批判性思維基礎。推理論證(Critical Thinking Fundamentals

推理論證(Critical Thinking Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments). 128 17 ... Hi!I'mJeffPynn,andIteachphilosophy[br]atNorthernIllinoisUniversity.InmyearlierIntroductiontoCritical[br]Thinkingvideo,Idescribedthedifferencebetweendeductiveargumentsandampliative[br]arguments.Inthenextfewvideos,I'lltalkabit[br]moreabouteachtypeofargument.Let'sstartwithdeductivearguments.Anargumentisasetofstatements,called[br]itspremises,thataremeanttogiveyouareasontobelievesomefurtherstatement[br]calledtheargument'sconclusion.Insomearguments,thepremisesaremeant[br]toguaranteethattheconclusionistrue.Argumentslikethisarecalleddeductive[br]arguments.Agooddeductiveargumentcangiveyoua[br]verygoodreasonforbelievingitsconclusion.Afterall,itguaranteesthatits[br]conclusionistrue.Butnotalldeductiveargumentsaregood,[br]andsothereareseveralthingstothinkaboutwhendecidingwhethertobelievethe[br]conclusionofadeductiveargument.Agooddeductiveargumentreallydoes[br]guaranteeitsconclusion.Partofwhatthismeansisthatits[br]impossibleforthepremisestobetruewhiletheconclusionisfalse.Whenthisisthecase,wesaythatthe[br]argumentisvalid.Nowthisisaspecial,technicaluseof[br]theword"valid."Inordinarylife,weoftenusethisword[br]tomeansomethinglikegood,cogent,orreasonable.Likeifyou'redisagreeingwithsomeone[br]aboutsomething,andtheyrespondtoaclaimyoumakebysayingsomethingthat[br]seemsprettyreasonabletoyou,youmightsay,"Well,Iguessyouhave[br]avalidpoint."Thoughthat'swhatthewordoftenmeans[br]inordinarylife,it'snotwhatthewordmeanshere.Whenphilosopherssaythatanargumentis[br]valid,theyalwaysmeanthisveryspecificthing:thatifthepremisesare[br]true,theconclusionmustalsobetrue.ThereareseveralotherWi-Phivideosthat[br]discussthisnotionofvalidityinmoredetail.Tosaythatanargumentisvalidistosay[br]somethingabouttherelationshipbetweenthepremisesandtheconclusion.Namely,thatifthepremisesaretrue,the[br]conclusionmustalsobetrue.Butit'snottosaythatitspremisesor[br]conclusionaretrue.Consider,forexample,thisargument.Premise1:BeyoncewasborninParis.Premise2:EverybodywhowasborninParis[br]lovescheese.Conclusion:Therefore,Beyonceloves[br]cheese.Thosepremisesarefalse.Beyoncewasborn[br]inHouston,andI'mwillingtobetthatatleastsomepeopleborninParishate[br]cheese.Still,it'savalidargument.Ifthepremisesweretrue,thenthe[br]conclusionwouldhavetobetrue.Butbecausethepremisesarefalse,this[br]argumentdoesn'tgiveyouagoodreasontobelieveitsconclusion,eventhoughit's[br]valid.Philosopherscallavalidargumentwith[br]truepremises"sound."Liketheword"valid,"theword"sound"is[br]termwithvariousmeaningsinordinarylife,anditcanbeusedtodescribesome[br]claimasreasonableorcompelling.Butwhenphilosophersdescribeanargument[br]assound,theyalwaysmeanthisveryspecificthing:thatit'svalid,andthat[br]itspremisesareinfacttrue.Here'saprettyboringsoundargument.Premise1:BeyoncewasborninHouston.Premise2:Everybodywhowasbornin[br]HoustonwasborninTexas.Conclusion:Therefore,Beyoncewasbornin[br]Texas.Formorediscussionoftheconceptofa[br]soundargument,seeAaronAncell'sWi-Phivideoentitled[br]"Soundness."So,beforedecidingwhethertobelievethe[br]conclusionofadeductiveargument,youneedtodeterminewhethertheargument[br]issound.Andthis,inturn,requiresdetermining[br]whethertheargumentisvalid,andwhetheritspremisesaretrue.Well,howdoyoutellwhetheranargument[br]isvalid?Sometimes,it'sjustobvious.Butoften,[br]it'snotsoobvious.Onewaytofigureoutwhetheranargument[br]isvalidistoseeifyoucanthinkofa[br]counterexampletoit.Acounterexampleisacase,eitherrealor[br]imaginary,wheretheargument'spremisesaretrue,[br]buttheconclusionisfalse.So,forexample,considerthisargument.Premise1:Classicalmusiciansappreciate[br]opera.Premise2:Beyonceisapopstar,nota[br]classicalmusician.Conclusion:Therefore,Beyoncedoesn't[br]appreciateopera.Now,supposethatBeyonce'sbeenlistening[br]tooperasinceshewasalittlegirl,andlovesMozart'sDonGiovanni.Well,thenshe'dappreciateopera.Theconclusionwouldbefalse,eventhough[br]thepremiseswouldstillbetrue.Itwouldstillbetruethatclassical[br]musiciansappreciateopera,andthatBeyonceisapopstar,nota[br]classicalmusician.Thiscounterexampleshowsthatthe[br]argumentisn'tvalid,andsothatevenifpremisesaretrue,the[br]argumentdoesn'tprovideyouwithareasontobelieveitsconclusion.Thereareother,moreformaltechniques[br]forfiguringoutwhetheranargumentisvalid,whichwe'llhopefullybeableto[br]discussinfuturevideos.Now,ifyoudon'tknowwhetherthe[br]premisesofanargumentaretrue,theneveniftheargumentreallyissound,[br]itdoesn'tgiveyouagoodreasontobelieveitsconclusion.Whenyouknowthatanargumentisvalid,[br]butyoudon'tknowwhetheritspremisesaretrue,theargumentgivesyou,atbest,[br]aconditionalreasontoacceptitsconclusion.Ifyoulearnthatitspremisesaretrue,[br]thenyou'llhavetoacceptitsconclusion.So,howdoyoutellwhetheranargument's[br]premisesaretrue?Well,thisisn'tthekindofthinglogic[br]orphilosophycangiveyoumuchhelpwith.Tofigureoutwhetheranargument's[br]premisesaretrue,youneedtodosomeresearch.Thisisonereasonwhybeingagood[br]criticalthinkerrequiresmorethanjustlogicalability.Italsotakesalotofrealworld,[br]empiricalknowledge.Unlessyouknowenoughtoknowwhetheran[br]argument'spremisesaretrue,thenevenifyou'reareallybrilliantlogicianand[br]knowthattheargumentisvalid,itdoesn'tgiveyoureasontobelieveits[br]conclusion.Themoreyouknow,thebetteryou'llbe[br]abletoevaluatedeductivearguments.SubtitlesbytheAmara.orgcommunityHi!I'mJeffPynn,andIteachphilosophy[br]atNorthernIllinoisUniversity. x1.0 x0.5 x0.75 x1.0 x1.5 影片重複 字級大小 快速鍵 返回 175% 150% 125% 100% 90% 字幕與單字 影片操作你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整，以及「字幕」的顯示 Back Next B1中級 批判性思維基礎。

推理論證(CriticalThinkingFundamentals:DeductiveArguments) 12817 VoiceTube 發佈於 2021年01月14日 更多分享 分享 收藏 回報 影片單字