انواع استدلال (قسمت دوم)

 
00:00 / 00:00
1.8x
1.4x
1.0x
0.7x
HD SD
HD
SD
اشتراک‌گذاری

×

گزارش خرابی

Types of arguments presented
in academic lectures, Part 2. In the first video we
discussed deductive arguments, let's move on to inductive arguments. Remember the claim,
there are 440 species of sharks? How did marine biologists discover
that there are over 400 species of sharks in the world? Well through observation and
gathered evidence. But good inductive arguments
are made using not just evidence but also something called, abduction to make
generalizations and to form theories. Abduction, also called inference
to the best explanation is a kind of reasoning that seeks
to find In the simplest and most likely explanation given
the available evidence. When faced with more than one
possible explanation abduction tells us that the simplest explanation
has the most explanatory power. Let's try a real world example. Imagine that you wake up to a sunny day. You get ready to go out, then you open the door and step out of your house to discover that
the ground is wet as far as you can see. Which of the following would be
the best explanation using abduction or inference to the best explanation. A) It rained. B) The sprinklers malfunctioned and sprayed water everywhere,
including down the street. Or C) The neighborhood children
decided to stay up all night spraying water all
over the neighborhood. I hope you said A. A) It rained, is the best and
simplest explanation. But remember, inductive arguments
can be disproven with new evidence. There is no logical necessity,
just a high probability. Let's take a look at another
example of an inductive claim. Wolves are monogamous for life. Monogamous means that they have
only one partner until they die. New evidence, however,
may disprove this claim. For instance, a new species of wolves may
be discovered that do not mate for life. So, as we've seen in the examples, inductive arguments are used in
the natural sciences for theory formation. But this is also true for
the social sciences. Now let's move on to discuss
conductive arguments. Some believe that conductive arguments
are a type of inductive argument. But how they are categorized is not
as important as remembering that they are based on an analysis of independent
reasons for and against a conclusion. For instance, imagine hearing you have
pneumonia, a type of lung infection. Similar to, but more severe than the flu. How could you tell if this were true? You would ask, well what are the symptoms? So based on what is known
as symptoms of pneumonia, here are the symptoms that
support the claim, and that go against the claim,
coughing persistently, vomiting, fatigue, shortness of breath, shaking chills,
chest pains but no high fever. Okay, well a diagnosis or identification
of the illness can now be made. The reasons for,
outweigh the reasons against. To express a case like this people
often use conjunctions that express contrast such as though,
although, even though, despite the fact that, notwithstanding
the fact that, and while granting that. Imagine, a doctor might say, despite the fact that you do not have
a high fever, you clearly have pneumonia. You are displaying at least six
classic symptoms of pneumonia. So conductive arguments are commonly used
in medicine to make diagnoses but also in law, to show whether someone charged
with a crime is innocent or guilty. But remember you will hear all of
the types of arguments you learned about, in one way or another,
in all of your classes. I hope that you will now think about the
strength of inferences as you listen to lectures, recognizing whether claims
are necessarily true or can be disproven. Thanks for watching.

دانلود با کیفیت بالا
دانلود با حجم کم