34 thoughts on “Critical Thinking: Deductive and Inductive Arguments 1”

  1. I think that is so messed up how y'all put the native American on the spot knowing they only drink do to witness trauma threw out there hold life. And the tribe have been killed of and lied to about there origin. Well getting attack by the system because they don't understand there true identity.

  2. 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 ?"

  3. I like this statement for an inductive agument
    All human beings are mammals.
    All dogs are mammals.
    Therefore it must be that all human beings are dogs.

    Both premise are correct but the conclusion is incorrect

  4. When I was studying computer science at the university I attended, this was a requirement and understandably so as computer programming is pure logic.

  5. thanks for the video I have a test on this Thursday and now I know how this works gonna watch part 2 also

  6. Deductive is based on proven evidence or truths while inductive reasoning is based upon observation for patterns that lead to a conclusion or inference.

  7. 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.

  8. 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!

  9. 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!

  10. Thank you fro sharing these videos on Youtube.  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.   

  11. Thank you so much for these videos! I probably would have failed Critical Thinking without you. You're awesome.

  12. 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.

  13. This guy sure drinks a lot of coffee.
    Perhaps if he lost weight, the sugar might more readily reach,
    to fuel, his brain?

  14. 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?

  15. Deductive… Inductive… Thoughts… Feelings…
    Definitive statements… versus …. Probabilistic ones…
    An "inductive" argument :
    Claims –
    Americans are terrorists.
    Obama Bin Biden is an American.
    Conclusions –
    Not ALL Americans MAY be terrorists, but save one only.
    Obama Bin Biden MAY not be a terrorist.

  16. An argument :
    The New International Version (NIV) – satanic verses, or "book of useful falsehoods"?
    To wit, is it a sin to slay a Protestant who blasphemes against Our Mother?
    If a falsehood leads you to truth…  This, is not the one we are looking for…
    To wit, there can be only one correct English translation of Holy Writ.
    And if found, will you call that English which is not?
    It is written, We being many members are one body.
    The Church is the Body of Christ.
    It is written, Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is the Christ.
    Conclusion :  She is Our Mother.  Our, as in, the Church, which is
    the Body of Christ.

  17. "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.

  18. I found it interesting, the use of sequitur and consequently, meaning 'to follow' since a non-sequitur happens when you get two ideas that don't follow along from each other. Language is so interesting.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *