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;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Deductive reasoning
|
When we compare an observation to what we already know. -Framework of knowledge. -Conclusion must follow a set of known premises. - If premises are correct than the conclusion is valid. - The conclusion must naturally follow.
EX: all people are mortal=true. My neighbor is a person=true. Therefore my neighbor is mortal=TRUE. EX:I eat apples=true Everyone who eats apples is smart = untrue. There fore I am smart. = False because not all premises are true. |
|
Inductive Reasoning
|
No framework of knowledge. We observe a large number of facts and put them together for a conclusion. Facts may be valid and the conclusion not valid. - Allows for possibility that conclusions are not valid when observations are valid. **Uses empirical evidence. EX: All of the ice I measured is cold. = true. therefore all ice is cold= true. EX: Certain minerals are found together. = true. Therefore, all minerals are like that = UNTRUE!!
|
|
Natural Experiments
|
When we observe nature and explain the causes. calmly observe nature and what is/has happened.
|
|
Manipulative Experiments
|
set up systems and see what happens. You expose nature to something it would not normally experience. Torture Nature. Chemist, biologist, geologist. Deals wish controlled studies. Control group is not affected and noe one group has the actual tests.
|
|
Blind Control study
|
the researcher does not know which group is affected to avoid bias. Used in medical fields and such.
|
|
Double Blind Control Study
|
when researcher nor subjects know if they are affected.
|
|
Confirmation Bias
|
the tendancy for looking for confirming evidence and ignoring nonconfirming. maybe more powerful. maybe not. Dont just observe what you believe or suspect.
|
|
expectation bias.
|
you see what you expect to see
|
|
selective memory
|
noticing or remembering what we believe to be true.
|
|
Testimonials
|
Use as evidence is very questionable. - this is where people witness accounts.
Ex: I saw bigfoot, lochness monster especially when caught off gaurd. Eye witnesses are valuable when prepared. |
|
paraidolia
|
an illusion is clear to us in objects. Most common= faces. We are trained to remember faces. Imbread from child hood.
|
|
Not Bad Science
Speculation |
Speculating about what is unknown. cannot be tested but is not bad science.
EX: the drake equation = how many places in the universe have civilizations advanced enough to communicate with us. Posing questions that cannot be answered does not mean its bad science. |
|
Not Bad science
Posing a hypothesis... |
that cannot be tested with present technology. Ex: is there life on jupiters moon's?
|
|
Not bad science
Honest Mistakes |
misreadings, faulty equipment unknown to the user, bad readings...
|
|
Not Bad science
Wrong interpretations |
...of best available data. Not burdoned by prior comitment, tentative.
|
|
Bad arguments:
Twisting the evidence |
also using semantic arguments. Ex: changing wrong answers into correct ones by changing a definition or changing numbers. AVOID DOUBLE MEANING IN SCIENCE AND AMBIGUITY.
|
|
Bad arguments:
Authoritarian |
the boss or smart guy spoke so it is correct. = wrong. A conviction of belief based on some authority. Ex: some big univerisity says something and you believe 100%
|
|
Bad arguments
"they laughed at the wright brothers" |
Scientist were not laughing because they knew of the bernoulis equation. (principle behind air flight) If scientists are laughing at my idea this means there is no priciple behind it- no supporting principle. There is no reason to trust a new idea, you must have scientific principles backing it
|
|
Bad arguments
Conspiracy |
sooner or later they will say it is a conspiracy against me by scientist. Don't want you to know. "Right to be heard" by scientists (no they don't) Science does not have bill of rights. scientist wouldn't listen because of violation of scientific priciples and not explained properly or correctly
|
|
scientist wouldn't listen because
|
of violation of scientific priciples and not explained properly or correctly
|
|
Bad Arguments
Residue |
When 95% of observations are incorrect, flase, or hoazes. What do you do with the residue of 5%. chances are they are not valid (mistakes, hoazes...and cannot be demonstrated.) Should not trust them!
CAVEOT = WARNING! SCIENCE PROCEEDS ON ANOMOLIES. |
|
Anomalies
|
Things that don't fit. Need to sudy this and explain this. Good credible data are not found in piles of junk VS. finding an anomolie in a pile of good data
|
|
BAd ARguments
Explanation by default |
Science can't explain it so I must be correct = EX. wrong. Science can;t explain it YET.
|
|
BA
False dilemma |
Wrongly assuming that only two explanations exist. -Politicians do thsi all the time. Ex. my idea is not so bad because yours is worse.
|
|
BA
begging the question |
Circular argument. the answer is simply a rewrite of the question. - Provides a conclusion in a new form. Ex: can you be precise and incorrect at the same time.
|
|
BA
False Cause |
A follows B. Does B cause A? no not neccessarily. Possibly C causes all to move. First you need a principle of science as to how cause and effect for how it happens. Ex: do cell phones cause cancer? we need a medical explanation of how it works
|
|
BA
Not fully explaining the phenominom |
very importnant
when not explained you jump to conclusions |
|
BA
Gee whiz facts, anecdotal, popularity, apeal to tradition. |
need to boil down to the truth. Ex: mmost midical costs occuiur in the last 2 months of life. = wrong. YOu find something the very last place you look.
|