What's fascinating about all of this is how it makes me realize how broken the educational system is. Loved the bit where Dr. Sadler called the education out on not preparing one enough for critical thinking in the previous lecture. Just imagine how easy everything else becomes if they taught critical thinking in high school.
The problem is, they'd need K-12 teachers who actually knew the discipline of Critical Thinking -- and our ed departments are not really giving them that.
@@reasoniocritthinking I hope you have come to realize that critical thinking is the enemy of our education system. The current system is more about indoctrination into accepting a socialist belief system; it would be inconvenient to introduce logical arguments and data that demonstrates their "utopia" is really a dystopia in disguise. A thinking child could poke holes in their claims. Their answer is if a thinking child does emerge they will shame him/her back into submission. That is the real reason logically thinking not taught in grade school. Subject is not that hard. Ancient Athens taught it to their children to prepare them for democracy.
@@johnmiller4732 i never knew that about Athens. I'm a 55 Yr old woman who went to a supposedly excellent university in the UK - got a HISTORY degree but have only now...NOW....discovered critical thinking! How was it I never knew about this? My career? A teacher!! I'm ashamed of myself but appalled at our education system. Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it. I loved Dr Sadler's lecture. Very clear.
@@johnmiller4732 Democracy destroyed Athens w/class war and a ruinous foreign war, as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle said. Their education taught children to think and to be free, not to submit to mob rule and demagogues.
Dear Dr.Sadler, I am a doctoral student in chemistry at RWTH Aachen University,Germany.I have listened every lecture of you on Critical thinking and these are very helpful to understand the thinking patterns and argumentations.Indeed it is good gift to students from a good teacher
I am taking this course at the College of Southern Nevada right now. I was so confused on the concepts of deductive and inductive arguments. I am so glad that I found this video. It finally makes sense! This is a fantastic lecture! Thank you for sharing it so that other philosophy students can understand these concepts!
Thanks --one of the problems we have in our current ed system is that there's a lot of stress placed on arguing rather than argument -- and criticizing in vague global terms rather than focusing in on the weak points, and acknowledging strong points of other people's positions
Hey professor! I can't thank you enough for all the lectures in critical thinking you have posted.I never took this critical thinking or any other philosophy class in college. I can now see how much one can miss out in his life without these classes. HAVING WATCHED EVERY SINGLE CRITICAL THINKING VIDEOS OF YOURS, I CAN NOW CLAIM THAT MY LIFE WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN :) Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Dr. Sadler. I am currently taking a Critical Thinking class in Columbus Ohio, but it is online. I wasn't fully grasping the concept of deductive vs. inductive arguments. Then I found your videos and I learned so much. Thank you for posting these videos.
I´ve had so much trouble with this and one look at your video on it makes it incredibly clear. You really are a great professor! Thank you so much, your videos continue to help me tremendously!
Thanks Dr Sadler! Your videos have been immensely helpful. I study correspondence through UNISA (SA) but live in Mauritius, being a virtual student has its challenges, but your videos have become an essential tool in my learning tool belt. Thank You!!
Thank you for this video. I was struggling with this topic, but your explanations helped me better understand it. I love the way you connect with your class. You are an amazing teacher!
Deductive is based on proven evidence or truths while inductive reasoning is based upon observation for patterns that lead to a conclusion or inference.
@Mark Donald It seems like you completely missed the point. The commenter is pointing out the error made in defining inductive arguments. The difference between induction and deduction is which direction you take between the general and the specific: deduction involves making specific conclusions using general principles, while induction involves deriving general principles from observing specific cases. The examples of Barack Obama and Socrates used for describing inductive arguments are actually deductive arguments.
That's unfortunate about the lack of examples. I'm glad that both of you got something out of the videos. I'm now adding more, for Intro to Philosophy and for Ethics, but in my own channel
Glad to read that the videos were helpful. We didn't go into much Logic -- which is what you'd want for evaluating deductive arguments -- in this course. Down the line, I'll be shooting new sequences of Critical Thinking and Logic videos, hosting them over in my own channel
Thank you so much for these videos. I too am taking a critical thinking course online at ccbcmd and I was having a hard time grasping these concepts and I am using the same text book. But your explanations are very obtainable. I hope that you put the entire semester on youtube cause you are a fabulous tutor.
Logic textbooks state the different ways premise indicator words like "since" are used. I can't however find anything that mentions whether conclusion indicator words are used in different ways. Quite often I am reading something, and I read a "therefore", or "hence" and what follows doesn't seem to resemble a conclusion in the least. Is it just a bad argument or are conclusion indicators used in other context.
Well, this was FSU -- a very low-tier university with mainly underprepared college students who went to poor high schools, and this is a class that is taken mainly by Freshmen. So, it does tend to seem a lot like what would go on at a god high school. Very needed, though -- I wish we actually could have spent two semesters on the course with these students
I did put the entire semester on RUclips -- but that's from some time ago. I left FSU over a year ago. Down the line, I plan on producing my own online CT course and textbook
As an online student taking Philosophy for the first time these videos have helped me tremendously. I am still really confused though about the methods of evaluating deductive arguments.
Well, they are in a sort of sequential order, following the Moore and Parker textbook. But, I have to say I wasn't entirely happy with the arrangement of that textbook myself. Personally, I think you could watch them in any order that works well for you
Thank you fro sharing these videos on RUclips. I'm a teacher (sped-mainly behavior issues) and I'm teaching a critical thinking class. Your videos are very helpful with my own critical thinking.
Yes, Sherlock Holmes uses a lot of induction -- but he does also engage in some deduction as well. Induction can supply some of the claims (as its conclusions) which are then used as premises for deductive arguments
Perhaps INDUCTION is about arriving at general statements of conclusion from specific ones... And DEDUCTION is about arriving at specific statements from general ones... Perhaps... Difficult to find two dictionaries that agree on what deduction and induction means. Perhaps induction is about statistical inferrences, whereas deduction is about making conclusive inferrences, and not probabilistic ones?
Hi, I'm not sure your definition of inductive arguments is valid. The difference between induction and deduction is which direction you take between the general and the specific: deduction involves making specific conclusions using general principles, while induction involves deriving general principles from observing specific cases. Your examples of Barack Obama and Socrates are deductive arguments.
I'm sure it is actually correct. (not valid, which is something that applies to deductive arguments). You can read the textbook, rather than bringing in your own ideas
@@GregoryBSadler actually he can bring his ideas in here that's why there is a comment section and i agree with him there's a confusion in the given examples...so that's all you learned so far about having an argument!
Very nice praise! I'm glad that the CT videos were so useful for you. If you'd like to see more recent, and more advanced stuff, come on over to my personal channel
Order in the playlist is a little off. The lecture "Deductive and Inductive Arguments with Implicit Premises" should be after "Deductive and Inductive Arguments 3"
So help me out... In a Deductive argument : The premises are more-or-less agreed that they are true, and that therefore the conclusion is true. And in an Inductive argument : The premises may or may not be agreed upon, and even if they are agreed upon they may leave a gap in reasoning that makes the conclusion an overly sweeping, overly blanket statement that we can predict could be incorrect, but might be the best we can do with limited information. Example : All house cats have vertical slit pupils. My pet has vertical slit pupils. My pet is is a house cat. .... Oops ! Nope, my pet is a snake. Because they also have vertical slit pupils... Is that a standard *inductive* argument because it gave its best shot at a prediction but failed ? It had a known gap in the logic, but was the best we could do with the limited information we had ? Or is it an example of an unsound *deductive* argument because all the premises are true but we made a sweeping knee-jerk conclusion because we didn't spot the gap in the logic before drawing our conclusion ? In other words we didn't say : "Whoa-whoa, wait a minute, are there any other animals that have vertical slit pupils that could be a pet ?"
So, what I understand is that deductive reasoning taking generalizations and applying them to situations and inductive reasoning is taking real life situations and applying them to other situations. So, if this is right, Sherlock Holmes really uses inductive argument...?
Shouldn't the "type" of argument be established first? Such as if it is "eristic" or "dialectic"? I may have jumped ahead a little I guess, should start with the basics I suppose before you screw everyone's head up with even deeper thoughts. But anyway I'll have to watch the rest to determine if this is even touched upon. Good so far.
You've jumped so far ahead, you're out of what we teach as Critical Thinking. Eristic and Dialectic, and other Aristotelian categories don't generally get used in CT.
Gregory B. Sadler Sorry, I have studied CT, logic and philosophy for so long it just seems natural to me to go right there. But as I said in my comment that I thought I was a little ahead of the basics. Sorry about that.
Not a problem -- this was a very introductory-level class, for students with no background in CT yet. I'm an Aristotle scholar myself, so I've got a strong appreciation for dialectic.
I practiced this against some democrats who cannot stand republicans and I asked why do you hate them? their response was their racist and no good. so I asked well how do you know their racist? have you met one who was? and they couldn't even fathom the deductive argument I made to their premise argument. then I told them I am republican and my family consist of Hispanic, Indian, White and Black, and they just stormed off because their feelings got hurt because they were wrong.
All psychologists and mental health staff should be forced to watch this video. They will know what it means to PROVE an argument is true, in order to know it is true.
"Every lie leads to the Truth". - Agent Skully (The X-Files, TV show)... Umm, well, only if you recognize it to be a lie. For then you can say, This, is not the Truth. And that fact tells you something about the Truth. But then, that would make it a useful falsehood. And a useful falsehood, like atomic theory, is not a lie - being found, useful. "What is a lie?", is NOT the question, Pontius Pilate asked, on that day. Whether he asked that question, a week later, I wot not.
What's fascinating about all of this is how it makes me realize how broken the educational system is. Loved the bit where Dr. Sadler called the education out on not preparing one enough for critical thinking in the previous lecture. Just imagine how easy everything else becomes if they taught critical thinking in high school.
The problem is, they'd need K-12 teachers who actually knew the discipline of Critical Thinking -- and our ed departments are not really giving them that.
@@reasoniocritthinking I hope you have come to realize that critical thinking is the enemy of our education system. The current system is more about indoctrination into accepting a socialist belief system; it would be inconvenient to introduce logical arguments and data that demonstrates their "utopia" is really a dystopia in disguise. A thinking child could poke holes in their claims. Their answer is if a thinking child does emerge they will shame him/her back into submission. That is the real reason logically thinking not taught in grade school. Subject is not that hard. Ancient Athens taught it to their children to prepare them for democracy.
@@johnmiller4732 i never knew that about Athens. I'm a 55 Yr old woman who went to a supposedly excellent university in the UK - got a HISTORY degree but have only now...NOW....discovered critical thinking! How was it I never knew about this? My career? A teacher!! I'm ashamed of myself but appalled at our education system. Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it. I loved Dr Sadler's lecture. Very clear.
@@johnmiller4732 Democracy destroyed Athens w/class war and a ruinous foreign war, as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle said. Their education taught children to think and to be free, not to submit to mob rule and demagogues.
You're welcome, and thanks for that enthusiastic praise!
Dear Dr.Sadler, I am a doctoral student in chemistry at RWTH Aachen University,Germany.I have listened every lecture of you on Critical thinking and these are very helpful to understand the thinking patterns and argumentations.Indeed it is good gift to students from a good teacher
Glad you enjoyed them. If you like, come over to my real channel (this is FSUs) where I have over 400+ philosophy videos
I am taking this course at the College of Southern Nevada right now. I was so confused on the concepts of deductive and inductive arguments. I am so glad that I found this video. It finally makes sense! This is a fantastic lecture! Thank you for sharing it so that other philosophy students can understand these concepts!
I am currently doing that. I searched for videos because I needed more help understanding the concepts.
I'm taking it at the University of Manitoba, but I'm also confused about this concept
Thanks --one of the problems we have in our current ed system is that there's a lot of stress placed on arguing rather than argument -- and criticizing in vague global terms rather than focusing in on the weak points, and acknowledging strong points of other people's positions
Hey professor! I can't thank you enough for all the lectures in critical thinking you have posted.I never took this critical thinking or any other philosophy class in college. I can now see how much one can miss out in his life without these classes. HAVING WATCHED EVERY SINGLE CRITICAL THINKING VIDEOS OF YOURS, I CAN NOW CLAIM THAT MY LIFE WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN :) Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Dr. Sadler. I am currently taking a Critical Thinking class in Columbus Ohio, but it is online. I wasn't fully grasping the concept of deductive vs. inductive arguments. Then I found your videos and I learned so much. Thank you for posting these videos.
You're very welcome. Down the line, I'm planning on putting together a new series on Critical Thinking
Did you do this?
I tried to find many critical thinking videos and i did not come across any video that benefited me more than your videos. Thank you!
I´ve had so much trouble with this and one look at your video on it makes it incredibly clear. You really are a great professor! Thank you so much, your videos continue to help me tremendously!
Thanks Dr Sadler! Your videos have been immensely helpful. I study correspondence through UNISA (SA) but live in Mauritius, being a virtual student has its challenges, but your videos have become an essential tool in my learning tool belt. Thank You!!
Thank you for this video. I was struggling with this topic, but your explanations helped me better understand it. I love the way you connect with your class. You are an amazing teacher!
For Dr. Sadler from one who teaches a similar course to a similar audience -- very good job, sir! You serve your students well.
is there a place where i can find out the proper sequence in which to watch these classes?
Thannks! I don't have the money to get a degree, but there are things I want to learn to make myself more prepared for life. This is perfect for that.
Deductive is based on proven evidence or truths while inductive reasoning is based upon observation for patterns that lead to a conclusion or inference.
deductive
@Mark Donald It seems like you completely missed the point. The commenter is pointing out the error made in defining inductive arguments. The difference between induction and deduction is which direction you take between the general and the specific: deduction involves making specific conclusions using general principles, while induction involves deriving general principles from observing specific cases. The examples of Barack Obama and Socrates used for describing inductive arguments are actually deductive arguments.
@Mark Donald What's the difference?
Conceptualized patterns. Dogs know perceptual patterns.
Logical Leap-David Harriman; science as inductive
That's unfortunate about the lack of examples. I'm glad that both of you got something out of the videos. I'm now adding more, for Intro to Philosophy and for Ethics, but in my own channel
I already do know your channel and I have been listening to your Intro to philosophy lecturers while at work. I cannot thank you enough, again....
Dear Dr Sadler, I will be starting post graduate MSC in the fall and really appreciate this warm up. Best Wishes
Glad to read that the videos were helpful. We didn't go into much Logic -- which is what you'd want for evaluating deductive arguments -- in this course.
Down the line, I'll be shooting new sequences of Critical Thinking and Logic videos, hosting them over in my own channel
Professor- thank you so much! I am in a phil-100 and am so confused. Watching this video has helped tremendously! Thank you so much
i am at The University of Manchester in the UK and your lectures are brilliant....thank you very much....hope you keep posting these amazing lectures!
Thank you so much for these videos. I too am taking a critical thinking course online at ccbcmd and I was having a hard time grasping these concepts and I am using the same text book. But your explanations are very obtainable. I hope that you put the entire semester on youtube cause you are a fabulous tutor.
Yes, thank you for posting. This professor seems very easy going and likable. I wish he would teach at my college.
I am only seeing this now, very educative and easy understandable
Logic textbooks state the different ways premise indicator words like "since" are used. I can't however find anything that mentions whether conclusion indicator words are used in different ways. Quite often I am reading something, and I read a "therefore", or "hence" and what follows doesn't seem to resemble a conclusion in the least. Is it just a bad argument or are conclusion indicators used in other context.
When I was studying computer science at the university I attended, this was a requirement and understandably so as computer programming is pure logic.
Dude, you are flipping awesome! MCAT brought me here. thanks for the vid
Glad you enjoyed it -- come on over to my channel, then, where I've got nearly 500 philosophy-focused videos
Well, this was FSU -- a very low-tier university with mainly underprepared college students who went to poor high schools, and this is a class that is taken mainly by Freshmen. So, it does tend to seem a lot like what would go on at a god high school. Very needed, though -- I wish we actually could have spent two semesters on the course with these students
Very clear and easy to follow, who would have known Kenny Powers could teach philosophy!
I did put the entire semester on RUclips -- but that's from some time ago. I left FSU over a year ago. Down the line, I plan on producing my own online CT course and textbook
As an online student taking Philosophy for the first time these videos have helped me tremendously. I am still really confused though about the methods of evaluating deductive arguments.
Well, they are in a sort of sequential order, following the Moore and Parker textbook. But, I have to say I wasn't entirely happy with the arrangement of that textbook myself.
Personally, I think you could watch them in any order that works well for you
Thank you fro sharing these videos on RUclips. I'm a teacher (sped-mainly behavior issues) and I'm teaching a critical thinking class. Your videos are very helpful with my own critical thinking.
+Bob B Glad they're useful for you. I'm slowly building out an entire channel of CT/Logic videos
awesome. Thank you!
Yes, Sherlock Holmes uses a lot of induction -- but he does also engage in some deduction as well. Induction can supply some of the claims (as its conclusions) which are then used as premises for deductive arguments
abduction
Thank you so much for these videos! I probably would have failed Critical Thinking without you. You're awesome.
You're welcome!
I'm glad you like them -- if you come over to my personal channel, you'll find over 100 more videos
wow so much better than my teacher! great examples, very helpful and easy to understand, great lesson
What is the name of the book you keep referring to?
what the difference between invalid deductive and inductive argument ? and when the deductive arguments are invalid?
Perhaps INDUCTION is about arriving at general statements of conclusion
from specific ones... And DEDUCTION is about arriving at specific statements
from general ones... Perhaps... Difficult to find two dictionaries that agree on
what deduction and induction means. Perhaps induction is about statistical
inferrences, whereas deduction is about making conclusive inferrences,
and not probabilistic ones?
Hi, I'm not sure your definition of inductive arguments is valid. The difference between induction and deduction is which direction you take between the general and the specific: deduction involves making specific conclusions using general principles, while induction involves deriving general principles from observing specific cases. Your examples of Barack Obama and Socrates are deductive arguments.
I'm sure it is actually correct. (not valid, which is something that applies to deductive arguments). You can read the textbook, rather than bringing in your own ideas
@@GregoryBSadler actually he can bring his ideas in here that's why there is a comment section and i agree with him there's a confusion in the given examples...so that's all you learned so far about having an argument!
@@mouadlahjiri6325 Nah
Yep, based on many years of being assigned to teach them!
lots of playlists that have these videos in sequence, including one on my channel
Glad the videos were helpful for you!
@19:00 example of bad inductive argument:
Students that attend 8am class usually pass + john passed the course :. John attended the 7am sessions.
watched 13 minutes of this (I sadly don't have time for more right now) and I already knoq ir's an awesome video. thanks for uploading it
Trying to guess a password is it inductive or deductive reasoning ??
It certainly can -- and conversely, not learning how to assess and make arguments well can be an impediment
Thanks! Glad you found them useful
thanks for the video I have a test on this Thursday and now I know how this works gonna watch part 2 also
Very nice praise! I'm glad that the CT videos were so useful for you. If you'd like to see more recent, and more advanced stuff, come on over to my personal channel
hi sir,can i also say hence is an indicator?
do you use Cederblom text?
That's really great of you. Please keep them coming...
Glad they have been helpful
Order in the playlist is a little off. The lecture "Deductive and Inductive Arguments with Implicit Premises" should be after "Deductive and Inductive Arguments 3"
I guess that so can be used in both, premises (so if this is that) and conclusions (so that means that is this).
So help me out...
In a Deductive argument :
The premises are more-or-less agreed that they are true,
and that therefore the conclusion is true.
And in an Inductive argument :
The premises may or may not be agreed upon,
and even if they are agreed upon they may leave a gap
in reasoning that makes the conclusion an overly sweeping,
overly blanket statement that we can predict could be
incorrect, but might be the best we can do with limited information.
Example :
All house cats have vertical slit pupils.
My pet has vertical slit pupils.
My pet is is a house cat.
.... Oops ! Nope, my pet is a snake.
Because they also have vertical slit pupils...
Is that a standard *inductive* argument because it gave its best
shot at a prediction but failed ? It had a known gap in the logic, but
was the best we could do with the limited information we had ?
Or is it an example of an unsound *deductive* argument because
all the premises are true but we made a sweeping knee-jerk
conclusion because we didn't spot the gap in the logic before
drawing our conclusion ?
In other words we didn't say :
"Whoa-whoa, wait a minute, are there any other animals that have
vertical slit pupils that could be a pet ?"
Thank you for posting these videos! It is very helpful!
So, what I understand is that deductive reasoning taking generalizations and applying them to situations and inductive reasoning is taking real life situations and applying them to other situations. So, if this is right, Sherlock Holmes really uses inductive argument...?
I am also looking at your channel for additional information. Great videos.
There is, but since this is an entry level class, I leave all of that implicit
that was an excellent lecture. very clear, very well done. Thank you for the class.
Doubtless -- this was shot two years ago, and I've since left FSU.
You're welcome
27:18 - 28:33 = Very wise words.
Great course....❤❤
Thanks very much!
Will do
which book do you use?
We used Moore and Parker's Critical Thinking, 9th ed
Shouldn't the "type" of argument be established first? Such as if it is "eristic" or "dialectic"? I may have jumped ahead a little I guess, should start with the basics I suppose before you screw everyone's head up with even deeper thoughts. But anyway I'll have to watch the rest to determine if this is even touched upon. Good so far.
You've jumped so far ahead, you're out of what we teach as Critical Thinking. Eristic and Dialectic, and other Aristotelian categories don't generally get used in CT.
Gregory B. Sadler
Sorry, I have studied CT, logic and philosophy for so long it just seems natural to me to go right there. But as I said in my comment that I thought I was a little ahead of the basics. Sorry about that.
Not a problem -- this was a very introductory-level class, for students with no background in CT yet. I'm an Aristotle scholar myself, so I've got a strong appreciation for dialectic.
kind of you to share this. thanks!
you guys have a pretty good prof. good stuff!!
This helped me soooo much, thank you very much!!!!!
really helpful video, thanks.
really enjoyed, thanks so much
I was attracted by the title~~awesome~~
very much enjoy these videos
great explanation. Regards from Malaysia :)
Thank you once again!
This cat is the best.
Thanks! If you like this early stuff, shot at FSU, come on over to my real channel, where I've got 400+ philosophy-focused videos
amazing lecture
u r soo awesome teach!! my phil. professor is not as thorough
These lectures by Sadler are not labelled as to their order. Anyone who has figured out the order let me know. Thanks.
Had. I left FSU over a year ago.
I practiced this against some democrats who cannot stand republicans and I asked why do you hate them? their response was their racist and no good. so I asked well how do you know their racist? have you met one who was? and they couldn't even fathom the deductive argument I made to their premise argument. then I told them I am republican and my family consist of Hispanic, Indian, White and Black, and they just stormed off because their feelings got hurt because they were wrong.
i like his observation about students who attend 8 o'clock classes :p
Nice! I do sometimes consume (obviously Nazi) sugar
All psychologists and mental health staff should be forced to watch this video. They will know what it means to PROVE an argument is true, in order to know it is true.
Okay, that makes sense.
thanks for sharing fayettevillestatenc
This is an intro University course.
this could be streamlined into a khan academy-like system
Great great great
"Every lie leads to the Truth". - Agent Skully (The X-Files, TV show)...
Umm, well, only if you recognize it to be a lie. For then you can say,
This, is not the Truth. And that fact tells you something about the Truth.
But then, that would make it a useful falsehood. And a useful falsehood,
like atomic theory, is not a lie - being found, useful. "What is a lie?", is NOT
the question, Pontius Pilate asked, on that day. Whether he asked that question,
a week later, I wot not.
There is a lot from set theory in this.
Quite didactic!
people to believe or expect your claim or the whole thing is a fallacy or nonsense talk.
Stereo-typing.......gunowners!