1 / 20

Evaluating Logical Inferences: Strength, Fallacies, and Causal Connections

Explore the process of evaluating the logical strength of inferences presented to support conclusions. Learn to recognize reasoning fallacies masquerading as warranted arguments. Discover how to evaluate generalizations, coincidences, patterns, correlations, and causal connections.

Download Presentation

Evaluating Logical Inferences: Strength, Fallacies, and Causal Connections

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chapter 9 Warranted Inferences

  2. Learning Outcomes • Evaluate the logical strength of inferences presented to justify or support the belief that their conclusions are very probably, but not necessarily, true if we take their premises to be true • Recognize reasoning fallacies masquerading as warranted inferences

  3. Chapter Opening Video

  4. Evidence Currently at Hand • Weight of evidence • Evaluating generalizations • Coincidences, patterns, correlations, and causes

  5. Weight of Evidence • Leads people towards a single conclusion • Logical strength of probabilistic arguments can be evaluated by systematic method for assigning levels of confidence

  6. Evaluating Generalizations • Generalization is based on data gathered systematically or unsystematically • People over the age of 60 tend to prefer to listen to oldies • 73 percent of the hotel room beds in the city are infested with bedbugs

  7. Evaluating Generalizations • Evaluation of logical strength of probabilistic generalizations • Requires asking questions and finding satisfactory answers • Was the correct group sampled? • Were the data obtained in an effective way? • Were enough cases considered? • Was the sample representatively structured?

  8. Coincidences, Patterns, Correlations, and Causes • Coincidences • Events that occur together by chance • Patterns • Observed in events that initially appear to be random coincidences • Concentration of multi-million dollar luxury casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City

  9. Coincidences, Patterns, Correlations, and Causes • Correlations • Describe the degree to which two different sets of events are aligned • Calculated using statistical analyses • Causes • Causal explanations are desirable as they enable us to explain, predict, and control parts of the natural world

  10. Fallacies Masquerading as Warranted Arguments • Erroneous generalization • Playing with numbers • False dilemma • Gambler’s fallacy • False cause • Slippery slope

  11. Erroneous Generalization • People make hasty and erroneous generalizations by: • Relying on little information • Exaggerating the importance of one or two particular experiences • Generalizations can be deceptively fallacious

  12. Playing with Numbers • Arguments that use: • Raw numbers when percentages would present a fair-minded description • Percentages when raw numbers would present a fair-minded description

  13. False Dilemma • Real dilemma - Situation in which all our choices are bad • At times, turns out to be a false dilemma on closer analysis • Referred to as the either/or fallacy

  14. Gambler’s Fallacy • Random events that are not patterned, correlated, or causally connected • People make arguments with wrong assumption that what happens by chance is somehow connected with things we can control

  15. False Cause • Assumption that two events are causally related as one happens after the other • Referred as post hoc, propter hoc

  16. Discussion Questions • Give an example of when you connected some action you took with a positive result and then found yourself repeating it in the hope of producing a similar outcome • How did that associational inference work out for you? • Give reasons to support your conclusion

  17. Slippery Slope • False assumption that events are linked together • First step in the process necessarily results in problems

  18. Fallacies

  19. Sketchnote Video

More Related