries!
People infer from this perception that political change is possible!
Regime realizes that it lost control and power!
!
We might now develop hypotheses about the conditions under which the
assumptions do not hold
Summary
143. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gather data about an event that happened 20 years ago.
In addition, GDR was a totalitarian state, what made it difficult for i.e., journalists to
interview people!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
How to further test the theory?
144. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gather data about an event that happened 20 years ago.
In addition, GDR was a totalitarian state, what made it difficult for i.e., journalists to
interview people!
!
Nevertheless, there are many sources of information!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
How to further test the theory?
145. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gather data about an event that happened 20 years ago.
In addition, GDR was a totalitarian state, what made it difficult for i.e., journalists to
interview people!
!
Nevertheless, there are many sources of information!
West German TV!
Eastern German secret service!
Speeches of intellectuals at demonstration!
Newly founded newspapers in GDR!
Expert interviews (i.e., study by Opp and Gern)!
Retrospective interview methods!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
How to further test the theory?
146. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gather data about an event that happened 20 years ago.
In addition, GDR was a totalitarian state, what made it difficult for i.e., journalists to
interview people!
!
Nevertheless, there are many sources of information!
West German TV!
Eastern German secret service!
Speeches of intellectuals at demonstration!
Newly founded newspapers in GDR!
Expert interviews (i.e., study by Opp and Gern)!
Retrospective interview methods!
!
Our explanation of the revolution in GDR is based in general statements. This makes it
possible to apply the general theory also to other settings (i.e., Arab countries, gay
movement, experimental research)!
!
!
!
How to further test the theory?
147. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gather data about an event that happened 20 years ago.
In addition, GDR was a totalitarian state, what made it difficult for i.e., journalists to
interview people!
!
Nevertheless, there are many sources of information!
West German TV!
Eastern German secret service!
Speeches of intellectuals at demonstration!
Newly founded newspapers in GDR!
Expert interviews (i.e., study by Opp and Gern)!
Retrospective interview methods!
!
Our explanation of the revolution in GDR is based in general statements. This makes it
possible to apply the general theory also to other settings (i.e., Arab countries, gay
movement, experimental research)!
!
Applying the theory to other settings allows us to test our explanation of the
revolution in GDR.
How to further test the theory?
149. What are criteria for a good theoretical basis for developing policy advice!
!
The most important criterion is that you have a valid reasoning: !
!
You have an adequate explanation (according to the adequacy conditions) of
how the expected effects of the proposed policy logically follow from an
explicitly formulated theory (law + condition)
Summary (1)
150. Learn what are the steps in coming from theory to advice!
!
Step 1: Find related phenomena to explain!
!
Step 2: Develop valid explanations for these phenomena!
!
Step 3: Derive from the theory that you use to explain the phenomena, why the
proposed policy advice should have the proposed effects (valid reasoning)
Summary (2)
151. Learn what are the problems of applying theories to real life problems!
!
The most important problem is that you overlook implicit ceteris paribus
assumptions in your reasoning that turn out to not be true!
!
One way to address this problem is that you try to develop deeper explanations
that specify under which conditions certain premises apply and when they do not
apply
Summary (3)
153. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Rules
154. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Rules
155. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Rules
156. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
Read questions carefully!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Rules
157. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
Read questions carefully!
Weight of the questions will be given. Focus on important questions!
!
!
!
!
!
Rules
158. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
Read questions carefully!
Weight of the questions will be given. Focus on important questions!
Do not panic. The exam is designed in such a way that one can get grade 10.
Hence, there must be a few very difficult questions.!
!
!
!
Rules
159. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
Read questions carefully!
Weight of the questions will be given. Focus on important questions!
Do not panic. The exam is designed in such a way that one can get grade 10.
Hence, there must be a few very difficult questions.!
You need to have 55% of the maximum number of points to pass (60%)!
!
!
Rules
160. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
Read questions carefully!
Weight of the questions will be given. Focus on important questions!
Do not panic. The exam is designed in such a way that one can get grade 10.
Hence, there must be a few very difficult questions.!
You need to have 55% of the maximum number of points to pass (60%)!
Everything below 6 is failed!
!
Rules
161. Questions will be formulated in English. You can still answer in Dutch!
No additional material is allowed!
Exam consists of essay questions, possibly some multiple choice questions, and
several technical questions where you will have to demonstrate something using
logical tools!
Read questions carefully!
Weight of the questions will be given. Focus on important questions!
Do not panic. The exam is designed in such a way that one can get grade 10.
Hence, there must be a few very difficult questions.!
You need to have 55% of the maximum number of points to pass (60%)!
Everything below 6 is failed!
!
Good luck!
Rules