1
00:00:00,070 --> 00:00:07,440
[Music]

2
00:00:04,009 --> 00:00:11,010
Scientists often gather data through

3
00:00:07,440 --> 00:00:14,340
observation experiments, archival studies

4
00:00:11,010 --> 00:00:17,520
and so on. But they are rarely satisfied

5
00:00:14,340 --> 00:00:20,070
with data alone. Scientists want to draw

6
00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:21,960
conclusions from those data. They want to

7
00:00:20,070 --> 00:00:24,590
use the data to show that certain

8
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:27,869
theories are right and others are wrong.

9
00:00:24,590 --> 00:00:29,699
To understand science, then, it will be

10
00:00:27,869 --> 00:00:31,830
important to understand when it is

11
00:00:29,699 --> 00:00:35,340
legitimate and when it is illegitimate.

12
00:00:31,830 --> 00:00:38,070
To draw a specific conclusion from what

13
00:00:35,340 --> 00:00:40,040
we already know we need to understand

14
00:00:38,070 --> 00:00:42,570
the difference between good and bad

15
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:45,210
arguments; and that is why, in this

16
00:00:42,570 --> 00:00:49,469
lecture, we will take a look at logic--the

17
00:00:45,210 --> 00:00:53,340
study of argumentation. Let us first

18
00:00:49,469 --> 00:00:56,160
introduce some terminology. An argument

19
00:00:53,340 --> 00:00:59,399
consists of two parts: the premises and

20
00:00:56,160 --> 00:01:02,219
the conclusion. The premises are the

21
00:00:59,399 --> 00:01:06,290
things we presuppose and the conclusion

22
00:01:02,219 --> 00:01:08,479
is what we conclude from those premises.

23
00:01:06,290 --> 00:01:12,240
So let's look at an example:

24
00:01:08,479 --> 00:01:15,990
No medieval King had absolute power over

25
00:01:12,240 --> 00:01:20,670
his subjects. Louis 7 of France was a

26
00:01:15,990 --> 00:01:23,070
medieval King. So Louis 7 of France did

27
00:01:20,670 --> 00:01:26,549
not have absolute power over his

28
00:01:23,070 --> 00:01:29,579
subjects. Here the first two lines are

29
00:01:26,549 --> 00:01:33,360
the premises and a final line introduced

30
00:01:29,579 --> 00:01:35,670
by the word "so" is the conclusion. In this

31
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:38,159
argument we assume that medieval kings

32
00:01:35,670 --> 00:01:40,740
did not have absolute power and that

33
00:01:38,159 --> 00:01:43,200
Louis 7 was a medieval King. And we

34
00:01:40,740 --> 00:01:47,329
conclude that he did not have absolute

35
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:50,070
power. As a second piece of terminology

36
00:01:47,329 --> 00:01:53,549
we will make a distinction between valid

37
00:01:50,070 --> 00:01:55,610
and invalid arguments. A valid argument

38
00:01:53,549 --> 00:01:58,469
is an argument in which the conclusion

39
00:01:55,610 --> 00:02:01,680
really follows from the premises.

40
00:01:58,469 --> 00:02:04,320
Our example about Louis 7 is an example

41
00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:07,380
of a valid argument. The conclusion

42
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:10,410
really follows from the premises. It

43
00:02:07,380 --> 00:02:12,780
makes sense to draw this conclusion from

44
00:02:10,410 --> 00:02:15,930
these premises.

45
00:02:12,780 --> 00:02:19,020
As an example of an invalid argument we

46
00:02:15,930 --> 00:02:22,140
can take this: No medieval King had

47
00:02:19,020 --> 00:02:25,080
absolute power over his subjects. Louis

48
00:02:22,140 --> 00:02:27,630
seven of France was a great horseman. So

49
00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:31,950
Louis seven of France did not have

50
00:02:27,630 --> 00:02:34,530
absolute power over his subjects. We just

51
00:02:31,950 --> 00:02:37,550
can't draw that conclusion from those

52
00:02:34,530 --> 00:02:41,220
premises. So this argument is not valid.

53
00:02:37,550 --> 00:02:42,480
It's invalid. Note that whether an

54
00:02:41,220 --> 00:02:44,100
argument is valid or not

55
00:02:42,480 --> 00:02:46,700
has nothing to do with whether the

56
00:02:44,100 --> 00:02:49,709
premises or the conclusions are true.

57
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:52,200
Perhaps Louis 7 really was a great

58
00:02:49,709 --> 00:02:54,420
horseman. Then all the premises and the

59
00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:58,019
conclusion of that argument are true and

60
00:02:54,420 --> 00:03:01,170
yet the argument is invalid because the

61
00:02:58,019 --> 00:03:04,350
conclusion just doesn't follow from the

62
00:03:01,170 --> 00:03:06,840
premises. On the other hand it's also

63
00:03:04,350 --> 00:03:10,620
possible to have false premises and a

64
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:12,180
valid argument. For instance: No medieval

65
00:03:10,620 --> 00:03:14,760
King had absolute power over his

66
00:03:12,180 --> 00:03:17,850
subjects. Victor Gijsbers was a

67
00:03:14,760 --> 00:03:20,360
medieval king. So Victor Gijsbers did not

68
00:03:17,850 --> 00:03:24,180
have absolute power over his subjects.

69
00:03:20,360 --> 00:03:25,590
This argument is perfectly valid even

70
00:03:24,180 --> 00:03:30,140
though the assumption that I am a

71
00:03:25,590 --> 00:03:33,000
medieval King is, as far as I know, false.

72
00:03:30,140 --> 00:03:35,610
We can now introduce our final piece of

73
00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:38,820
terminology: The distinction between two

74
00:03:35,610 --> 00:03:42,269
kinds of arguments. Deductive arguments

75
00:03:38,820 --> 00:03:44,340
and inductive arguments. A deductive

76
00:03:42,269 --> 00:03:46,310
argument is an argument in which the

77
00:03:44,340 --> 00:03:49,350
truth of the premises

78
00:03:46,310 --> 00:03:52,500
absolutely guarantee the truth of the

79
00:03:49,350 --> 00:03:54,480
conclusion. It's just not possible for

80
00:03:52,500 --> 00:03:56,870
the premises to be true and the

81
00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:59,430
conclusion to be false.

82
00:03:56,870 --> 00:04:01,799
Teturning to our original example, we can

83
00:03:59,430 --> 00:04:03,150
see that this is a deductive argument. It

84
00:04:01,799 --> 00:04:04,950
is true

85
00:04:03,150 --> 00:04:07,530
the medieval Kings did not have absolute

86
00:04:04,950 --> 00:04:10,620
power; and if it is true that Louis 7 was

87
00:04:07,530 --> 00:04:13,200
a medieval King, then it must be true

88
00:04:10,620 --> 00:04:15,600
that he did not have absolute power.

89
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:18,030
Or, in other words, if he did have

90
00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:22,680
absolute power then one of those two

91
00:04:18,030 --> 00:04:24,510
premises must be wrong. I'll come to the

92
00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:27,090
definition of inductive arguments in a

93
00:04:24,510 --> 00:04:28,980
moment, but first I want to point out two

94
00:04:27,090 --> 00:04:33,120
interesting features of deductive

95
00:04:28,980 --> 00:04:36,479
arguments: First if you use deductive

96
00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:40,080
arguments you can't make any new

97
00:04:36,479 --> 00:04:42,240
mistakes. The only way for the conclusion

98
00:04:40,080 --> 00:04:45,780
of a deductive argument to be false is

99
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:47,970
if one of your assumptions is false, so

100
00:04:45,780 --> 00:04:50,310
if you already believe something false

101
00:04:47,970 --> 00:04:52,940
then your conclusion may end up being

102
00:04:50,310 --> 00:04:56,610
false. But if your assumptions are true

103
00:04:52,940 --> 00:04:57,570
your conclusions are guaranteed to be

104
00:04:56,610 --> 00:05:00,930
true as well.

105
00:04:57,570 --> 00:05:03,570
So deductive arguments never introduce

106
00:05:00,930 --> 00:05:06,060
falsehoods if they weren't already there.

107
00:05:03,570 --> 00:05:08,250
And that makes them very strong and good

108
00:05:06,060 --> 00:05:13,320
arguments to use, because they're not

109
00:05:08,250 --> 00:05:16,130
very risky. Second logicians found out

110
00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:18,180
already more than 2,000 years ago--and

111
00:05:16,130 --> 00:05:20,880
Aristotle played an important role here--

112
00:05:18,180 --> 00:05:23,820
that whether a deductive argument is

113
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:26,130
valid or not can be determined just by

114
00:05:23,820 --> 00:05:29,460
looking at the form of the argument and

115
00:05:26,130 --> 00:05:32,610
ignoring its content. Even if you know

116
00:05:29,460 --> 00:05:35,430
nothing about medieval kings and Louis 7

117
00:05:32,610 --> 00:05:39,389
you can still see that our example

118
00:05:35,430 --> 00:05:44,550
argument is valid. How? Because there's

119
00:05:39,389 --> 00:05:47,940
this form: No A is B. C is A. So C is not B.

120
00:05:44,550 --> 00:05:51,599
Where A is "medieval King," B is "someone

121
00:05:47,940 --> 00:05:53,669
with absolute power," and C is "Louis 7" But

122
00:05:51,599 --> 00:05:55,470
we can put anything we like in the place

123
00:05:53,669 --> 00:05:58,500
of those letters and the argument will

124
00:05:55,470 --> 00:06:02,070
remain valid. For instance, let's choose A

125
00:05:58,500 --> 00:06:05,190
"Is a Dutchman" B "is humble" and C "is Victor

126
00:06:02,070 --> 00:06:07,260
or Gijsbers" Then we have: No Dutchman

127
00:06:05,190 --> 00:06:10,050
is humble. Victor Gijsbers is a

128
00:06:07,260 --> 00:06:12,840
Dutchman. So Victor Gijsbers is not

129
00:06:10,050 --> 00:06:15,270
humble. Which is another valid argument.

130
00:06:12,840 --> 00:06:18,720
Although of course the first premise is

131
00:06:15,270 --> 00:06:20,610
false and so is the conclusion. So we can

132
00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:22,800
see whether a deductive argument is

133
00:06:20,610 --> 00:06:24,840
valid simply by looking at its form

134
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:27,810
without knowing anything about its

135
00:06:24,840 --> 00:06:30,000
content. And that is really important

136
00:06:27,810 --> 00:06:31,910
because that means that we can see

137
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:35,370
whether something is a good argument

138
00:06:31,910 --> 00:06:38,150
without making any prior theoretical

139
00:06:35,370 --> 00:06:40,860
assumptions about the content matter. If

140
00:06:38,150 --> 00:06:42,870
we believe that scientists first

141
00:06:40,860 --> 00:06:44,520
collect data and then come to a

142
00:06:42,870 --> 00:06:47,310
conclusion about which theories are

143
00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:50,610
right and wrong, this is exactly what we

144
00:06:47,310 --> 00:06:53,340
would expect. We only need the data and

145
00:06:50,610 --> 00:06:56,189
some valid arguments which can be shown

146
00:06:53,340 --> 00:06:58,770
to be valid independent of any theories

147
00:06:56,189 --> 00:07:02,610
or ideas, and then we draw our

148
00:06:58,770 --> 00:07:08,069
conclusions. It would be great if science

149
00:07:02,610 --> 00:07:09,560
worked like that. Unfortunately, and I bet

150
00:07:08,069 --> 00:07:13,199
you saw that coming,

151
00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:14,759
science doesn't work like that. And it

152
00:07:13,199 --> 00:07:17,340
doesn't work like that because the most

153
00:07:14,759 --> 00:07:21,960
important arguments in science are not

154
00:07:17,340 --> 00:07:23,909
deductive. They are inductive. Remember

155
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:26,389
that a deductive argument is an argument

156
00:07:23,909 --> 00:07:29,099
such that the truth of the premises

157
00:07:26,389 --> 00:07:33,150
absolutely guarantees the truth of the

158
00:07:29,099 --> 00:07:34,590
conclusion. An inductive argument is an

159
00:07:33,150 --> 00:07:36,659
argument where the truth of the premises

160
00:07:34,590 --> 00:07:39,719
gives good reason to believe the

161
00:07:36,659 --> 00:07:43,560
conclusion but does not absolutely

162
00:07:39,719 --> 00:07:44,300
guarantee its truth. Again let's look at

163
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:46,830
an example:

164
00:07:44,300 --> 00:07:49,139
None of the medieval texts we have

165
00:07:46,830 --> 00:07:52,770
studied argues against the existence of

166
00:07:49,139 --> 00:07:55,610
God, so no scholar in the Middle Ages

167
00:07:52,770 --> 00:07:58,770
argued against the existence of God.

168
00:07:55,610 --> 00:08:00,629
That's a valid argument if it's true

169
00:07:58,770 --> 00:08:03,120
that none of the texts we have makes

170
00:08:00,629 --> 00:08:05,879
this argument, and we have a lot of texts,

171
00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:08,210
and it's quite plausible that nobody in

172
00:08:05,879 --> 00:08:12,389
that time actually made this argument.

173
00:08:08,210 --> 00:08:14,580
But it's indeed only plausible. It could

174
00:08:12,389 --> 00:08:18,449
be that the argument was made but

175
00:08:14,580 --> 00:08:20,969
somehow it wasn't transmitted to us. So

176
00:08:18,449 --> 00:08:23,089
in an inductive argument. The truth of

177
00:08:20,969 --> 00:08:26,580
the premises makes the conclusion likely,

178
00:08:23,089 --> 00:08:29,219
but it doesn't guarantee it. And that's

179
00:08:26,580 --> 00:08:31,560
generally the case in science. We have

180
00:08:29,219 --> 00:08:34,140
some limited data. We want to draw a

181
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:36,570
general conclusion from those, and our

182
00:08:34,140 --> 00:08:39,419
data makes the conclusion likely but

183
00:08:36,570 --> 00:08:41,789
they don't make it certain. So, in science,

184
00:08:39,419 --> 00:08:44,760
we are continually making inductive

185
00:08:41,789 --> 00:08:48,240
arguments. And, as we will see in the next

186
00:08:44,760 --> 00:08:52,459
lecture, induction is a lot more

187
00:08:48,240 --> 00:08:52,459
problematic than deduction.