Chapter 5: Inductive Generalizations This chapter will cover Use of controlled studies in arguments Criteria for credibility of controlled studies Use and misuse of expert testimony Use of analogies in inductive generalizations

Research Design Steps Include: A question: the characteristic of interest A hypothesis: speculation about what will be discovered A sample: the target population Data: observations made by the researcher. Conclusions: interpretations

Research Design Question and Hypothesis Question: What is the effect of the drug Z on migraines? Hypothesis: Drug Z will lessen migraines caused by restricted vessels.

Research Design Sample Random and Representative Control Group: subjects receiving no treatment or who receive a placebo (sugar pill) Experimental Group: subjects exposed to a variable.

Research Design Conclusions Give results and meaning of the data collected Relationship between drug Z and migraines interpreted

Evaluating Research Findings Criteria to look for Sample size Reliability Alternative explanations Statistically significant Duplicate the results Claim more than designed Respected institution Researcher bias

Controversy in Research Findings Influential results New Analysis Reasserts Video Games’ Link to Violence Study Says Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors – Are You Safe?

Skill Read and consider original studies before making decisions based on controversial research findings.

Making, Evaluating, Repairing, and Refuting Arguments Deductive argument Check for correct form Refuting a deductive argument: Point out invalid reasoning Point out untrue premises

Making, Evaluating, Repairing, and Refuting Arguments Inductive argument Check to see if it is Cogent Check for strong evidence Look at statistical and causal generalizations Look for current credible sources

Two-Step Flow of Information Information sources 1 Opinion Leaders Experts Two – Step Flow Phenomena of consulting acquaintances before we make decisions Opinion leaders- people who are well informed often through the media 2 The Public

Expert Testimony Problems Wrong field Not recognized as experts Payment Bias Limitations Contradictions

Reasoning by Analogy Drawing a comparison Evidence shows that this policy works well in one or more cases; therefore, I infer that it will work well in other similar situations.

Chapter 5: Inductive Generalizations Checkup Steps in a well designed research study What is an opinion leader Control groups and experimental groups Generalizations from analogies