Quiz1 postmortem
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•372 views
The document contains a review of quiz questions about arguments and logic. It defines arguments, validity, and soundness. It also identifies whether passages provide arguments, explanations, or reports. Additionally, it addresses ambiguities in arguments and answers questions testing the concepts.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Churchill
In 3 sentences or less, here is a summary of the key points from the document:
The document contains various quotes about politics, democracy, war, and history. It discusses the flaws of democracy when interacting with average voters and the dangers of appeasement. It also notes that success comes from persevering through failures without losing enthusiasm, and that those who control the writing of history can shape how they are portrayed.
Narrative theory
This document discusses several narrative theories: Todorov's theory of narrative equilibrium, which outlines 5 stages of a story's plot; Strauss's concept of binary oppositions in stories; Barthes' theory of 5 codes that shape narratives; Propp's identification of 8 common character types; and Galtung and Ruge's news values theory about what makes an event newsworthy. Examples are provided to illustrate each theory.
P160 naturalismclassroomlect
The document discusses several topics relating to naturalism as a philosophical approach:
1) Naturalism shifts the question from how to justify scientific methodology to how to adequately describe how knowledge and science work based on what science tells us.
2) A naturalist view is that science can describe the belief-forming mechanisms that humans use and philosophy can evaluate how good those mechanisms are for achieving different goals.
3) Several philosophers discussed apply scientific findings and methods to philosophical problems, including describing how social and reward structures within science help explain its success.
P160 Kuhn classroom Lecture 2
The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts. It explains that normal science operates within a shared paradigm, but anomalies can lead to a crisis when the paradigm is unable to solve resistant puzzles. This forces scientists to consider alternatives. When comparing paradigms like Ptolemaic vs Copernican models of planetary motion, factors like how well each addresses unsolved puzzles, fits with other theories and observations, and aesthetic appeal influence which paradigm gains acceptance. However, paradigm choices are subjective since what we observe depends on the paradigm.
P160 antirealismclassroomversion
The document discusses various positions regarding scientific realism and antirealism. It presents an example from the 19th century of a scientist, Jones, developing a theory that an unobservable microbe called a "crobe" is responsible for transmitting disease in the same way that lice transmit diseases. While the theory is empirically successful, some argue we cannot know if crobes truly exist. The document explores arguments for scientific realism, antirealism, and a middle position of "entity realism," discussing what types of claims we can and cannot make regarding observable versus unobservable entities based on empirical evidence and scientific theories.
Climategate and scientific methodology
The document discusses the 2009 hacking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which led to public questions about the reliability and honesty of climate scientists. It summarizes concerns raised about the scientists' expressed reluctance to share data and code as requested, as well as references to a "trick" used to "hide the decline". However, it also notes that nothing in the emails provides evidence of a conspiracy or data falsification. The document examines issues around scientific transparency, biases, and building public trust in science.
Lec 14 Authorship Issues
This document discusses authorship standards and issues in scientific publishing. It outlines why author order and attribution matter for communicating who did the research and granting proper credit. It describes problematic authorship situations like ghost writers and guest authors that can mislead readers. The document also summarizes International Committee of Medical Journal Editors standards for authorship and calls for more explicit identification of author contributions to increase accountability. It raises some concerns about peer review being misused to delay competitors' work.
Between shouting matches and silence: fostering real dialogue with the public...
Some thoughts on how to create conditions where scientists and members of the public can have productive dialogues about animal research.
Recommended
Churchill
In 3 sentences or less, here is a summary of the key points from the document:
The document contains various quotes about politics, democracy, war, and history. It discusses the flaws of democracy when interacting with average voters and the dangers of appeasement. It also notes that success comes from persevering through failures without losing enthusiasm, and that those who control the writing of history can shape how they are portrayed.
Narrative theory
This document discusses several narrative theories: Todorov's theory of narrative equilibrium, which outlines 5 stages of a story's plot; Strauss's concept of binary oppositions in stories; Barthes' theory of 5 codes that shape narratives; Propp's identification of 8 common character types; and Galtung and Ruge's news values theory about what makes an event newsworthy. Examples are provided to illustrate each theory.
P160 naturalismclassroomlect
The document discusses several topics relating to naturalism as a philosophical approach:
1) Naturalism shifts the question from how to justify scientific methodology to how to adequately describe how knowledge and science work based on what science tells us.
2) A naturalist view is that science can describe the belief-forming mechanisms that humans use and philosophy can evaluate how good those mechanisms are for achieving different goals.
3) Several philosophers discussed apply scientific findings and methods to philosophical problems, including describing how social and reward structures within science help explain its success.
P160 Kuhn classroom Lecture 2
The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts. It explains that normal science operates within a shared paradigm, but anomalies can lead to a crisis when the paradigm is unable to solve resistant puzzles. This forces scientists to consider alternatives. When comparing paradigms like Ptolemaic vs Copernican models of planetary motion, factors like how well each addresses unsolved puzzles, fits with other theories and observations, and aesthetic appeal influence which paradigm gains acceptance. However, paradigm choices are subjective since what we observe depends on the paradigm.
P160 antirealismclassroomversion
The document discusses various positions regarding scientific realism and antirealism. It presents an example from the 19th century of a scientist, Jones, developing a theory that an unobservable microbe called a "crobe" is responsible for transmitting disease in the same way that lice transmit diseases. While the theory is empirically successful, some argue we cannot know if crobes truly exist. The document explores arguments for scientific realism, antirealism, and a middle position of "entity realism," discussing what types of claims we can and cannot make regarding observable versus unobservable entities based on empirical evidence and scientific theories.
Climategate and scientific methodology
The document discusses the 2009 hacking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which led to public questions about the reliability and honesty of climate scientists. It summarizes concerns raised about the scientists' expressed reluctance to share data and code as requested, as well as references to a "trick" used to "hide the decline". However, it also notes that nothing in the emails provides evidence of a conspiracy or data falsification. The document examines issues around scientific transparency, biases, and building public trust in science.
Lec 14 Authorship Issues
This document discusses authorship standards and issues in scientific publishing. It outlines why author order and attribution matter for communicating who did the research and granting proper credit. It describes problematic authorship situations like ghost writers and guest authors that can mislead readers. The document also summarizes International Committee of Medical Journal Editors standards for authorship and calls for more explicit identification of author contributions to increase accountability. It raises some concerns about peer review being misused to delay competitors' work.
Between shouting matches and silence: fostering real dialogue with the public...
Some thoughts on how to create conditions where scientists and members of the public can have productive dialogues about animal research.
Popper v. Kuhn
A short lesson on Popper's and Kuhn's views on scientific inquiry. Most of the session was spent untangling some common misconceptions students have of Kuhn's views.
Explanation Slides
Slides from my lectures on explanation in Phil 160 ("Philosophy of Science") at San Jose State University.
P160 Kuhn and his Critics
This document summarizes Thomas Kuhn's view of scientific progress and theory change, and responses to Kuhn from philosophers Lakatos, Laudan, and Feyerabend. Kuhn argued that science progresses through "paradigm shifts" rather than continuous progress, observations are theory-laden, and the choice between paradigms is not fully objective. Later philosophers criticized aspects of Kuhn's view and proposed alternative models of scientific progress and rational theory evaluation.
P160 Hempel, Hume, Deduction, and Induction
The document discusses Semmelweis' work in the 1840s to address childbed fever in Vienna hospitals. Semmelweis observed that the mortality rate from childbed fever was much higher in the first division ward staffed by doctors and medical students compared to the second division ward staffed by midwives. Through a process of elimination, Semmelweis hypothesized that cadaveric particles carried from autopsies to patients caused the disease. Reducing these particles by washing hands and instruments with chlorinated lime lowered the mortality rate, supporting his hypothesis. However, his conclusion could not be logically proven through the evidence, as other factors could also explain the outcome. The document also discusses the problem of induction in drawing conclusions about
P160 Duhem and Quine
This document discusses the philosophical ideas of Duhem, Quine, and challenges in theory testing and scientific methodology. It addresses the concepts of underdetermination of theory by data, holism in testing, and meaning holism. It explains that scientific theories are tested as groups, not in isolation, and that changing one hypothesis can require changes throughout the theoretical framework. The document uses examples like Newton's laws of motion and predictions of planetary orbits to illustrate these concepts.
Kuhn: Paradigms and Normal Science
Thomas Kuhn argues that science operates in two distinct modes: normal science and scientific revolution. During normal science, scientists work within a shared paradigm that provides the framework and assumptions for their research. The paradigm guides what phenomena can be explained, what problems are worth studying, and how research is conducted. However, over time anomalies and resistant problems emerge that the paradigm cannot resolve, leading to a crisis and eventual shift to a new paradigm during a period of scientific revolution.
Logic
This document discusses the basic concepts of logic and argument analysis. It defines what constitutes an argument, identifies premises and conclusions using indicator words. It also explains how to determine if an argument is valid or invalid, and sound or unsound. A valid argument is one where the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, while a sound argument is valid and has true premises.
Logic
This document discusses the concepts of logic, reasons for belief, and argument structure. It defines valid and sound arguments, and provides examples to illustrate identifying premises and conclusions, and determining if arguments are valid or sound. The key aspects covered are: the difference between valid and sound arguments; identifying premises and conclusions; and a process for analyzing arguments by checking for validity and truth of premises.
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning: The World of Fallacies
boy at chalkboard, puzzled at two math equations, 2+2=4 and 3+3=7
Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!
—Vizzini, The Princess Bride
So far we have looked at how to construct arguments and how to evaluate them. We've seen that arguments are constructed from sentences, with some sentences providing reasons, or premises, for another sentence, the conclusion. The purpose of arguments is to provide support for a conclusion. In a valid deductive argument, we must accept the conclusion as true if we accept the premises as true. A sound deductive argument is valid, and the premises are taken to be true. Inductive arguments, in contrast, are evaluated on a continuous scale from very strong to very weak: the stronger the inductive argument, the more likely the conclusion, given the premises.
What We Will Be Exploring
We will look at mistakes in reasoning, known as fallacies.
We will examine how these kinds of mistakes occur.
We will see that errors in reasoning can take place because of the structure of the argument.
We will discover that different errors in reasoning arise due to using language illegitimately, requiring close attention be paid to that language.
Generally, we want our arguments to be "good" arguments—sound deductive arguments and strong inductive arguments. Unfortunately, arguments often look good when they are not. Such arguments are said to commit a fallacy, a mistake in reasoning. Wide ranges of fallacies have been identified, but we will look at only some of the most common ones. When trying to construct a good argument, it is important to be able to identify what bad arguments look like. Then we can avoid making these mistakes ourselves and prevent others from trying to convince us of something on the basis of bad reasoning!
4.1
What Is a Fallacy?
image
The French village of Roussillon at sunrise. Roussillon is in Vaucluse, Provence. It would be a fallacy to assume that because someone lives in France, he or she lives in Paris.
Most simply, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. It is different from simply being mistaken, however. For instance, if someone were to say that "2 + 3 = 6," that would be a mistake, but it would not be a fallacy. Fallacies involve inferences, the move from one sentence (or a set of sentences) to another. Here's an example:
If I live in Paris, then I live in France.
I live in France.
Therefore,
I live in Paris.
Here, we have two premises and a conclusion. The first sentence is a conditional, and we can accept it as true. Let's assume the second sentence is also true. But even if those two premises were true, the conclusion would not be true. While it may be true that if I live in Paris then I live in France, and it may be true that I live in France, it does not follow that I live in Paris, because I could live in any number of other places in France. Thus, the inference from the .
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
Course lecture I developed over section 1.4 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
1-19
The document discusses different types of logical arguments including deductive and inductive arguments. It defines key terms like valid, sound, premises and conclusion. For deductive arguments it explains syllogisms like modus ponens and modus tollens. Inductive arguments rely on experience but do not guarantee truth, only probability. The document also discusses abductive arguments, fallacies, and necessary and sufficient conditions.
Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses
As researchers working in government, influencing service design, we need to know that our research is methodologically sound, our research findings are grounded in empirical data and our recommendations are logically derived.
'Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses' is the first in a series of 5 short courses, covering introduction courses to various aspects of methodology in research, from the use of grounded theory in discovery research, to hypothesis testing and sampling in more experimental research.
In this course, you'll learn:
About arguments
- what we mean by an argument
- how to identify a valid/invalid argument
- what we mean by premises
- what validity and soundness of arguments mean
About reasoning
- what is deductive reasoning and where do we use it
- what is inductive reasoning and where do we use it
- what is abductive reasoning and where do we use it
About hypotheses
- what is a hypotheses and a null hypothesis
- how do we test them
Introduction to Philosophy 101 HomeworkSection 3 Deductive Argum.pdf
Introduction to Philosophy 101: Homework
Section 3: Deductive Arguments and Standard Form/Short Answer
Directions: Put the following deductive arguments into standard form and determine whether the
arguments are of the form modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, or hypothetical
syllogism.
1. If it is true that everyone lies to serve their own interest, then no one can be trusted. But,
obviously I know many people who can be trusted. Therefore, it cannot be true that everyone lies
to serve their own interest.
1.
2.
___________________________________________________
3.
Form:
2. If large cattle farms are more harmful to the environment than driving automobiles, then
eating beef is morally wrong. Large cattle farms are more harmful than driving automobiles.
Thus, this must mean that eating beef is morally wrong.
1.
2.
_____________________________________________________
3.
Form:
3. If determinism is true then no human being can ever be responsible for any of their actions. If
human beings cannot be responsible for their actions, then there is no such thing as universal
ethics. Therefore, if determinism is true, then there is no such thing as universal ethics.
1.
2.
________________________________________________________
3.
Form:
4. Explain Sophistic rhetoric. What is its purpose?
5. Why does Socrates claim that he is the wisest in all of Athens?
6. Explain Socrates’ idea of truth. Does truth exist?
7. Explain Dqescartes’ method of doubt and the rational truth he discovers.
8. According to Berkeley, “if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” Explain this in
terms of his philosophy.
9. When referring to the theory of Dualism, what is the problem of interaction?
10. Briefly define Physicalism.
Solution
2. If large cattle farms are more harmful to the environment than driving automobiles, then
eating beef is morally wrong. Large cattle farms are more harmful than driving automobiles.
Thus, this must mean that eating beef is morally wrong.
Form: modus ponens
P: Large cattle farms are more harmful than driving automobiles
Q: that eating beef is morally wrong.
If P Q and P are true, then Q is true, by modus ponens.
3. If determinism is true then no human being can ever be responsible for any of their actions. If
human beings cannot be responsible for their actions, then there is no such thing as universal
ethics. Therefore, if determinism is true, then there is no such thing as universal ethics.
Form:disjunctive syllogism.
1. If it is true that everyone lies to serve their own interest, then no one can be trusted. But,
obviously I know many people who can be trusted. Therefore, it cannot be true that everyone lies
to serve their own interest.
Form: modus tollens
4. Explain Sophistic rhetoric. What is its purpose?
The Sophists were orators, public speakers, mouths for hire in an oral culture. They were gifted
with speech. They were skilled in what becomes known as Rhetoric. They were respected,
feared and hated. They had a gift.
evaluating arguments
This document discusses evaluating arguments. It provides guidelines for determining whether an argument is good and whether its premises are acceptable. A good argument must be deductively valid or inductively strong, clear, precise, relevant, consistent, complete and fair. Premises must be true for the argument to be sound. Background beliefs and testimony from credible sources can provide evidence for accepting premises. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Deductive Reasoning
moodboard/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Define basic key terms and concepts within deductive reasoning.
2. Use variables to represent an argument’s logical form.
3. Use the counterexample method to evaluate an argument’s validity.
4. Categorize different types of deductive arguments.
5. Analyze the various statements—and the relationships between them—in categorical arguments.
6. Evaluate categorical syllogisms using the rules of the syllogism and Venn diagrams.
7. Differentiate between sorites and enthymemes.
By now you should be familiar with how the field of logic views arguments: An argument is just a collection of sentences, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which, the premises, provide support for the conclusion. You have also learned that not every collection of sentences is an argument. Stories, explanations, questions, and debates are not arguments, for example. The essential feature of an argument is that the premises support, prove, or give evidence for the conclusion. This relationship of support is what makes a collection of sentences an argument and is the special concern of logic. For the next four chapters, we will be taking a closer look at the ways in which premises might support a conclusion. This chapter discusses deductive reasoning, with a specific focus on categorical logic.3.1 Basic Concepts in Deductive Reasoning
As noted in Chapter 2, at the broadest level there are two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. The difference between these types is largely a matter of the strength of the connection between premises and conclusion. Inductive arguments are defined and discussed in Chapter 5; this chapter focuses on deductive arguments. In this section we will learn about three central concepts: validity, soundness, and deduction.
Validity
Deductive arguments aim to achieve validity, which is an extremely strong connection between the premises and the conclusion. In logic, the word valid is only applied to arguments; therefore, when the concept of validity is discussed in this text, it is solely in reference to arguments, and not to claims, points, or positions. Those expressions may have other uses in other fields, but in logic, validity is a strict notion that has to do with the strength of the connection between an argument’s premises and conclusion.
To reiterate, an argument is a collection of sentences, one of which (the conclusion) is supposed to follow from the others (the premises). A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion; in other words, it is an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Notice that the definition of valid does not say anything about whether the premises are actually true, just whether the conclusion could be false if the premises were true. As an example, here is a silly but valid ar.
Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch08
The document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether they are good arguments and whether their premises are acceptable. A good argument must be logically valid/cogent, clear, precise, have relevant premises, be consistent, complete, and fair. For premises to be acceptable, they should not conflict with experience or background beliefs and should come from a credible source. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false/dubious or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Valid and sound Argument (disclaimer)
This document discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, inductive and deductive arguments. It provides examples of valid and invalid arguments. The key points are:
- Inductive arguments cite evidence to reasonably support a conclusion, while deductive arguments aim to conclusively establish a thesis.
- An argument is valid if the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, regardless of whether the premises and conclusion are actually true.
- An argument is sound if it is valid and all premises are true, making the conclusion necessarily true.
- Examples are used to illustrate valid versus invalid argument forms and how to identify the patterns that determine validity.
Understanding arguments
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
Ch08 evaluating arguments
This document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether an argument is "good" based on criteria such as the acceptability of its premises, logical validity, clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness. Premises should not conflict with personal experience or background beliefs unless sufficient evidence is provided. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Reflect back on what you have learned in this course about how to .docx
This document provides an overview of key concepts in deductive reasoning, including validity, soundness, and deduction. It defines validity as an argument where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Soundness requires an argument to be both valid and have all true premises. Deduction refers specifically to arguments intended to be valid. Several examples of valid, invalid, sound, and unsound arguments are analyzed in terms of these concepts.
Daniel Hampikian's Power point on arguments and moral skepticism - danielhamp...
Dr. Daniel Hampikian's critical thinking and ethics power point on moral skepticism, logical validity, arguments, logic, morality, evidence, induction, deduction, and much more...
danielhampikian
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Slides from the lecture on deductive and inductive arguments, Phil 57 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning") section 3, San Jose State University.
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Popper v. Kuhn
A short lesson on Popper's and Kuhn's views on scientific inquiry. Most of the session was spent untangling some common misconceptions students have of Kuhn's views.
Explanation Slides
Slides from my lectures on explanation in Phil 160 ("Philosophy of Science") at San Jose State University.
P160 Kuhn and his Critics
This document summarizes Thomas Kuhn's view of scientific progress and theory change, and responses to Kuhn from philosophers Lakatos, Laudan, and Feyerabend. Kuhn argued that science progresses through "paradigm shifts" rather than continuous progress, observations are theory-laden, and the choice between paradigms is not fully objective. Later philosophers criticized aspects of Kuhn's view and proposed alternative models of scientific progress and rational theory evaluation.
P160 Hempel, Hume, Deduction, and Induction
The document discusses Semmelweis' work in the 1840s to address childbed fever in Vienna hospitals. Semmelweis observed that the mortality rate from childbed fever was much higher in the first division ward staffed by doctors and medical students compared to the second division ward staffed by midwives. Through a process of elimination, Semmelweis hypothesized that cadaveric particles carried from autopsies to patients caused the disease. Reducing these particles by washing hands and instruments with chlorinated lime lowered the mortality rate, supporting his hypothesis. However, his conclusion could not be logically proven through the evidence, as other factors could also explain the outcome. The document also discusses the problem of induction in drawing conclusions about
P160 Duhem and Quine
This document discusses the philosophical ideas of Duhem, Quine, and challenges in theory testing and scientific methodology. It addresses the concepts of underdetermination of theory by data, holism in testing, and meaning holism. It explains that scientific theories are tested as groups, not in isolation, and that changing one hypothesis can require changes throughout the theoretical framework. The document uses examples like Newton's laws of motion and predictions of planetary orbits to illustrate these concepts.
Kuhn: Paradigms and Normal Science
Thomas Kuhn argues that science operates in two distinct modes: normal science and scientific revolution. During normal science, scientists work within a shared paradigm that provides the framework and assumptions for their research. The paradigm guides what phenomena can be explained, what problems are worth studying, and how research is conducted. However, over time anomalies and resistant problems emerge that the paradigm cannot resolve, leading to a crisis and eventual shift to a new paradigm during a period of scientific revolution.
Viewers also liked (6)
Similar to Quiz1 postmortem
Logic
This document discusses the basic concepts of logic and argument analysis. It defines what constitutes an argument, identifies premises and conclusions using indicator words. It also explains how to determine if an argument is valid or invalid, and sound or unsound. A valid argument is one where the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, while a sound argument is valid and has true premises.
Logic
This document discusses the concepts of logic, reasons for belief, and argument structure. It defines valid and sound arguments, and provides examples to illustrate identifying premises and conclusions, and determining if arguments are valid or sound. The key aspects covered are: the difference between valid and sound arguments; identifying premises and conclusions; and a process for analyzing arguments by checking for validity and truth of premises.
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning: The World of Fallacies
boy at chalkboard, puzzled at two math equations, 2+2=4 and 3+3=7
Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!
—Vizzini, The Princess Bride
So far we have looked at how to construct arguments and how to evaluate them. We've seen that arguments are constructed from sentences, with some sentences providing reasons, or premises, for another sentence, the conclusion. The purpose of arguments is to provide support for a conclusion. In a valid deductive argument, we must accept the conclusion as true if we accept the premises as true. A sound deductive argument is valid, and the premises are taken to be true. Inductive arguments, in contrast, are evaluated on a continuous scale from very strong to very weak: the stronger the inductive argument, the more likely the conclusion, given the premises.
What We Will Be Exploring
We will look at mistakes in reasoning, known as fallacies.
We will examine how these kinds of mistakes occur.
We will see that errors in reasoning can take place because of the structure of the argument.
We will discover that different errors in reasoning arise due to using language illegitimately, requiring close attention be paid to that language.
Generally, we want our arguments to be "good" arguments—sound deductive arguments and strong inductive arguments. Unfortunately, arguments often look good when they are not. Such arguments are said to commit a fallacy, a mistake in reasoning. Wide ranges of fallacies have been identified, but we will look at only some of the most common ones. When trying to construct a good argument, it is important to be able to identify what bad arguments look like. Then we can avoid making these mistakes ourselves and prevent others from trying to convince us of something on the basis of bad reasoning!
4.1
What Is a Fallacy?
image
The French village of Roussillon at sunrise. Roussillon is in Vaucluse, Provence. It would be a fallacy to assume that because someone lives in France, he or she lives in Paris.
Most simply, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. It is different from simply being mistaken, however. For instance, if someone were to say that "2 + 3 = 6," that would be a mistake, but it would not be a fallacy. Fallacies involve inferences, the move from one sentence (or a set of sentences) to another. Here's an example:
If I live in Paris, then I live in France.
I live in France.
Therefore,
I live in Paris.
Here, we have two premises and a conclusion. The first sentence is a conditional, and we can accept it as true. Let's assume the second sentence is also true. But even if those two premises were true, the conclusion would not be true. While it may be true that if I live in Paris then I live in France, and it may be true that I live in France, it does not follow that I live in Paris, because I could live in any number of other places in France. Thus, the inference from the .
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
Course lecture I developed over section 1.4 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
1-19
The document discusses different types of logical arguments including deductive and inductive arguments. It defines key terms like valid, sound, premises and conclusion. For deductive arguments it explains syllogisms like modus ponens and modus tollens. Inductive arguments rely on experience but do not guarantee truth, only probability. The document also discusses abductive arguments, fallacies, and necessary and sufficient conditions.
Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses
As researchers working in government, influencing service design, we need to know that our research is methodologically sound, our research findings are grounded in empirical data and our recommendations are logically derived.
'Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses' is the first in a series of 5 short courses, covering introduction courses to various aspects of methodology in research, from the use of grounded theory in discovery research, to hypothesis testing and sampling in more experimental research.
In this course, you'll learn:
About arguments
- what we mean by an argument
- how to identify a valid/invalid argument
- what we mean by premises
- what validity and soundness of arguments mean
About reasoning
- what is deductive reasoning and where do we use it
- what is inductive reasoning and where do we use it
- what is abductive reasoning and where do we use it
About hypotheses
- what is a hypotheses and a null hypothesis
- how do we test them
Introduction to Philosophy 101 HomeworkSection 3 Deductive Argum.pdf
Introduction to Philosophy 101: Homework
Section 3: Deductive Arguments and Standard Form/Short Answer
Directions: Put the following deductive arguments into standard form and determine whether the
arguments are of the form modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, or hypothetical
syllogism.
1. If it is true that everyone lies to serve their own interest, then no one can be trusted. But,
obviously I know many people who can be trusted. Therefore, it cannot be true that everyone lies
to serve their own interest.
1.
2.
___________________________________________________
3.
Form:
2. If large cattle farms are more harmful to the environment than driving automobiles, then
eating beef is morally wrong. Large cattle farms are more harmful than driving automobiles.
Thus, this must mean that eating beef is morally wrong.
1.
2.
_____________________________________________________
3.
Form:
3. If determinism is true then no human being can ever be responsible for any of their actions. If
human beings cannot be responsible for their actions, then there is no such thing as universal
ethics. Therefore, if determinism is true, then there is no such thing as universal ethics.
1.
2.
________________________________________________________
3.
Form:
4. Explain Sophistic rhetoric. What is its purpose?
5. Why does Socrates claim that he is the wisest in all of Athens?
6. Explain Socrates’ idea of truth. Does truth exist?
7. Explain Dqescartes’ method of doubt and the rational truth he discovers.
8. According to Berkeley, “if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” Explain this in
terms of his philosophy.
9. When referring to the theory of Dualism, what is the problem of interaction?
10. Briefly define Physicalism.
Solution
2. If large cattle farms are more harmful to the environment than driving automobiles, then
eating beef is morally wrong. Large cattle farms are more harmful than driving automobiles.
Thus, this must mean that eating beef is morally wrong.
Form: modus ponens
P: Large cattle farms are more harmful than driving automobiles
Q: that eating beef is morally wrong.
If P Q and P are true, then Q is true, by modus ponens.
3. If determinism is true then no human being can ever be responsible for any of their actions. If
human beings cannot be responsible for their actions, then there is no such thing as universal
ethics. Therefore, if determinism is true, then there is no such thing as universal ethics.
Form:disjunctive syllogism.
1. If it is true that everyone lies to serve their own interest, then no one can be trusted. But,
obviously I know many people who can be trusted. Therefore, it cannot be true that everyone lies
to serve their own interest.
Form: modus tollens
4. Explain Sophistic rhetoric. What is its purpose?
The Sophists were orators, public speakers, mouths for hire in an oral culture. They were gifted
with speech. They were skilled in what becomes known as Rhetoric. They were respected,
feared and hated. They had a gift.
evaluating arguments
This document discusses evaluating arguments. It provides guidelines for determining whether an argument is good and whether its premises are acceptable. A good argument must be deductively valid or inductively strong, clear, precise, relevant, consistent, complete and fair. Premises must be true for the argument to be sound. Background beliefs and testimony from credible sources can provide evidence for accepting premises. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Deductive Reasoning
moodboard/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Define basic key terms and concepts within deductive reasoning.
2. Use variables to represent an argument’s logical form.
3. Use the counterexample method to evaluate an argument’s validity.
4. Categorize different types of deductive arguments.
5. Analyze the various statements—and the relationships between them—in categorical arguments.
6. Evaluate categorical syllogisms using the rules of the syllogism and Venn diagrams.
7. Differentiate between sorites and enthymemes.
By now you should be familiar with how the field of logic views arguments: An argument is just a collection of sentences, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which, the premises, provide support for the conclusion. You have also learned that not every collection of sentences is an argument. Stories, explanations, questions, and debates are not arguments, for example. The essential feature of an argument is that the premises support, prove, or give evidence for the conclusion. This relationship of support is what makes a collection of sentences an argument and is the special concern of logic. For the next four chapters, we will be taking a closer look at the ways in which premises might support a conclusion. This chapter discusses deductive reasoning, with a specific focus on categorical logic.3.1 Basic Concepts in Deductive Reasoning
As noted in Chapter 2, at the broadest level there are two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. The difference between these types is largely a matter of the strength of the connection between premises and conclusion. Inductive arguments are defined and discussed in Chapter 5; this chapter focuses on deductive arguments. In this section we will learn about three central concepts: validity, soundness, and deduction.
Validity
Deductive arguments aim to achieve validity, which is an extremely strong connection between the premises and the conclusion. In logic, the word valid is only applied to arguments; therefore, when the concept of validity is discussed in this text, it is solely in reference to arguments, and not to claims, points, or positions. Those expressions may have other uses in other fields, but in logic, validity is a strict notion that has to do with the strength of the connection between an argument’s premises and conclusion.
To reiterate, an argument is a collection of sentences, one of which (the conclusion) is supposed to follow from the others (the premises). A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion; in other words, it is an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Notice that the definition of valid does not say anything about whether the premises are actually true, just whether the conclusion could be false if the premises were true. As an example, here is a silly but valid ar.
Bassham3 powerpoint lecturenotes_ch08
The document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether they are good arguments and whether their premises are acceptable. A good argument must be logically valid/cogent, clear, precise, have relevant premises, be consistent, complete, and fair. For premises to be acceptable, they should not conflict with experience or background beliefs and should come from a credible source. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false/dubious or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Valid and sound Argument (disclaimer)
This document discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, inductive and deductive arguments. It provides examples of valid and invalid arguments. The key points are:
- Inductive arguments cite evidence to reasonably support a conclusion, while deductive arguments aim to conclusively establish a thesis.
- An argument is valid if the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, regardless of whether the premises and conclusion are actually true.
- An argument is sound if it is valid and all premises are true, making the conclusion necessarily true.
- Examples are used to illustrate valid versus invalid argument forms and how to identify the patterns that determine validity.
Understanding arguments
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
Ch08 evaluating arguments
This document discusses evaluating arguments by determining whether an argument is "good" based on criteria such as the acceptability of its premises, logical validity, clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness. Premises should not conflict with personal experience or background beliefs unless sufficient evidence is provided. Arguments can be refuted by showing a critical premise is false or dubious, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Reflect back on what you have learned in this course about how to .docx
This document provides an overview of key concepts in deductive reasoning, including validity, soundness, and deduction. It defines validity as an argument where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Soundness requires an argument to be both valid and have all true premises. Deduction refers specifically to arguments intended to be valid. Several examples of valid, invalid, sound, and unsound arguments are analyzed in terms of these concepts.
Daniel Hampikian's Power point on arguments and moral skepticism - danielhamp...
Dr. Daniel Hampikian's critical thinking and ethics power point on moral skepticism, logical validity, arguments, logic, morality, evidence, induction, deduction, and much more...
danielhampikian
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Slides from the lecture on deductive and inductive arguments, Phil 57 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning") section 3, San Jose State University.
5 2 t4e_chapter_fivepowerpoint
This document provides an overview of deductive and inductive reasoning, including the key differences between the two. It defines deductive arguments as those where the premises are sufficient to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can only provide partial or probabilistic support for the conclusion because there is always a "wedge of doubt" between the premises and conclusion. The document also outlines different types of deductive arguments like categorical syllogisms and modus ponens, as well as examples of inductive arguments involving predictions, cause and effect, analogy, and statistics.
Phil115 1 Intro
The document provides an overview of critical reasoning and the philosophy course. It discusses:
1) The objectives of learning to think rationally and challenge others' reasoning, using logic to evaluate inferences.
2) The basic laws of logic like modus ponens and modus tollens, and how they dictate valid inferences using sentence letters.
3) What constitutes an argument, including premises, conclusions, and how to recognize arguments by looking for conclusion and premise indicators.
Presupposition and Entailment
This document discusses the concepts of presupposition and entailment in language. It defines presupposition as what a speaker assumes to be true prior to making an utterance, whereas entailment is what logically follows from an assertion. The document examines different types of presuppositions including existential, factive, and lexical presuppositions. It also discusses properties of presuppositions like constancy under negation. Entailment is defined as a logical relationship where one proposition necessarily follows from another. The relationship between presupposition and entailment is explored, noting they can be distinguished based on negation tests and whether sentences or speakers have them.
How to Make an Argument
This lesson gives the basics of how to make an argument. It has lots of examples and fun pictures for students. It is
Similar to Quiz1 postmortem (20)
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
Introduction to Philosophy 101 HomeworkSection 3 Deductive Argum.pdf
Introduction to Philosophy 101 HomeworkSection 3 Deductive Argum.pdf
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Reflect back on what you have learned in this course about how to .docx
Reflect back on what you have learned in this course about how to .docx
Daniel Hampikian's Power point on arguments and moral skepticism - danielhamp...
Daniel Hampikian's Power point on arguments and moral skepticism - danielhamp...
More from Janet Stemwedel
Lect10 Human Subjects: History
The document discusses the history of human subjects research, including unethical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany scientists and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972. The Nazi experiments violated subjects' rights and caused extreme harm. The Tuskegee study intended to observe untreated syphilis in black men but became unscientific when subjects received some treatment and contributed no useful medical knowledge. It was later deemed unethical by modern standards for failing to obtain informed consent and exposing subjects to harm without benefit.
Lect11 Human Subjects: Regulations
The document discusses the historical evolution of ethics guidelines for research involving human subjects. It begins with the Hippocratic Oath from ancient Greece which established early standards of medical ethics. It then discusses the Nuremberg Code created after World War II which focused on informed consent and avoiding harming subjects. Finally, it examines the Declaration of Helsinki which recognized the need for institutional review and emphasized informed consent, assessing risks/benefits, and protecting subject well-being.
Lec12 Human Subjects:Global Issues
This document discusses several ethical issues regarding human subjects research, particularly in developing countries. It summarizes the Belmont Report's principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It then examines debates around the ethics of placebo-controlled trials in developing world contexts and whether local standards of care are acceptable for control groups. The tension between beneficence toward subjects and producing scientifically valid results that could benefit the population is also discussed.
Lec13 Scientific Papers and Communications
This document discusses scientific communication and the process of publishing scientific papers. It outlines the typical sections of a scientific paper, including the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. It also describes the role of peer review in evaluating papers before publication. While scientific papers aim to contribute to shared knowledge, they also serve as a way for scientists to establish priority and build their career records. This can complicate communication if it discourages sharing negative results or stretching the interpretation of findings. The document examines criticisms of the standard scientific paper format and considers other modes of scientific communication.
Lec15 Patents and Intellectual Property
This document discusses several issues relating to patents and intellectual property:
- There is a tension between the norm of open scientific knowledge and the concept of intellectual property ownership.
- Employers and universities often claim ownership over intellectual property created by employees and students. Patent law varies by jurisdiction on this issue.
- Patents provide a limited monopoly on inventions in exchange for publicly disclosing details that allow others to replicate the work once the patent expires. However, critics argue the patent system does not always encourage innovation or serve the public interest.
Lec16 International Strategies for Scientific Dialogue
International strategies for scientific dialogue discusses various cultural influences on scientific communities and how scientists navigate these differences. Some key points summarized:
1. Local cultures and institutions can influence how science is practiced differently than an idealized meritocratic model. Hierarchies form within communities based on factors like field of study or country of origin.
2. Japanese scientists aim to participate globally while maintaining their national identity, but risk being seen as "strange" if habits from abroad are acknowledged.
3. The Tsukuba Science City project departed from traditional Japanese models by focusing on a less prestigious field outside standard university channels. This lowered their status nationally but raised it internationally in that field.
Explanation classroomversion
The document discusses different types of scientific explanations and criteria for a good explanation. It presents the deductive-nomological model of explanation but notes some limitations, as not all good explanations fit this model and some arguments that fit the model may not be good explanations. Different examples are provided to illustrate explanations based on laws of nature, statistical generalizations, mechanisms, and pragmatic or contextual factors.
Feminist Critiques of Science
The document discusses feminist critiques of science, specifically examining how the exclusion of women from science may have been harmful. It explores how scientific theories in the past have promoted gender biases and stereotypes to justify excluding women. A key feminist critique is that excluding diverse perspectives, like those of women, reduces objectivity by limiting alternative viewpoints and questions that could be asked. The document argues that including more women in science can help address implicit biases and assumptions, leading to more rigorous and objective scientific research.
Indirect-table Analysis
The document discusses indirect truth table analysis for determining the validity of arguments. It provides examples of setting up truth tables to evaluate arguments by making the conclusion false and premises true without contradictions. The examples show both valid and invalid arguments based on whether a consistent truth assignment can be found.
Truth table analysis
The document discusses how truth tables can be used to determine the logical status of propositions and arguments. Truth tables assign truth values (True/False) to propositions based on the truth values of their component statements, allowing the logical status of single propositions and groups of propositions to be determined. The logical status can be tautology, contradiction, contingent, equivalent, satisfiable/consistent, or unsatisfiable/inconsistent depending on the truth values. Validity of arguments can also be determined from truth tables by checking if the conclusion is true in all rows where the premises are true. Examples of truth tables are provided to illustrate these concepts.
Translating English to Propositional Logic
The document discusses translating statements from English to propositional logic, including:
- Conjunction and disjunction are commutative but order matters for statements with mixed operators
- How to translate conditional statements like "if P then Q" and biconditionals like "P if and only if Q"
- Necessary and sufficient conditions and how they relate to conditionals
- Examples of translating various English language statements into propositional logic statements
Propositional logic
The document discusses translating natural language statements into propositional logic by identifying logical structures like negation, conjunction, disjunction, etc. It provides examples of translating statements involving negation (e.g. "Bill does not own a car"), conjunction (e.g. "Jenny went to the park and Bill went to the park"), disjunction (e.g. "Either my roommate will bring the textbook or my lab partner will let me borrow hers"), and discusses how to properly capture meaning and logical relationships. Key concepts covered are using variables to represent propositions, appropriate use of logical operators, and handling collective subjects, temporal sequences, and additive comparisons.
Syntax and semantics of propositional logic
Lecture introducing propositional logic, Phil 57 section 3 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning"), San Jose State University, Fall 2010.
P160 hempelhume
The document discusses the concepts of induction and confirmation in philosophy. It uses Semmelweis's discovery of the cause of childbed fever as a case study. Semmelweis used inductive and deductive reasoning to identify that physicians were transmitting cadaveric particles from autopsies to patients, which was causing childbed fever. However, strictly speaking, Semmelweis's conclusions were not proven with his data since inductive arguments can only establish potential causes, not prove conclusions with certainty.
Language of Arguments
The document discusses various types of definitions that can be used to reduce ambiguity and vagueness in arguments, including: ostensive definitions, which involve directly pointing out the thing being defined; verbal extensional definitions, which list examples of members of the set; intensional definitions, which outline the properties of members; lexical definitions from dictionaries; stipulative definitions for new terms; precising definitions to clarify vague terms; theoretical definitions based on a particular theory; and operational definitions that provide instructions for determining if something fits the definition. It also discusses ambiguity, vagueness, emotive or persuasive definitions, and gives examples and homework assignments related to defining terms clearly.
Diagramming arguments
Slides from lecture #2 in Phil 57 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning), section 3, at San Jose State University, Fall 2010.
Arguments (and other things)
Slides from lecture #1 in Phil 57 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning), section 3, at San Jose State University, Fall 2010.
Patents and intellectual property
Slides from the lecture on patents and intellectual property in Phil 133 ("Ethics in Science" at San Jose State University.
Authorship Issues
Slides from the lecture "Authorship issues" in Phil 133 ("Ethics in Science") at San Jose State University.
Scientific Papers and Communications
Slides from my lecture on scientific papers and communications in Phil 133 ("Ethics in Science") at San Jose State University.
More from Janet Stemwedel (20)
Lec16 International Strategies for Scientific Dialogue
Lec16 International Strategies for Scientific Dialogue
Recently uploaded
Types of Herbal Cosmetics its standardization.
Physiology and chemistry of skin and pigmentation, hairs, scalp, lips and nail, Cleansing cream, Lotions, Face powders, Face packs, Lipsticks, Bath products, soaps and baby product,
Preparation and standardization of the following : Tonic, Bleaches, Dentifrices and Mouth washes & Tooth Pastes, Cosmetics for Nails.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Hindi varnamala | hindi alphabet PPT.pdf
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docx
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Digital Artifact 1 - 10VCD Environments Unit
Digital Artifact 1 - 10VCD Environments Unit - NGV Pavilion Concept Design
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptxMohd Adib Abd Muin, Senior Lecturer at Universiti Utara Malaysia
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
ANATOMY AND BIOMECHANICS OF HIP JOINT.pdf
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama University
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama UniversityAkanksha trivedi rama nursing college kanpur.
Natural birth techniques are various type such as/ water birth , alexender method, hypnosis, bradley method, lamaze method etcHow to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS Template 2023-2024 by: Irene S. Rueco
Top five deadliest dog breeds in America
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Recently uploaded (20)
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Digital Artefact 1 - Tiny Home Environmental Design
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama University
Natural birth techniques - Mrs.Akanksha Trivedi Rama University
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...
Pride Month Slides 2024 David Douglas School District
Pride Month Slides 2024 David Douglas School District
Quiz1 postmortem
- 1. Reviewing Quiz #1 Phil 57 section 3 Fall 2010
- 2. 1. Define an argument .
- 14. 5. Define validity .