0:00:00.070,0:00:03.910
[Music]

0:00:03.910,0:00:07.446
Scientists often gather data through

0:00:07.446,0:00:10.956
observation experiments, archival studies

0:00:10.956,0:00:14.306
and so on. But they are rarely satisfied

0:00:14.306,0:00:17.526
with data alone. Scientists want to draw

0:00:17.526,0:00:20.056
conclusions from those data. They want to

0:00:20.056,0:00:21.966
use the data to show that certain

0:00:21.966,0:00:24.586
theories are right and others are wrong.

0:00:25.296,0:00:27.856
To understand science, then, it will be

0:00:27.856,0:00:29.676
important to understand when it is

0:00:29.676,0:00:31.846
legitimate and when it is illegitimate

0:00:31.846,0:00:35.316
to draw a specific conclusion from what

0:00:35.316,0:00:37.386
we already know. We need to understand

0:00:37.386,0:00:42.660
arguments; and that is why, in this

0:00:37.386,0:00:40.026
the difference between good and bad

0:00:43.340,0:00:45.356
lecture, we will take a look at logic--the

0:00:45.356,0:00:49.446
study of argumentation. Let us first

0:00:49.446,0:00:53.296
introduce some terminology. An argument

0:00:53.296,0:00:56.146
consists of two parts: the premises and

0:00:56.146,0:00:59.386
the conclusion. The premises are the

0:00:59.386,0:01:02.176
things we presuppose and the conclusion

0:01:02.176,0:01:06.281
is what we conclude from those premises.

0:01:06.281,0:01:08.451
So let's look at an example:

0:01:08.451,0:01:12.221
No medieval King had absolute power over

0:01:12.221,0:01:15.991
his subjects. Louis 7 of France was a

0:01:15.991,0:01:20.661
medieval King. So Louis 7 of France did

0:01:20.661,0:01:23.071
not have absolute power over his

0:01:23.071,0:01:26.521
subjects. Here the first two lines are

0:01:26.521,0:01:29.551
the premises and a final line introduced

0:01:29.551,0:01:33.421
by the word "so" is the conclusion. In this

0:01:33.421,0:01:35.661
argument we assume that medieval kings

0:01:35.661,0:01:38.121
did not have absolute power and that

0:01:38.121,0:01:40.721
Louis 7 was a medieval King. And we

0:01:40.721,0:01:43.181
conclude that he did not have absolute

0:01:43.181,0:01:47.311
power. As a second piece of terminology

0:01:47.311,0:01:50.041
we will make a distinction between valid

0:01:50.041,0:01:53.511
and invalid arguments. A valid argument

0:01:53.511,0:01:55.610
is an argument in which the conclusion

0:01:55.610,0:01:58.448
really follows from the premises.

0:01:58.448,0:02:01.618
Our example about Louis 7 is an example

0:02:01.618,0:02:04.308
of a valid argument. The conclusion

0:02:04.308,0:02:07.338
really follows from the premises. It

0:02:07.338,0:02:10.377
makes sense to draw this conclusion from

0:02:10.377,0:02:12.718
these premises.

0:02:12.718,0:02:15.888
As an example of an invalid argument we

0:02:15.888,0:02:18.978
can take this: No medieval King had

0:02:18.978,0:02:22.387
absolute power over his subjects. Louis

0:02:22.387,0:02:25.080
seven of France was a great horseman. So

0:02:25.080,0:02:27.868
Louis seven of France did not have

0:02:27.868,0:02:31.898
absolute power over his subjects. We just

0:02:31.898,0:02:34.468
can't draw that conclusion from those

0:02:34.468,0:02:37.528
premises. So this argument is not valid.

0:02:37.528,0:02:41.198
It's invalid. Note that whether an

0:02:41.198,0:02:42.468
argument is valid or not

0:02:42.468,0:02:44.048
has nothing to do with whether the

0:02:44.048,0:02:46.678
premises or the conclusions are true.

0:02:46.678,0:02:49.678
Perhaps Louis 7 really was a great

0:02:49.678,0:02:52.168
horseman. Then all the premises and the

0:02:52.168,0:02:54.378
conclusion of that argument are true and

0:02:54.378,0:02:58.028
yet the argument is invalid because the

0:02:58.028,0:03:01.118
conclusion just doesn't follow from the

0:03:01.118,0:03:04.298
premises. On the other hand it's also

0:03:04.298,0:03:06.784
possible to have false premises and a

0:03:06.784,0:03:10.604
valid argument. For instance: No medieval

0:03:10.604,0:03:12.184
King had absolute power over his

0:03:12.184,0:03:14.724
subjects. Victor Gijsbers was a

0:03:14.724,0:03:17.834
medieval king. So Victor Gijsbers did not

0:03:17.834,0:03:20.374
have absolute power over his subjects.

0:03:20.374,0:03:24.154
This argument is perfectly valid even

0:03:24.154,0:03:25.614
though the assumption that I am a

0:03:25.614,0:03:28.434
medieval King is, as far as I know, false.

0:03:28.434,0:03:29.747
We can now introduce our final piece of

0:03:29.747,0:03:35.110
terminology: The distinction between two

0:03:35.610,0:03:38.744
kinds of arguments. Deductive arguments

0:03:38.744,0:03:42.204
and inductive arguments. A deductive

0:03:42.234,0:03:44.344
argument is an argument in which the

0:03:44.344,0:03:46.254
truth of the premises

0:03:46.274,0:03:49.264
absolutely guarantee the truth of the

0:03:49.264,0:03:52.484
conclusion. It's just not possible for

0:03:52.484,0:03:54.454
the premises to be true and the

0:03:54.454,0:03:56.854
conclusion to be false.

0:03:56.854,0:03:59.444
Returning to our original example, we can

0:03:59.444,0:04:01.784
see that this is a deductive argument. It

0:04:01.784,0:04:03.124
is true

0:04:03.124,0:04:04.944
the medieval Kings did not have absolute

0:04:04.944,0:04:07.514
power; and if it is true that Louis 7 was

0:04:07.514,0:04:10.584
a medieval King, then it must be true

0:04:10.584,0:04:13.194
that he did not have absolute power.

0:04:13.194,0:04:15.574
Or, in other words, if he did have

0:04:15.574,0:04:17.994
absolute power then one of those two

0:04:17.994,0:04:22.634
premises must be wrong. I'll come to the

0:04:22.634,0:04:24.474
definition of inductive arguments in a

0:04:24.474,0:04:27.054
moment, but first I want to point out two

0:04:27.054,0:04:28.964
interesting features of deductive

0:04:28.964,0:04:33.084
arguments: First, if you use deductive

0:04:33.084,0:04:36.474
arguments you can't make any new

0:04:36.474,0:04:40.070
mistakes. The only way for the conclusion

0:04:40.070,0:04:42.210
of a deductive argument to be false is

0:04:42.210,0:04:45.710
if one of your assumptions is false, so

0:04:45.710,0:04:47.940
if you already believe something false

0:04:47.940,0:04:50.280
then your conclusion may end up being

0:04:50.280,0:04:52.930
false. But if your assumptions are true

0:04:52.930,0:04:56.580
your conclusions are guaranteed to be

0:04:56.580,0:04:57.540
true as well.

0:04:57.540,0:05:00.870
So deductive arguments never introduce

0:05:00.870,0:05:03.570
falsehoods if they weren't already there.

0:05:03.570,0:05:06.050
And that makes them very strong and good

0:05:06.050,0:05:08.230
arguments to use, because they're not

0:05:08.230,0:05:13.290
very risky. Second, logicians found out

0:05:13.290,0:05:16.120
already more than 2,000 years ago--and

0:05:16.120,0:05:18.150
Aristotle played an important role here--

0:05:18.150,0:05:20.850
that whether a deductive argument is

0:05:20.850,0:05:23.760
valid or not can be determined just by

0:05:23.760,0:05:26.080
looking at the form of the argument and

0:05:26.080,0:05:29.440
ignoring its content. Even if you know

0:05:29.440,0:05:32.580
nothing about medieval kings and Louis 7

0:05:32.580,0:05:35.410
you can still see that our example

0:05:35.410,0:05:39.310
argument is valid. How? Because there's

0:05:39.310,0:05:44.470
this form: No A is B. C is A. So C is not B.

0:05:44.470,0:05:47.890
Where A is "medieval King," B is "someone

0:05:47.890,0:05:51.490
with absolute power," and C is "Louis 7" But

0:05:51.490,0:05:53.660
we can put anything we like in the place

0:05:53.660,0:05:55.460
of those letters and the argument will

0:05:55.460,0:05:58.490
remain valid. For instance, let's choose A

0:05:58.490,0:06:02.040
"Is a Dutchman" B "is humble" and C "is Victor

0:06:02.040,0:06:05.180
or Gijsbers" Then we have: No Dutchman

0:06:05.180,0:06:07.240
is humble. Victor Gijsbers is a

0:06:07.240,0:06:10.010
Dutchman. So Victor Gijsbers is not

0:06:10.010,0:06:12.800
humble. Which is another valid argument.

0:06:12.800,0:06:15.210
Although of course the first premise is

0:06:15.210,0:06:18.670
false and so is the conclusion. So we can

0:06:18.670,0:06:20.560
see whether a deductive argument is

0:06:20.560,0:06:22.790
valid simply by looking at its form

0:06:22.790,0:06:24.850
without knowing anything about its

0:06:24.850,0:06:27.770
content. And that is really important

0:06:27.770,0:06:30.000
because that means that we can see

0:06:30.000,0:06:31.880
whether something is a good argument

0:06:31.880,0:06:35.340
without making any prior theoretical

0:06:35.340,0:06:38.130
assumptions about the content matter. If

0:06:38.130,0:06:40.860
we believe that scientists first

0:06:40.860,0:06:42.860
collect data and then come to a

0:06:42.860,0:06:44.550
conclusion about which theories are

0:06:44.550,0:06:47.260
right and wrong, this is exactly what we

0:06:47.260,0:06:50.530
would expect. We only need the data and

0:06:50.530,0:06:53.260
some valid arguments which can be shown

0:06:53.260,0:06:56.150
to be valid independent of any theories

0:06:56.150,0:06:58.750
or ideas, and then we draw our

0:06:58.750,0:07:02.580
conclusions. It would be great if science

0:07:02.580,0:07:08.020
worked like that. Unfortunately, and I bet

0:07:08.020,0:07:09.550
you saw that coming,

0:07:09.550,0:07:13.210
science doesn't work like that. And it

0:07:13.210,0:07:14.750
doesn't work like that because the most

0:07:14.750,0:07:17.290
important arguments in science are not

0:07:17.290,0:07:21.930
deductive. They are inductive. Remember

0:07:21.930,0:07:23.860
that a deductive argument is an argument

0:07:23.860,0:07:26.370
such that the truth of the premises

0:07:26.370,0:07:29.050
absolutely guarantees the truth of the

0:07:29.050,0:07:33.120
conclusion. An inductive argument is an

0:07:33.120,0:07:34.660
argument where the truth of the premises

0:07:34.660,0:07:36.626
gives good reason to believe the

0:07:36.626,0:07:39.686
conclusion but does not absolutely

0:07:39.686,0:07:43.556
guarantee its truth. Again let's look at

0:07:43.556,0:07:44.256
an example:

0:07:44.256,0:07:46.816
None of the medieval texts we have

0:07:46.816,0:07:49.126
studied argues against the existence of

0:07:49.126,0:07:52.746
God, so no scholar in the Middle Ages

0:07:52.746,0:07:55.596
argued against the existence of God.

0:07:55.596,0:07:58.746
That's a valid argument if it's true

0:07:58.746,0:08:00.596
that none of the texts we have makes

0:08:00.596,0:08:03.096
this argument, and we have a lot of texts,

0:08:03.096,0:08:05.876
and it's quite plausible that nobody in

0:08:05.876,0:08:08.196
that time actually made this argument.

0:08:08.196,0:08:12.366
But it's indeed only plausible. It could

0:08:12.366,0:08:14.576
be that the argument was made but

0:08:14.576,0:08:18.426
somehow it wasn't transmitted to us. So

0:08:18.426,0:08:20.936
in an inductive argument. The truth of

0:08:20.936,0:08:23.066
the premises makes the conclusion likely,

0:08:23.066,0:08:26.556
but it doesn't guarantee it. And that's

0:08:26.556,0:08:29.196
generally the case in science. We have

0:08:29.196,0:08:31.486
some limited data. We want to draw a

0:08:31.486,0:08:34.076
general conclusion from those, and our

0:08:34.076,0:08:36.416
data makes the conclusion likely but

0:08:36.416,0:08:41.789
they don't make it certain. So, in science,

0:08:36.448,0:08:41.789
we are continually making inductive

0:08:41.789,0:08:44.686
arguments. And, as we will see in the next

0:08:44.686,0:08:48.206
lecture, induction is a lot more

0:08:48.206,0:08:52.459
problematic than deduction.