Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Flow Chart: Valid vs Invalid, Strong vs Weak, Sound vs Unsound
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- A logic flowchart of deductive and inductive reasoning, deductive validity, inductive strength, sound arguments and cogent arguments. Examples are given for deductive vs inductive reasoning, valid vs invalid reasoning, strong vs weak reasoning, sound vs unsound reasoning, and cogent vs uncogent reasoning. PDF of the chart available here:
drive.google.com/file/d/1r45D...
Appreciate my work? Subscribe!
/ @letsgetlogical
0:00 Introduction
0:20 Deductive Reasoning (Deduction)
0:51 Inductive Reasoning (Induction)
1:16 Review of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Deduction vs. Induction)
1:41 Invalid Reasoning (Deductive Invalidity)
2:30 Valid Reasoning (Deductive Validity)
3:06 Weak Reasoning (Inductively Weak Arguments)
3:43 Strong Reasoning (Inductively Strong Arguments)
4:30 Review of Deductive Validity and Inductive Strength
5:49 Two ways an argument can go wrong
6:24 Deductive Unsoundness (Deductively Unsound Arguments)
6:46 Deductive Soundness (Deductively Sound Arguments)
6:59 Inductive Uncogency (Inductively Uncogent Arguments)
7:33 Inductive Cogency (Inductively Cogent Arguments)
7:55 Overview of logic flowchart
Further Reading
Paul Herrick, Introduction to Logic
Chapter 3: "The Basic Types of Argument”
Chapter 4, “How to Evaluate a Deductive Argument”
Ch. 5, "How To Evaluate an Inductive Argument"
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Deductive and Inductive Arguments”: www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
Music: Magic Scout Cottages by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: filmmusic.io/standard-license
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
you just made me not regret for the whole week of me zoning out in class while my teacher was lecturing. I LOVE YOUR WORK AND YOUR VOICE.
agreed
Thank you for this. 8 min explained it to me better than 9 hours of lectures has done so far.
Try not going to a university. I completed the entire Logic and Critical Thinking COURSE in my online class in 7.5 hours and I take my test today. In person university is a waste of money.
I'm writing on fridday 😹💪hopefully it's gonna work for me too
This is the best I've seen on the issue, especially in pointing out the difference between addressing the reasoning and addressing whether the premises are true.
Holy **** I might actually pass my exam now. Thank you so much!!!!!!
What swear word has only two letters in it?
Thank you!!! I’ve been struggling this past week on this topic. Best video/explanation yet🙏🏼
Thank you so much for explaining it in a easier way🎉🎉🎉
Another brother from another world, i had this type of master diagram for my students, except the cogent and not cogent. Thanks your graphics and explanations are flawless.
PDF of the chart available here:
drive.google.com/file/d/1r45Dq1hZpJWtkPNeiXm7TOqjuYV6Xv56/view?usp=sharing
Where is the link for the color chart? I'm going to take a screenshot for now but I would looove an original file. Thank you for your work!!! I totally understood it based on your flow chart.
OMG!! This is definitely the BEST explanation ever. This will surely help me pass my Critical Thinking exam
I've literally watched 13 other videos about these topics and this was the only one that made me click! Thank you so much!
I have an exam on Sunday and this video alone helped me feel a lot more confident in these concepts. Thank you!
Great video! Love the examples provided for each. Many thanks
Your explanation is amazing. Thank you for simplifying Mr. Schopenhauer's book ( the art of being right ).
Awesome flow chart 👌🏾 Thank you!
A whole semester explained in one video :) thank you so much :)
this was the best video about logic I've seen so far thank you so much. Especially about soundness, so an argument to makes sense has to be sound. because it can work logically when it's a valid( or a tautology) but still making "no sense in the real world" because the premises are false. And finally all sound arguments are valid but not every valid argument is sound
Sounds like you got it. Right on! 🙂
Seen 30 videos on that topic and this is by far the best! You got a new subscriber
Thanks to you I’m ready for my finals
Thank you so much this video iwatch when I start the first semester of the year ,semester 7, thats so incredible the way to explaining the lesson , again I appreciate you for the helping this course, long life.
cleanest explanation ever
The best mr ever thank you for your effort
I wanted to express my gratitude for the incredible video you created. Your explanation was clear, concise, and immensely helpful in preparing for my exam. Your dedication to providing quality content on TH-cam is truly commendable, and it’s people like you who make learning enjoyable and accessible for everyone. Keep up the fantastic work, and know that you’re making a significant impact on your audience’s lives. 👏🏽
Thanks for the kind word!
Ni vs Ne
This is the best video I've seen in 15 years.
Thank u for this video good examples and easy to understand!! U are good at what you do
Wow, this video really helped open my brain this subject! Thank you I was having trouble at first.
Thank you for this video
It really helped me know the differences
This video is amazing and helped me learning hidden parts of reading listening and writing and speaking. thank you
Awesome vid, thanks for posting.
thank you for this good video.this video cleared my all confusions.
You are amazing. Thank you.
Thank you! I've been struggling in class and this is helping clear some things up.
My students have trouble with it too. That's why I made the video. 🙂
Glad it helped!
Fantastic video! I finally understand. I really struggled with this in my social choice math class, should really help for my logic class next semester!! Thank you
OMG thank you so much!!!
It’s soooo nice i love your sond and how you explained in easy way keep going 👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼
Very helpful. Thank you. 👍
thank you. JUST THANK YOU
Very useful video!
Thank you so so so much❤❤❤
Thanks man, this was great
very helpful thank you
ive been struggling to understand this for years. Thank you so much for explaining it so clearly with a chart and examples. I wish I seen this sooner!
amazing thank you
Very helpful chart. You explained it perfectly...also this guy uses a lot of animal examples, therefore he must really love animals.
Man you're different.
Amazing
Thanks you 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Nice presentation
ur the besttttt
Thank you
u are so fantastic
You are so awesome
Will the chart in any way enable me to induce or deduce why there is a wrinkle dog in the thumbnail?
Thanks a lot, I hope my philosophy professor can explain course contents as clear as you do. 😢
When you're listening to an argument live do you automatically mark the premises and conclusions intuitively as they come up or is this something you still have to stop and think about?
Depends! But yes, sometimes it takes some work in real time to identify the premises and conclusion, especially with a wordy, unclear speaker (or author).
i’ve watched this video 100 times this semester… todays the final
Good luck!
@@LetsGetLogical went super well thanks to you 🙏🏼🙏🏼
How'd i distinguish between an invalid deductive argument and inductive argument. Still dont quite get it
Insightful question! Assume the premises are true. And they make the conclusion probable but _not_ guaranteed. Is it a successful inductive argument or a failed deductive argument?
Answer: it depends! If the argument is put forward with the aim of guaranteeing the conclusion, then it is an invalid deductive argument. But if the argument is put forward with the aim of making the conclusion probable, then it is a strong inductive argument.
"Valid" and "strong" are terms of evaluation. But they're evaluating different things. So in the case you're talking about, if we ask "Is the reasoning any good?" the answer is: "Well, it's a good inductive argument (strong) but a bad deductive argument (invalid)."
thank you, this worked like magic
love you
I don't know why Sally wouldn't like that jaguar. That is a perfectly fine jaguar.
😂😂😂
Omg, I love you! 😂
2:04 can this example be an inductive reasoning?
Sure! Maybe the person is just trying to give *evidence* that Mary has a pet penguin. The fact that Mary's pet is black and white _does_ increase the probability that it's a penguin. So, yeah-this argument could be construed as inductive. (But note that it would be a _weak_ inductive argument. The mere fact that Mary's pet is black and white does not make it probable, all things considered, that it's a penguin.)
@@LetsGetLogical Nice and clear! Thanks a lot
Darn. The PDFs are no longer available
I think I might have fixed it. Thanks for bringing to my attention.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I love you bro
😂 *fist bump*
this should be taught in churches and mosques etc.
Agreed! Members of faith communities would do well to think hard about the relationship between faith and reason.
Still so quiet!!! But great content. 😉
Kosher and Unkosher
The right conclusion is that
"Penguins have nine lives"
I'm still waiting for a sound or cojent argument for a god/gods actually existing
@Gary Skinner, interestingly, there _are_ cogent and sound arguments for or against God's existence... we just don't know which ones they are! Here's what I mean: to identify an argument as cogent or sound, we must identify whether the premises are true or false. There are valid and strong arguments for and against God's existence-so the only remaining question is whether the claims put forward in the premises are actually true. If the premises put forward by the atheists are true, then they have cogent and sound arguments against God. If the premises put forward by the theists are true, then _they_ are the ones who have cogent and sound arguments _for_ God. But the premises are contested by both sides. So nobody knows which side in the debate has the cogent and sound arguments.
This is a common situation in philosophy. It all comes down to a certain premise and it's an unsettled, open question whether that premise is true or false.
@@LetsGetLogical yes I understand cojent and sound arguments, I absolutely don't know whether or not a god in fact exists, but the time to believe. Ie you think the proposition is true is when evidence points to such to justify the belief, I know people believe for good and bad reasons absolutely. I want to believe in as many true things as possible thus I'd like evidence which points to truth in reality with a small t.
I know we can't ever be sure 100% of anything (brain in a vat) or life being a program, simulation etc, not that I advocate for this at all. We can only go with what we have at present. Furthermore athiests like me (not hard) don't claim to argue against a god I'm an agnostic atheist and thus I'm simply just not convinced with the conclusion that a god indeed exists, I'm not saying I know a god doesn't exist and therefore adopting the burden of proof.
Simply I find the argument for God unconvincing atm unless I receive further information that sways me. Cheers bud ps soundness points to the premises being actually true that's what's missing in my view.
Loved the video but that background music was torture
Ha ha, yeah, I go back and forth on the value of background music. It's hard to get right. I thought this was subtle enough but I know what you mean about the pain of a bad track.
@@LetsGetLogical I'm back for more!
I have been studying this topic lately.
But I have issues with the definition of Valid.
There are 10 animals in the barn.
They are either cows or cats.
There are not 9 cows in the barn.
There is exactly 1 cat in the barn.
This argument is not valid. However let's say the premise that there are not 9 cows in the barn is false. Then the conclusion must be true.
@rejected4760 Hmmm. I don't see it. Like you suggested, let's say the premise that there are _not_ 9 cows in the barn is false. And let's say it's because in fact there are 10 cows in the barn. Well, then it does _not_ follow logically that there is exactly 1 cat in the barn (because there are 0 cats in the barn). Or perhaps I misunderstood you.
@@LetsGetLogical
if the premise "There are not 9 cows in the barn." is false then tere must be 9 cows in the barn.
so the conclusion has to be true that means the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if premise 1 and 2 are true and premise 3 is false.
and since like you said the actual value of true or false does not matter, this argument should be valid. the 3rd premise is just negated and thats where my issue lies.
just negate one premise and the definition of valid doesnt apply anymore
Doh! I missed the double negation of "It is _not_ the case that there are _not_ 9 cows in the barn." Ah, the dangers of trying to do careful philosophy on the fly in comment sections of YT. 🙂
all banana esters can fly how is that a true premise
It's not.
I dont have time to observe all banana eater can fly, so give it a guess
This video is misinforming the public. It is explaining deductive reasoning as taking two statements to gather a conclusion. That is INductive reasoning. Starting around 1:56.
Deductive reasoning is taking the results to find the data. A breakdown into a conclusion. Inductive reasoning is a buildup into a conclusion; taking the data to find results.
@andrewvirtue5048 Thanks for dropping in. Appreciate your challenge. You sound like someone who is interested in this stuff, so I'd encourage you to take a look at some standard resources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or one of the common undergraduate-level logic books such as Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, Copi's Introduction to Logic, or Herrick's Introduction to Logic (which is the text I use).
I think you'll stand to benefit by comparing the view presented in these academic sources with your own view of inductive and deductive reasoning. Either by sharpening your own view, or coming to have a greater appreciation for how contemporary logicians frame these concepts. It's true the distinction can be characterized in different ways, but the characterization I give here is the most common.