Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Deductive Reasoning |
A form of reasoning in which one attempts to show the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. 1. all men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal |
|
|
Inductive Reasoning |
A form of reasoning that often derives the conclusion from more specific ones. 1. Every object I let go of dropped to the ground. 2. Therefore, if I let go of this apple it will drop to the ground. |
|
|
The object of human reasoning: 1. 2. |
1. Relation of Ideas (Geometry and Math) 2. Matters of Fact (existence of things in the world) |
|
|
Relation of Ideas |
Intuitively or demonstratively certain. No dependence on the universe. Eg. It doesn't matter if there are no triangles in the world, a triangle has 3 sides in virtue of the very relation between ideas; their very meaning. Contrary to a relation of ideas is not possible because it would entail a contradiction. |
|
|
Matters of Fact |
The contrary of every matter of fact is possible, because it does not imply contradiction. Eg. The sun will no rise tomorrow. This is an intelligible proposition. No less intelligible than, the the sun will rise tomorrow. Deals with the world. |
|
|
Cause and Effect |
All reasoning concerning matters of fact are founded on relation of cause and effect. I receive a letter from my cousin, stamped from France. I believe my cousin is in France, There is a cause (letter) and effect (belief). And the belief is a result of the cause. |
|
|
Cause and Effect are only known by... |
Experience. Only concerns itself with Matters of Fact. Relation of Ideas are not connected by cause and effect. 1+1 does not cause 2. It's a expression of an identity. |
|
|
Evidence of cause and effect requires expereince |
Adam, even if he were far more intelligent, could mot have inferred that water would suffocate him without some kind of experience. |
|
|
Induction the worry induction uses past experiences to tell us about future ones. |
But why think past experiences tell us anything about the future? Induction 1. I have found that object x always produced effect y 2. I foresee that other objects which are similar in appearance, will produce similar effects. "If you insist that inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning" |
|
|
2 Forms of reasoning |
1. Demonstrative 2. Moral reasoning |
|
|
Demonstrative reasoning (relation of ideas) |
Deals with objects whose denial entail a contradiction. Eg A=-A |
|
|
Moral reasoning |
Deals with matters of fact. Can be denied without contradiction. Eg. I can imagine that an object falling from the sky that resembles snow tastes like salt and feels like fire. |
|
|
Induction draws conclusions about the world... |
Therefore, uses matters of fact. |
|
|
Circularity |
All reasoning about matters of fact relies on the notion of causation. Causation is derived only from experience. But notice that our ideas of causation come only from assuming the future will look like the past. But that's all induction is, and that's what we are trying to justify. We're assuming indcutive reasoning in the justification of induction, which is circular. Therefore, inductive reasoning cannot be justified and is not rational. |
|
|
Critic We use induction because... |
We experience a sort of uniformity. Event x causes event y. Similar x's caused similar y's. |
|
|
Hume's Response. Yes, you've witnessed uniformity of nature in the past. |
But what justifies you in thinking the future will look like the past. Because it has in the past? But then why think it will now look like the past? Or continue to look like the past? But when we come across a new object, what reason is there to think it will have those qualities? |
|
|
Critic: Even a child will learn quickly that once she has touched a hot stove, she will not touch it again. |
But why? However, she comes to think of this is not a rational process. Her thinking the flame will burn her is literally not rational. It's entirely without a rational basis. Rational beliefs are held for reasons. |
|
|
Hume's thought experiment |
Witnessing a continuation of events, but nothing more. A person would not reach reasoning thought the idea of cause and effect. Because we have no senses to detect it. And it is not rational to assume one event follows another through causation, they are arbitrarily joined events. It is only through experience does he thinks there is causation. |
|
|
Custom and Habit that we... |
We do not think x causes y because of any evidence to the senses or rational thinking. We do so out of custom and habit. |
|
|
Hume we never actually observe or experience cause and effect... |
Only the conjoining of two events. |
|
|
Responding to Hume #1 |
Ok perhaps we do not see cause and effect in one instance of the event: A and B But surely when we see this happening again and again we can infer a relationship between A and B. A is the cause. B is the effect. |
|
|
Hume's Response to #1 |
But there is nothing in a large # of instances that is different from one single instances. There is at most only 1 difference. That after a repetition of similar instances the mind is carried by habit to expect a particular result. But the connection or relation is felt in the mind, not in observation, from a custom of mind. Notice if repetition is the only difference, that difference does not justify the thought of cause and effect. |
|
|
Responding to Hume #2 |
We are entitled at least say that a conclusionwill probably happen. |
|
|
Hume's response #2 |
You're no more entitled to probability than certainty. What reason is there to think that the future will probably look like the past? Because it has in the past? |
