18 Ağustos 2011 Perşembe

THE FORMAL LOGIC: MAJOR FALLACIES

A--> FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
A1: Argument from Ignorance
A2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
A3: Argument Ad Hominem: (p) Abusive and (q) Circumstantial
A4: Appeal to Emotion
A5: Appeal to Pity
A6: Appeal to Force
A7: Irrelevant Conclusion

A = ƒ ( A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7)

B--> FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
B1: Complex Questions
B2: False Cause
B3: Begging the Question
B4: Accident
B5: Converse Accident

B = ƒ (B1,B2,B3,B4,B5)

C--> FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
C1: Equivocation
C2: Amphiboly
C3: Accent
C4: Composition
C5: Division

C = ƒ ( C1,C2,C3,C4,C5)  If so then,

ǾŤΣ (An, Bn, Cn)   →      Ţpq,  Ťpq, ť pq, ŧ pq  ~

In general, an argument is constructed in such a way as to prove that its conclusion is true. However, any argument fails to fulfill this purpose in either of two ways:

1. It fails by assuming a false proposition as one of its premises. Every argument involves the claim that the truth of its conclusions follows from the truth of its premises. Hence, if its premises are not true, the argument fails to establish the truth of its conclusions, even if the reasoning based on those premises is correct.
2. The other way that an argument fails to establish the truth of its conclusions is to rely upon premises that do not imply the conclusion. An argument whose premises do not support its conclusions is one whose conclusions could be false even if all its premises were true. 
Surely this kind of  the reasoning is bad and so the argument must be fallacious. That is to say error in reasoning (typical error).

17 Ağustos 2011 Çarşamba

EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION: FIVE CRITERIA

How are scientific explanations evaluated ? How are they to be judged as good or bad, or better or worse ?

Five criteria are used in judging the acceptability or worth of hypotheses.:
  1. Relevance
  2. Testability
  3. Compatibility with previously well-established hypotheses
  4. Predictive or explanatory power
  5. Simplicity
These conditions are regarded as the criteria for evaluating hypotheses or a good hypothesis may be expected to fullfill.

Such a list of conditions will not provide a receipt with which anyone can construct good hypotheses. There has never been a set of rules laid down for the invention or discovery of hypotheses. And, there never will be such a set of rules because devising hypotheses is the creative side of the scientific enterprise.

General truths are what the scientist is after. Truth provides evidence for particular facts that are chiefly sought.

STAGES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

The Pattern of scientific inquiry or investigation:
  1. Identify the problem
  2. Selecting preliminary hypotheses
  3. Collecting additional facts
  4. Formulating a refined explanatory hypothesis
  5. Deducting concequences from the refined hypothesis
  6. Testing the concequences deducted
  7. Applying the theory
Scientist in action:

Seven stages are identified in every inquiry. Genuinely scientific action must follow these seven stages.