Week 3 learning activity¶
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW¶
Falsification can be demonstrated clearly by looking at the structure of the argument. When a test yields a negative result, the hypothetico–deductive method sets up the following argument form:
In this case, our example could be worded: "If you eat pizza every day, then you will not get heart disease." For this statement, the refutation would be someone who eats pizza every day but does get heart disease.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 6.4.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 2¶
An inductive generalization makes an inference about a whole population based on data about a sample of that population.
If the sample population is too small, it is a hasty generalization. If the sample population is not representative of the relevant characteristics of the whole population, it is a biased sample.
Inductive generalizations are not deductive and hence are not intended to be valid in their form.
False analogies apply to arguments from analogy, not inductive generalizations. Arguments from analogy draw conclusions about individuals that are similar to the sample population. Inductive generalizations, by contrast, draw conclusions about a larger population that includes the sample.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 5.3.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 3¶
Li is applying the hypothetico-deductive method. He first formulated a clear, testable hypothesis regarding the consequences of its consumption and then articulated what he should expect to observe if it is correct. To test his hypothesis, he must first place himself in a situation where its success or failure can be observed by waiting until he (or another subject) has stomach cramps and then ingesting the willow bark to see if it relieves them (consuming it while not feeling stomach cramps might test the claim that willow bark causes cramps, but it would not test the claim that it relieves them). The method would dictate that he should reject the hypothesis if it is disconfirmed, that is, if ingesting it does not relieve the cramps.
If he drinks the willow bark when he has stomach cramps and they go away relatively quickly, this would seem to confirm his hypothesis. However, a single instance is insufficient to rule out coincidence; the hypothesis would ultimately have to be tested on many subjects. Furthermore, the observation coming true would not deductively prove that the hypothesis was correct; it could only provide inductive evidence for the hypothesis. If further trials on many subjects continue to verify the hypothesis and the alternate explanations of the effect have been tested and rejected, then he may gain substantial inductive evidence for the truth of his hypothesis. Such evidence is how we eventually came to know that willow bark has beneficial medical effects.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 4¶
An argument from analogy draws a conclusion about an individual based on an analogy with other cases that are similar.
This argument makes an analogy between this new person and the previous person hired: They have the same last name. It bases the inference on that analogy, so this is an argument from analogy. This one may not be strong, but it has the form of an argument from analogy.
An inductive generalization goes from the specific examples to the general case. This argument has a specific conclusion, so it is not a generalization.
A statistical syllogism draws a conclusion about a specific individual based on a percentage claim about a larger group of which the individual is part; the premise in this example is about a specific past person hired, not about a group, so it is not a statistical syllogism. The new individual in this example is being compared with the previous person hired.
An appeal to authority would draw a conclusion based on what someone (an alleged expert) said. There is no appeal to authority here, only an analogy with a previous individual.
For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see section 5.6.
Created: 2023-05-19