[ Return to X200 Home Page ]

 

CHAPTERS 1 and 2

 

 

I. Define each of the following terms:

 

1. Inductive reasoning

2. Premise

3. Argument

4. A strong Inductive argument

5. A good Inductive argument

 

 

 

 

 

6. Empiricism

 

 

 

 

 

7. Hypothesis

II. Following are several arguments. In each case, rewrite the argument in the standard premise/conclusion form found in your text book.

 

1. Today Is Monday, so Seymour will probably miss class today, because he's missed every Monday class for the last ten weeks.

2. Because Fido's a poodle/spaniel mix, he'll probably be nervous when he gets to be an adult, because most poodle/spaniel mixes are that way.

 

III. Answer each question in a sentence or two.

 

1. Explain in what way the "laws of shadows" example goes against the view that the only scientific knowledge we can get is by observation and experiment.

2. Explain how the consideration of the attempt to discover what sparrows eat casts doubts on the correctness of Mrs. Smith's view that:

(a) Science is passive observation

(b) Scientists must stick to merely what they observe.

IV. Provide examples of arguments different from those given in the book of:

1. A good one-premlse inductive argument with a false conclusion.

2. A strong one-premise Inductive argument In which the premise and conclusion are both false.

3. A weak one-premise inductive argument In which both the premise and the conclusion are true.

4. A valid two-premise deductive argument with false premises and a true conclusion.

5. An invalid two-premise deductive argument with true premises and a true conclusion.

V. For each of the following numbered arguments, write the most appropriate of these classiflcations: deductively valid, deductively sound, strong inductive, good inductive

1. People tend to drive erratically when drunk. Someone who has consumed six bottles of beer In a short time is likely to be drunk. So a person who has drunk six bottles of beer In a short time will drive erratically.

 

2. Every dog Is bigger than every flea. Saskatchewan Is bigger than any dog. So Saskatchewan Is bigger than every flea.

3. All earthworms lay eggs, since everything that wears sunglasses lays eggs, and all earthworms wear sunglasses.

 

4. Usually people who wear sunglasses during the day have been abducted by aliens. Elvis always wore sunglasses during the day. So Elvis must have been abducted by aliens.

S. Dogs are mammals. Lassie was a dog. Toronto is in Canada. So Lassie was a mammal.

 

VI. Answer each question is a sentence or two.

 

1. In what respect is deduction a better way to arrive at a conclusion than induction?

2. So why does science use induction so often instead?

3. Show how a scientist would use inductive reasoning when trying to answer the question, "How many North Americans now have the flu?"

 

4. Can inductive reasoning ever be conclusive? Explain.

5. Galileo might be thought to have indirectly confirmed that there were moons around Jupiter. List two bits of subsidiary information that, together with his observation, led him to that conclusion.

VII. TRUE/FALSE Circle T to the left of each correct conclusion to the statement, or F to the left of each incorrect conclusion. There may be one, or more than one, or no correct conclusions in each numbered item.

1. If you have confirmation for a statement

T F then it's certain to be true
T F then you have conclusive evidence for It
T F the statement might be false anyway

2. Direct confirmation

T F is always more reliable than indirect confirmation
T F is often more useful concerning events that took place before your were born

3. The book tells the story about a scientist who missed getting the Nobel Prize because

T F What his instruments told him conflicted with some basic scientific beliefs
T F He trusted his instruments.

[ Return to X200 Home Page ]