INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze and evaluate inductive arguments.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Psychology
Advertisements

Andrea M. Landis, PhD, RN UW LEAH
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations
Characteristics Generate as many characteristics of critical thinking and a critical thinker as possible.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 11 Evaluating Causal Arguments.
CHAPTER 8- INDUCTION  Induction: goes beyond what premises guarantee  Allows us to reason from what is known, usually bits and pieces, to what is true.
Critical Thinking: Chapter 10
Social Science Research and
10: Analyzing and Reporting Qualitative Research.
Chapter 4 Validity.
Inductive Reasoning Concepts and Principles ofConstruction.
Inductive Reasoning Concepts and Principles ofConstruction.
How Psychologists Ask and Answer Questions
FREE RESPONSE EXPECTATIONS FREE RESPONSE SUGGESTIONS AP Human Geography Exam.
Inductive Reasoning Concepts and Principles ofConstruction.
Building Logical Arguments. Critical Thinking Skills Understand and use principles of scientific investigation Apply rules of formal and informal logic.
Preparing for the Verbal Reasoning Measure. Overview Introduction to the Verbal Reasoning Measure Question Types and Strategies for Answering General.
Methodology: How Social Psychologists Do Research
McGraw-Hill © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The Nature of Research Chapter One.
© 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Chapter 18 Reading and Writing the Qualitative Research Report A qualitative study is.
Developing Business Practice –302LON Using data in your studies Unit: 5 Knowledgecast: 2.
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to identify and evaluate marketing strategies and advertisements.
1 The Methods of Biology Chapter Scientific Methods.
Descriptive and Causal Research Designs
Basic and Applied Research. Notes:  The question asked is either “basic” or “applied”  “Try again…” NEVER with the same data set  *data mining*  Literature.
Chapter 2 Research in Abnormal Psychology. Slide 2 Research in Abnormal Psychology  Clinical researchers face certain challenges that make their investigations.
Debate: Reasoning. Claims & Evidence Review Claims are statements that serve to support your conclusion. Evidence is information discovered through.
Module 4 Notes Research Methods. Let’s Discuss! Why is Research Important?
Observation & Analysis. Observation Field Research In the fields of social science, psychology and medicine, amongst others, observational study is an.
Inductive Generalizations Induction is the basis for our commonsense beliefs about the world. In the most general sense, inductive reasoning, is that in.
Sociologists Doing Research Chapter 2. Research Methods Ch. 2.1.
Thomson South-Western Wagner & Hollenbeck 5e 1 Chapter Sixteen Critical Thinking And Continuous Learning.
© 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The Art of Critical Reading Mather ● McCarthy Part 4 Reading Critically Chapter 12 Evaluating.
Research Design. Selecting the Appropriate Research Design A research design is basically a plan or strategy for conducting one’s research. It serves.
©2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Analyzing and Evaluating Inductive Arguments The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn.
Inductive Reasoning Concepts and Principles ofConstruction.
INFORMAL FALLACIES The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize and resist fallacious arguments.
RECOGNIZING, ANALYZING, AND CONSTRUCTING ARGUMENTS
CHAPTER 2 Research Methods in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
SCIENCE The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to identify and evaluate scientific methods and assumptions.
 Evidence – “ supporting material known or discovered, but not created by the advocate.” (Wilbanks, Church)  The minor premise of the classical logical.
+ Critical Thinking and Writing 31 August, 2015 Objectives: identify common logical fallacies More practice anaylsing arguments, inductive/deductive, main.
Unit 1 Sections 1-1 & : Introduction What is Statistics?  Statistics – the science of conducting studies to collect, organize, summarize, analyze,
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 12 Lecture Notes Chapter 12.
Argumentation.
©2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Analyzing and Evaluating Inductive Arguments The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze, and evaluate deductive arguments.
Copyright 2011 by W. H. Freeman and Company. All rights reserved.1 Introductory Statistics: A Problem-Solving Approach by Stephen Kokoska Chapter 1 An.
Philosophy 104 Chapter 8 Notes (Part 1). Induction vs Deduction Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong describe the difference between induction and deduction.
Methodology: How Social Psychologists Do Research
Major Steps. 1.State the hypotheses.  Be sure to state both the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, and identify which is the claim. H0H0.
FIVE TYPES OF REASONING
Evaluate Inductive Reasoning and Spot Inductive Fallacies
MARKETING & ADVERTISING The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to identify and evaluate marketing strategies and advertisements.
Research And Evaluation Differences Between Research and Evaluation  Research and evaluation are closely related but differ in four ways: –The purpose.
The Toulmin Method. Why Toulmin…  Based on the work of philosopher Stephen Toulmin.  A way to analyze the effectiveness of an argument.  A way to respond.
Sociologists Doing Research Chapter 2. Research Methods Sociologists attempt to ask the “why” and “how” questions and gather evidence which will help.
Chapter 26: Generalizations and Surveys. Inductive Generalizations (pp ) Arguments to a general conclusion are fairly common. Some people claim.
Nature of Science Quest Review.
Chapter 7: Induction.
Argumentation.
Chapter 2 Sociological Research Methods.
The Literature Review 3 edition
KNOWLEDGE, EVIDENCE, AND ERRORS IN THINKING
Chapter 2 Sociological Research Methods
Chapter 4: Inductive Arguments
Argumentation Strategies
Chapter 8 Inductive Reasoning.
Chapter 5: Inductive Generalizations
Presentation transcript:

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze and evaluate inductive arguments.

Inductive arguments Inductive arguments claim that their conclusion probably follows from the premises. As a result, inductive arguments are either stronger or weaker, rather than true or false. Certain words and phrases are commonly used in inductive arguments; these include probably, most likely, chances are, it is reasonable to suppose, we can expect, and it seems probable that. However, not all inductive arguments contain indicator words. 22 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Three types of inductive arguments  There are three common types of inductive arguments:  Generalizations  Analogies  Causal arguments 33 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Generalizations  We use generalization when we draw a conclusion about a certain characteristic of a group or population based on a sample from that group.  Certain data collection processes employ inductive generalization. These include polls, surveys, and sampling techniques. Types of sampling techniques include representative samples, random samples, and self-selected samples. 44 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Problems with generalizations  Although data collected using inductive generalization techniques may be useful and credible, it is also susceptible to problems.  These problems include:  Bias in wording, such as slanted questions, push polls, and loaded questions. 55 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluating polls or surveys  When evaluating poll or survey data, it is important to ask questions to determine the data’s worth and accuracy.  Who conducted the poll and what was its purpose?  How was the sample selected? Was it large enough?  Was the sample representative of the study group?  What method was used to carry out the poll?  What questions were asked? Were they unbiased?  What other polls have been taken on this issue? Is this poll consistent with their findings? 66 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluating inductive arguments using generalization  When evaluating generalization-based arguments, the following five criteria are useful:  Check whether the premises are true.  Decide if the sample is large enough.  Decide if the sample is representative.  Decide if the sample is current and up-to-date.  Determine whether the premises support the conclusion. 77 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Analogies  An analogy is based on a comparison between two or more things or events. Metaphors, a type of descriptive analogy, are common in literature. Analogies can be used on their own or as premises in arguments. Arguments using analogies are common in personal relationships, as well as in many fields such as law, religion, politics, business, science, and the military.  The success of an argument using an analogy depends on the type and extent of relevant similarities and dissimilarities between the things being compared. 88 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluating arguments based on analogy  Knowing how to evaluate arguments using analogy is a valuable critical thinking skill.  The following strategies are useful  Identify what is being compared.  List the similarities.  List the dissimilarities.  Compare the lists.  Examine possible counter-analogies.  Determine if the analogy supports the conclusion. 99 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Causal arguments  A cause is an event that brings about a change or effect. In causal arguments, something is claimed as the cause of something else. Understanding cause and effect relations is a crucial component of effective critical thinking. 10 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Correlations  When two events occur together at rates higher than probability, the relationship is called a correlation. If the incidence of one event increases when the second one increases, the relationship is called a positive correlation. A negative correlation occurs when the occurrence of one event increases as the other increases. 11 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluating causal arguments  Knowing how to evaluate causal arguments makes it easier for you to employ them productively.  Use the following four criteria  Determine whether the evidence for a causal relationship is strong.  Make sure the argument is free of fallacies.  Decide whether the data is current and up-to-date.  Make sure the conclusion does not go beyond the premises. 12 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Conclusions Knowledge of inductive arguments, including generalizations, analogies, and causal arguments, is essential for us to effectively function in the world. As good critical thinkers, we must constantly identify and evaluate these types of arguments, both our own and those presented to us by others. 13 © 2010, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.