Monday, May 11, 2015

Induction: Inductively Strong & Inductively Cogent

Induction is the process of reasoning from one or more premises to reach a conclusion which is likely, though not certainly true. Hence, an inductive argument is one in which if the premises were true, then the conclusion is likely to be true.

"In the most general sense, Inductive reasoning is that in which we extrapolate from experience to what we have not experienced. The assumption behind inductive reasoning is that known cases can provide information about unknown cases."1 Govier goes on to describe inductive arguments as having the following characteristics:

1. The premises and the conclusion are all empirical propositions.
2. The conclusion is not deductively entailed by the premises.
3. The reasoning used to infer the conclusion from the premises is based on the underlying assumption that the regularities described in the premises will persist.
4. The inference is either that unexamined cases will resemble examined ones or that evidence makes an explanatory hypothesis probable.


Inductively Strong Arguments - An inductively strong (forceful) argument is one in which, if the premises were considered to be true, the conclusion is probably true. In other words, if we assume the premises are true the likelihood that the conclusion of an inductively strong argument is true is greater than 50%. If the probability that the conclusion is true is 50% or less, than the argument is inductively week.

Inductively Cogent Arguments - An inductively cogent argument is one which is inductively strong and all of its premises are actually true. 

To fit into our informal logic model, instead of requiring that the premises be true we would require that they be acceptable. This, of course, is due to the difficulty often encountered in establishing with certainty whether or not something is true. 

Types of inductive arguments include inductive generalization, statistical syllogism and analogical arguments.



1 A Practical Study of Argument

Critical Reasoning and Philosophy, A Concise Guide to Reading, Evaluating, and Writing Philosophical Works 


Probability and Induction

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Outlines

An outline is a method of presenting the main and subordinate ideas of a document by organizing them hierarchically.

Alphanumeric outline
An alphanumeric outline uses Roman numerals, capitalized letters, Arabic numerals and lowercase letters as prefix headings. 

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) uses the following outline format:

I. (Roman numeral) 
     A. (Capital letter) 
          1. (Number) 
               a) (Lowercase letter followed by closing parenthesis) 
                    (1) (Number enclosed in parenthesis) 
                         (a) (Lowercase letter enclosed in parenthesis) 
                              i) (Roman numeral with lowercase letters followed by a closing parenthesis)

The Modern Language Association (MLA) uses essentially the same method except the first lowercase letter is followed by a period instead of a closing parenthesis.

Decimal outline
The decimal outline uses only numbers as prefix headings making it easier to see how every item relates within the hierarchy. It uses the following outline format:

1.
     1.1
          1.1.1
               etc.
Here is a sample decimal outline:

1.0 Choose Desired College
     1.1 Visit and evaluate college campuses 
     1.2 Visit and evaluate college websites 
          1.2.1 Look for interesting classes 
          1.2.2 Note important statistics

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Kentucky: Neither straights or gays can marry the same sex so ban is not discriminatory

It's been reported that the administration of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear has filed a brief with the US Supreme Court defending it's ban on gay marriage. In it they argue
"Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law,"
I'll be a bit more generous than some of the news outlets that reported on this by noting that the brief is  42 pages so there may or may not be other more rational arguments presented (I didn't take the time to read it). Regardless, it is hard to believe that the argument above could possibly be presented as a serious justification for upholding it's ban on gay marriage.

Imagine a law which states that it is now illegal to practice Christianity and then arguing that it doesn't discriminate against those who are Christian because it also applies to Muslims, Buddhist, and atheist. This sort of specious legal reasoning really drives me crazy. I can't imagine that the Supreme Court will give it any credence.


HuffPo: Kentucky: Our Same-Sex Marriage Ban Isn't Anti-Gay Because It Applies To Straight People, Too

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Dragon Ball Z: Light of Hope


A very impressive fan film adaptation of "The History of Trunks" TV-Special that is part of the Dragon Ball Z cartoon series. You can read more about it here. Looking forward to the next installment.


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Did a Texas city fire It's police department and hire a private security firm?

Occasionally I like to take the time to look into stories that I find a little bit fishy. I do it as a sort of exercise which usually lends credence to the old saying "Don't believe everything you read."

I got into this one after reading a post a friend made on Facebook which linked to a story on The Free Thought Project titled Texas Town Experiences 61% Drop in Crime After Firing Their Police Department. The article essentially says that in 2012, the city of Sharpstown "fired their cops" and "hired S.E.A.L. Security Solutions, a private firm, to patrol their streets." A representative of the security firm is quoted saying "Since we've been in there, an independent crime study that they've had done [indicates] we've reduced the crime by 61%” in just 20 months.

After looking into it a bit I found similar stories had been released within the last couple of days such as Texas City Gets Rid of Police Dept., Hires ‘SEAL Security’ — Guess What Reportedly Happened to Crime from the Blaze, Texas Town Fires Entire Police Department, Crime Drops by 61%, from Infowars and Texas town sees crime drop by almost two thirds after firing police, hiring private security from Rare. As the titles suggest, these stories all either directly state or indirectly imply that the city of Sharpstown fired their police department and hired a private security firm to take its place. But is this actually what happened? In a word, no.

According to Wikipedia, Sharpstown is a master-planned community in Greater Sharpstown, Southwest Houston, Texas which is served by two Houston Police Department patrol divisions. For many years, the Sharpstown Civic Association had contracted with Harris County Constables for additional patrols but due to budgetary issues ended the relationship in 2012. It is this arrangement for additional patrols that the above articles are referring to when they state that the city fired their police department.

I'm not sure if this is a matter of shoddy journalism or a deliberate act to fabricate a story which would be more appealing to their readers? As it took very little effort for me to discover the truth, I'm inclined to think it's the latter. The sad thing is, there was a perfectly good story here which didn't need to be based on the false claim that the town fired their police department. It could have been titled something like, City of Sharpstown turns to private security to help patrol its streets. The article could then talk about how the constables used to be contracted to patrol the area but that the security firm does the job at half the cost and with better results. See, no need for the lies and false implications.


NEIGHBORS WORRIED AFTER CRIME SPIKE IN SHARPSTOWN

Popular Constables On Patrol Program (COPS) Discontinued

Friday, February 6, 2015

Propositional Logic / Sentential Logic

I. Introduction
Propositional logic (also called propositional calculus, sentential calculus, sentential logic, etc.) is a branch of logic that studies ways of joining simple (atomic) propositions to form more complicated propositions using logical connectives, and the logical relationships of these propositions.

To highlight the difference between term and propositional logic, think of the sentence "All dogs are mammals". Using term logic we would say the fundamental units of the sentence are the categories of dogs and mammals. In contrast, with propositional logic the fundamental unit of the sentence is the entire statement or proposition "All dogs are mammals". It's important not to equate propositions with sentences as a sentence can have more than one statement. For instance, the sentence “All dogs are mammals, and all cats are mammals too” clearly contains the two propositions.


II. Propositions
A proposition can be defined as a declarative sentence, or part of a sentence, that is capable of having a truth-value of either true or false, but not both. For the purpose of this post, the term "proposition" and "statement" are used interchangeably.

For example, "Paris is the capital of France." is a proposition with a truth value of "true" while the sentence, "Everyone born on Monday has purple hair" has a truth value of "false."

Some sentences are not propositions such as commands like "Close the door" or questions like "Is it hot outside?"

The smallest indivisible units in propositional logic are statements referred to as simple or atomic propositions. These are statements which are either true or false and cannot be broken down into other simpler statements. For example, "The dog ran" is an atomic proposition. Atomic propositions can be used to form complex propositions by using connective words (see connectives below). For example, "the dog ran and the cat hid" is a complicated proposition which combines two atomic propositions using the connective word "and".

III. The Language of Propositional Logic
Classical truth-function propositional logic utilizes a simple symbolic language to represent propositions expressed in natural language such as English. Simple (atomic) statements are represented by capital letters 'A', 'B', 'C', etc. The logical signs '∧', '∨', '→', '↔', and '~' are used in place of the truth-functional operators, "and", "or", "if... then...", "if and only if", and "not", respectively. Parentheses are used to group propositions similar to how they are used in algebra and arithmetic.

A. Connectives (logical operators)
Connectives (logical operators) are words or phrases used either to modify a statement or join simple statements together to form a complex statement. Though there are many connectives, the five basic ones are:

NOT, AND, OR, IF_THEN (or IMPLY), IF AND ONLY IF.

Here is a chart of which shows the logical operator (connectives formal name), the symbol and its natural language usage.


As there are no absolute standards in regards to symbols
 used in Propositional Logicdifferent authors use different symbols.
This link provides a list of alternate symbols you may come across.

1. Negation
Not-P.     For example, “It is not green.”

The negation of statement P, simply written "~P" in language PL, is regarded as true if P is false, and false if P is true. Unlike the other operators, negation is applied to a single statement. The corresponding chart can therefore be drawn more simply as follows:


Though the word "not" is generally thought of as the English equivalent of "~", it can be expressed in many ways such as:

It is not the case that...
It would be false to say that...
...failed to...


2. Conjunction 
p and q.     For example, “It is wet and it is cold.”

Conjunction is a truth-functional connective similar to "and" in English and written "∧" in PL. When dealing with a conjunction, you must consider both p and q. That is, a conjunction is true if and only if both conjuncts are true.


Though "and" is generally thought as the English equivalent to "∧" there are many ways it can be expressed. Some include:

both...and...
...as well as...
...but...
...however...
...though...
...nevertheless...
...still...
...while...
...despite the fact that...

Though these may not seem similar to the word "and" it is important to remember that propositional logic treats as a conjunction any sentence whose truthfulness depends on both conjuncts being true and false if any or both conjuncts are false. For instance, the sentence "John loves Mary even though she barely tolerates him" is true only if both propositions "John loves Mary" and "She barely tolerates him" are true. If either or both are false, the whole proposition is false.

3. Disjunction
p or q (or both).     For example, “It is wet or it is cold.”

Disjunction is a truth-functional connective similar to "or" in English. The disjunction of two statements p and q, written in PL as "(p ∨ q)", is true if either p is true or q is true, or both p and q are true, and is false only if both p and q are false.

Though we say that "or" is the rough English equivalent to PL "∨", it should be noted that "∨" is used in the inclusive sense. More often than not when the word "or" is used to join together two English statements, we only regard the whole as true if one side or the other is true, but not both, as with the statement "Either we can buy the toy robot, or we can buy the toy truck; you must choose!" This is called the exclusive sense of "or". However, in PL, the sign "v" is used inclusively such as with the statement "Her grades are so good that she's either very bright or studies hard" which does not exclude the possibility of both.


Though the word "or" is generally used (imperfectly) as the English equivalent to "∨", there are other ways it can be expressed such as:

either...or...
...and/or...

4. Conditional (material implication)
If p, then q.     For example, “If it is green, then it is heavy.”

The conditional is a connective similar to "if_then_" statements in English and generally represented as "→" in PL. The first simple statement in a conditional is referred to as antecedent and the second simple statement is known as the consequent. For example, with the statement "If you flip the light switch, the lights will go out" the antecedent is "You flip the light switch" and the consequent is "the lights will go out".

A conditional statement asserts that if the antecedent p is true, the consequent q will be true as well. In other words, a conditional statement is only false if the antecedent p is true and the consequent q is false.


5. Biconditional (material equivalence)
p if and only if q.    For example "A triangle is equilateral if and only if it is a triangle with three equal sides".

The biconditional is a connective similar to "if and only if" statements in English and generally represented as "↔" in PL. A biconditional is regarded as true if the antecedent and consequent are either both true or both false, and is regarded as false if either have different truth-values.



B. Scope, Parentheses and the Main Connective
Whenever more than one connective is used in a statement, there is a chance of ambiguity. Consider the statement S∨C∧T where S is "I will show you stamps", C is "I will make you some coffee" and T is "I will give you $1000". Hence, in English it would be written, "I will show you my stamps or make you coffee and give you $1000".

As it is presented, the statement is ambiguous and could be interpreted in two different ways:

1) "I will show you my stamps or make you coffee but in any event, I will give you $1000".

2) "Either I will show you my stamps or make you coffee and give you $1000".

The problem here is that we don't know what the scope is of either of the two connectives used in the statement. Does the disjunction in S∨C∧T connect S to C or does it connect S to C∧T? Does the conjunction in S∨C∧T connect C to T or does it connect S∨C to T?

To deal with this problem, parentheses are used to establish scope. So going back to our two interpretations of S∨C∧T, we would write:

1) "I will show you my stamps or make you coffee but in any event, I will give you $1000" as ((S∨C)∧T).

2) "Either I will show you my stamps or make you coffee and give you $1000" as (S∨(C∧T)).

*Note that in actual practice you will often find the outermost parentheses are omitted. 

In propositional logic, the main connective is the connective with the greatest scope in a statement. For example, with ((S∨C)∧T) we see that the scope of ∨ is limited to S and C while the scope of ∧ encompasses the entire statement. Therefore, in this example ∧ is the main operator.






Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Propositional Logic
Introduction to Logic (second edition): Harry Gensler
Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason by Peg Tittle: Supplemental Chapter: Propositional Logic
Wikipedia: Negation
Wikipedia: Logical conjunction
Wikipedia: Logical disjunction
Logic Self-Taught: A Workbook

https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Scope_(Logic)
http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-propositional%20logic.pdf

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Waw An-Namus: Libya


Waw An-Namus is an extinct volcano located in the Sahara desert of south-central Libya. It's caldera is 4 km wide and 100 m deep with a central cone surrounded by three small salt lakes. Surrounding the caldera is 20 km of dark-black deposits of ash which causes Waw An-Namus to starkly standout against the light yellow sand of the Sahara.

Image of Waw an Namus taken from the International Space Station
A somewhat common phenomenon in the Sahara is the occurrence of reasonably potable (drinkable) water close to, and at nearly the same elevation as salt lakes. Due to the presence of this scarce source of water, Waw An-Namus was historically an important watering point for caravans travelling through South Libya.





Over the past couple of decades, Waw An-Namus has become a somewhat popular tourist attraction for travelers visiting this part of the Sahara. Unfortunately, this has led to negative impacts on the landscape as well as the rare plant and animal life. Tour guides often drive there vehicles down the caldera so the tourist can picnic by the lakes. A few years ago, some careless visitors caused a fire burning a large area of reeds and date palms.





Libya Herald: Waw An-Namus: A prehistoric volcano and natural heritage attraction

Viralnova: There's Something Very Different About This Crater In The Desert. When You Go Inside... WOW.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Thinking Skills

Thinking Skills (Average Joe Edition/Addition)

The following is an attempt to organize my posts related to clear thinking, problem solving and decision making into a coherent, easy to use format. As the title suggests, I'm just an average guy trying to get a better understanding of these topics and as such, have no doubt oversimplified or misunderstood some of these concepts. Perhaps they may be of some benefit to someone out there but please do your own research.

I. Fundamentals of Informal Logic

  A. Informal Logic in a Nutshell: Argument & Argument Analysis

  B. Deductive Arguments
      1) Categorical Logic
      2) Propositional Logic

  C. Inductive Arguments
      1) Inductive Generalization
      2) Statistical Syllogism
      3) Analogical Arguments
      4) Causal Arguments
          a. Mill's Methods
          b. Bradford Hill criteria

  D. Abductive Arguments

  E. Logical Fallacies
     -Ad Hominem
     -Appeal to Authority
     -Appeal to Popularity
     -Argument from Ignorance
     -Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning
     -Equivocation
     -False Analogy
     -False Dichotomy
     -Guilt by Association
     -Hasty Generalization
     -Non-Sequitur
     -Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
     -Red Herring
     -Tu Quoque
     -Straw Man


II. Cognitive Psychology

  A. Dual Process Model of Thinking
  B. Cognitive Bias
     -Confirmation Bias and Positive Test Strategy
     -Dunning-Kruger Effect
     -Framing Effect
     -Gambler's Fallacy
     -Outcome Bias


III. Problem Solving
  A. Problem Solving Process


IV. Information/Knowledge Management
  A. Outline