MA 110: Finite Math Lecture 1/14/2009 Section 1.1 Homework: 5, 9-15, 21-22 (56 BP)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Basics of Logical Argument Two Kinds of Argument The Deductive argument: true premises guarantee a true conclusion. e.g. All men are mortal. Socrates.
Advertisements

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Plato Philosophy Through the Centuries BRENT SILBY Unlimited (UPT)
Welcome to Dave Penner’s Presentation on Inductive Reasoning!
Logic and Logical Fallacies A.P. English Language.
LOGIC AND REASON We can acquire new knowledge about the world by using reason. We constantly use reason to go beyond the immediate evidence of our senses.
Logical Arguments in Mathematics. A proof is a collection of statements and reasons in a logical order used to verify universal truths. However… depending.
Hume’s Problem of Induction. Most of our beliefs about the world have been formed from inductive inference. (e.g., all of science, folk physics/psych)
Other Info on Making Arguments
Logos Formal Logic.
What do Christians understand by revelation? 4KU What is the religious method ? 4KU.
An Introduction to Logic And Fallacious Reasoning
Socrates and the Socratic Turn
THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE. Assumptions  Nature is real, understandable, knowable through observation  Nature is orderly and uniform  Measurements yield.
Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-08: 1 Critical Issues in Information Systems BUSS 951 Seminar 8 Arguments.
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Geometry 1.0 – Students demonstrate understanding by identifying and giving examples of inductive and deductive reasoning.
1 Arguments in Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy.
Phil 1: An Introduction to Philosophy
Knowledge & Faith Dr. Carl J. Wenning Department of Physics Illinois State University.
How to Argue Successfully Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.
REASON, FAITH, LANGUAGE & MEMORY in 8 slides. DEDUCTIVE REASONING & its limitations Deductive reasoning moves from the general to the specific. All dogs.
Basic Argumentation.
The ubiquity of logic One common example of reasoning  If I take an umbrella, I can prevent getting wet by rain  I don’t want to get myself wet by rain.
Lecture 7: Ways of Knowing - Reason. Part 1: What is reasoning? And, how does it lead to knowledge?
RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Chapter I. Explanations about the Universe Power of the gods Religious authority Challenge to religious dogma Metacognition: Thinking.
MA 110: Finite Math Dr. Maria Byrne Instructional Laboratory 0345 When you enter, pick up a quiz and complete it at your desk.
TaK “This was one of the great events of my life, as dazzling as first love. I had not imagined that there was anything so delicious in the world” Bertrand.
Deduction, Induction, & Truth Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Logic and Reason. Deductive Reasoning Reasoning that moves from the general to the particular Watchdogs bark at strangers. The watchdog did not bark at.
0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) December 23, 2005.
Chapter 1 Logic Section 1-1 Statements Open your book to page 1 and read the section titled “To the Student” Now turn to page 3 where we will read the.
 Reason A Way of Knowing.  Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end. - Spock.
Reason “Crime is common, logic is rare” - Sherlock Holmes.
Descartes and Buddies “To be or not to be, that is the question”
Logic in Everyday Life.
Reasoning and Critical Thinking Validity and Soundness 1.
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
An Introduction to Logic And Fallacious Reasoning
2.8 Methods of Proof PHIL 012 1/26/2001.
Theory of Knowledge Ms. Bauer
0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) All dogs have two heads. 2. All tigers are dogs. ___________________________________ 3. All tigers have two.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.
Philosophy: Logic and Logical arguments
Reasoning To understand and analyse how basic philosophical arguments work. Understand basic philosophical terms. Use the terms to identify key features.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. PROBLEM SOLVING Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
The construction of a formal argument
Do Now  What does logos appeal to in an advertisement?  Give three examples.
PHIL 2525 Contemporary Moral Issues Lec 2 Arguments are among us…
Logic and Reasoning.
Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.
Epistemology (How do you know something?)  How do you know your science textbook is true?  How about your history textbook?  How about what your parents.
I think therefore I am - Rene Descartes. REASON (logic) It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence.
The Nature of Science and The Scientific Method Chemistry – Lincoln High School Mrs. Cameron.
Branches of Philosophy Areas of Interest & Specialization.
PRESENTATİON ABOUT ARİSTOTLE
Use of Reason and Logic RATIONALISM.  A Rationalist approach to knowledge is based on the belief that we can ascertain truth by thinking and reflection.
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
What is Philosophy?.
Chapter 3 Basic Logical Concepts (Please read book.)
What is Inductive Reasoning?
Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and John Pollock’s “Brain in a vat” Monday, September 19th.
Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Philosophy.
Clickers Bellwork Translate the following statement into a conditional statement Angles measuring less than 90o are acute angles Write the converse, inverse.
Arguments.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Notes 2.3 Deductive Reasoning.
Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Arguments
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

MA 110: Finite Math Lecture 1/14/2009 Section 1.1 Homework: 5, 9-15, (56 BP)

Today We’ll Learn 1.How math is unique as a subject. 2.The basis of mathematical thought: logical (valid) deduction and the syllogism. 3.The difference between validity and truth. 4.Deduction verses Induction.

Mathematics.. is a way of “knowing”.

“Epistemology”

“Epistemology” The theory of knowledge. What do we know? Isn’t it neat that we know that we know? How do we know if we (really) know??

Some problems with knowing: 1.Illogical conclusions / bad reasoning. 2.Reasoning and logic cannot answer everything. 1.Ethical questions. 2. The great ‘why’ questions. 3.We trust that we know, but we can’t know that we know. “Chuang-Tzu once dreamed he was a butterfly. When he awoke, he no longer knew if he was a butterfly dreaming he was a man, or a man who had dreamed he was a butterfly.”

Class discussion: what are different ways that we know things? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Four commonly accepted ways of knowing: (1)Reason (logic) (2)Perception (senses, induction) (3)Language (stories/authority) (4)Emotion (intuition/inspiration/revelation) From

Four commonly accepted ways of knowing: (1)Reason (logic) …………………Mathematics (2)Perception (senses, induction) (3)Language (stories/authority) (4)Emotion (intuition/inspiration/revelation) From

Four commonly accepted ways of knowing: (1)Reason (logic) …………………Mathematics (2)Perception (senses, induction) ………Science (3)Language (stories/authority) (4)Emotion (intuition/inspiration/revelation) From

Four commonly accepted ways of knowing: (1)Reason (logic) …………………Mathematics (2)Perception (senses, induction) ………Science (3)Language (stories/authority) ……Humanities (4)Emotion (intuition/inspiration/revelation) From

Areas of Knowledge Mathematics Natural Science Human Sciences History Arts Ethics Spirituality

Areas of Knowledge Mathematics Natural Science Human Sciences History Arts Ethics Spirituality Objective Subjective

Areas of Knowledge Mathematics Natural Science Human Sciences History Arts Ethics Spirituality Objective Subjective

Mathematics Most objective. Entirely rational. Logical. Universal validity.

The validity… Doesn’t depend upon a specific context. Doesn’t depend upon knowing anything – doesn’t even depend upon knowing that we know something. Instead of asserting that something is true, mathematics very much describes only what would be true if certain other things are true. What is meant be universal validity?

The validity… Doesn’t depend upon a specific context. Doesn’t depend upon knowing anything – doesn’t even depend upon knowing that we know something. Instead of asserting that something is true, mathematics very much describes only what would be true given certain other things are true. What is meant be universal validity?

The validity… Doesn’t depend upon a specific context. Doesn’t depend upon knowing anything – doesn’t even depend upon knowing that we know something. Instead of asserting that something is true, mathematics very much describes only what would be true assuming certain other things are true. What is meant be universal validity?

Example Two bags contain coins. Maybe the blue bag contains 10 coins. Maybe not. Maybe the red bag contains 5 coins. Maybe not. In mathematics, it doesn’t matter. Mathematics says:

Example IF the blue bag contains exactly 10 coins AND IF the red bag contains exactly 5 coins THEN both bags contain 15 coins. A conclusion that is guaranteed given the assumptions.

Uh oh! You combine both bags and instead have only 10 coins. What happened? Was the previous argument invalid?

IF the blue bag contains exactly 10 coins AND IF the red bag contains exactly 5 coins THEN both bags contain 15 coins. Still true: universal validity no matter how many coins the bags actually have.

This is the basis of mathematics: based on a set of assumptions (things we assume to be true for the sake of argument), what conclusions can we make that have to be true, if those assumptions are true?

Mathematics Aristotle 384BC – 322 BC

Aristotle Together with Plato, and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. He was the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.PlatoSocratesWestern philosophy All aspects of Aristotle's philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today. Aristotle defined the syllogism.

Syllogism Premises: Sentences that are assumed to be true for the sake of argument. Syllogism: Premises are combined that lead to a conclusion. Valid syllogism: The premises correctly lead to the conclusion in the sense that the conclusion has to be true given the assumption.

Truth verses Validity Validity: For any given set of premises, if the conclusion of an argument is guaranteed, the argument is valid. (If the conclusion in not guaranteed the conclusion is invalid.) Truth A conclusion is true if it happens to be the case in the ‘real world’.

Truth verses Validity A valid argument can lead to a false conclusion if the premises are false. An invalid argument can lead to a true conclusion just by accident. BUT A valid argument always leads to a true conclusion if the premises are true.

Truth verses Validity A valid argument can lead to a false conclusion if the premises are false. Women are bad drivers. Danica Patrick is a woman. Therefore, Danica Patrick is a bad driver. Valid argument, but false. False premise

Truth verses Validity An invalid argument can lead to a true conclusion just by accident. Some cats are black. This is a cat. Therefore, this cat is black. Invalid argument, but true.

Truth verses Validity A valid argument always leads to a true conclusion if the premises are true. All cats are mammals. This is a cat. Therefore, this cat is a mammal. Valid argument, premises true, Conclusion true.

Deductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning – from the general to the specific. If something is true for the general, then it is true for a specific instance. Example: All cats are mammals. If this is a cat, then it is a mammal.

“All TREES” Deduction: from the general to the specific

In the real world, how do you know anything in general? A little plug for science…

“TREES” Induction: from the specific to the general

Inductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning – from the specific to the general. If something is true in every observed instance, it may be true in the next instance. Example: The sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Areas of Knowledge Mathematics …Deductive Reasoning Natural Science…Inductive Reasoning Human Sciences History Arts Ethics Spirituality (listed from most objective to most subjective)

Areas of Knowledge Mathematics …Deductive Reasoning Natural Science…Inductive Reasoning Human Sciences History Arts Ethics Spirituality (listed from most objective to most subjective) PROOF EVIDENCE

Deductive or Inductive? (Proof or evidence?) I was walking through the park and saw 14 dogs. Every dog had a tail. Therefore I conclude that all dogs have tails. 1

Deductive or Inductive? (Proof or evidence?) I know that stars are bodies of hot gas. Our sun is a star. Therefore, our sun is a body of hot gas. 2

Deductive or Inductive? (Proof or evidence?) During rush hour Bob watches the cars at a busy intersection. He notices that of the 48 people who did not use their turn signals when turning, 75% were driving Fords. He concludes, people who drive Fords are more likely to not use turn signals. 3

Deductive or Inductive? (Proof or evidence?) The senator has supported every tax increase so far so I am sure he will support this one. 4

Deductive or Inductive? (Proof or evidence?) -2 cubed is -8 so I conclude that not all numbers, when cubed, give a positive number. 5

Inductive reasoning is only as good as the last n observations. Transit of Venus Rare and beautiful event. Watch out for it in 2012.

Inductive reasoning is only as good as the last n observations. First transit in 3 rd Millenium: June 8 th, 2004 Second transit: June 6 th, 2012 Transit of Venus

Inductive reasoning is only as good as the last n observations. First transit in 3 rd Millenium: June 8 th, 2004 Second transit: June 6 th, 2012 Transit of Venus Induction: transit every 8 years?

Inductive reasoning is only as good as the last n observations. First transit in 3 rd Millenium: June 8 th, 2004 Second transit: June 6 th, 2012 Third transit: December, 2117 Transit of Venus