Chapter 1.2: Induction and background theories 

Clarity of the lecture is impeccable. "Good Lecturers come from Dutch background, this lecturer comes from a Dutch background, therefore this lecturer is a good lecturer!

Sir, your lectures are so clear and interesting! Although my English is limited, I don’t have any difficulty in listening or understanding. Thank you very much!

Been put onto these lectures by my son who is studying philosophy. I read all this stuff years ago, but these lectures are exceptional.

This video series is treasure. RU-vid should store them in nuclear safe backup servers

Once again, Victor your eloquence in explaining clearly and simply the content is wonderful. Two chapters in, now. I'm going to do them all. Thank you.

Fantastic! Best thing I’ve watched on inductive reasoning.

Thank you so much for these videos. The professor was so easy to understand. I wish he had done more videos on logic.

Sir, your explanation is amazingly clear. Thank you.

Excellent lectures! Thank you.

Thank you for your content! Extremely helpful!

amazing clarity.Well done Sir....

I just started joining college and our Professor had a bad fluent speaking where learning the lesson was easier than to understand his words..... thanks for the great explanation it helps me so much understanding sir

Sir I impressed...good way of teaching method...thank you so much sir..

Nice lecture. Limited and measured words introduces subject smoothly.👍🏿

amazingly clear sir. cheers

Great series!

the problem is that some academics take this notion of the lack of neutrality to use the institution of the university as an arena for activism. one can still have an ideal, like the ideal of attaining truth. I know that truth about humans are problematic because of reflexivity, but this only means that the social sciences need to develop their thruths over time, hopefully with the help of artificial intelligence technology

Trigger warning: hypothetical frog violence

This reminds me of a time when six teenagers were involved in a car accident in my area. They had gone to party at a nearby waterfall. While on their way home, the driver (who was of them) lost control of the car and it rolled more than 3 three times. 3 of them died on the spot due to injuries. One was seriously injured. Another lost consciousness but later recovered. The last one was barely scratched. When it came to explained what had caused the accident, 2 theories prevailed. On one end there people (including my parents and close relatives) who believed the kids had angered the mermaids that resided at the waterfall by hosting their party near it. It is claimed that upon leaving the geographical feature, the kids were followed by a whirlwind which ultimately resulted in the accident. This i believe was based on the superstitious beliefs that these people held from childhood all the way into adulthood. This i believe was their background theory i.e When a waterfall, dam, natural spring, mountain, cave etc (geographic feature) is involved, catastrophic events that may occur will occur because of the influence of a supernatural entity. There were reports after the accident that the car was speeding way above the speed limit. All the teens were drunk and the driver had a history reckless driving (on one occasion, he drove out of the road with 10 passengers in his cars). This led me (and I believe other people as well) to conclude that wreck less driving was the cause of the accident. My background theory was, The operation of machinery or driving after the consumption of alcohol has been shown to be one of the leading causes of accidents.

Great Video, thanks. Can you please help with a citation that supports this idea that induction requires background theories? There seems to be a misconception that induction is about starting from a blank slate and am looking for a reference to refute that.

Does anybody know where chapter 1.3 is?

Isn't representativeness reflective of background theory or knowledge? Can we reduce the variables to just number of observations and representativeness of observations (lumping together background/context with representativeness)?

Watched til 1.4 of ua series in terms of logic n argumentation being integral part of discussion loved the way you explained with examples 👏. Btw had a confusion in one of ua example putting al chapter together as a learning and come to valid argument Linguistic observation proves to be bad conclusion to be generalized i agree but the hand in hot stove how do u come to an conclusion of it being a more valid conclusion of it being true doesn't it go contrary to the probability wherin what if the background theory is diff or if person put into for test had a neurological problem of not feeling the pain? Could you please explain it

I can't get enough of these philosophies, but what is this actually good for if I went to college in it? For so many years, I have studied things just out of interest and no actual productive results in my career life, so what is my probability that going into a college course for these things would be worth doing it for a career outcome? ty

plz do feyerabend s against method

thank you!

Sir if u have written any book about these lectures plz tell us...I want to buy that book

If an argument is inductive because it is tested over a subset of cases and relies on generalisation for the remaining cases, then does the argument become deductive if it is tested against all possible cases? Another way to ask that question is whether deduction can only be applied over a finite domain, and induction is required over an infinite domain.

So science is a biased theory? This is very mind blowing OMG.

Thank you .. professional 👍🏻

thank you for the video!

So, deductive argument is about structure and form of the text whereas inductive argument is about the the claims made by the text?

What are the characteristics of a good argument

How to justify between logical concept critical thinking?

You forgot time and how it fucks everything when it comes to induction. Thanks for the video!

Vey well reasoned!

Mind blowing

Jesus teaching logic.

last lecture was difference between deductive and inductive argument; focus on inductive now; crucial feature of inductive argument=in order to see if its good you always need to use background theories; can't use induction to derive theories from neutral data, for you are always already relying on theoretical beliefs; theories always depend on presuppositions; review the meaning of deductive and inductive arguments; limited number of observations and draw a general conclusion that covers WAY more particulars than were part of the limited group; recognize deductive argument just by look ing at logical form without looking at content/matter; not the case for inductive, for we need background theories about the content/matter in order to assess whether a supposed inductive argument is any good; two inductive arguments can have the same logical form but one be MUCH more plausible than the other, and so what matters when making sense out of why one is so much more believable than the other? what matters here is the content/matter of the arguments; our background knowledge of things plays a huge role here; for example: our background knowledge of how the human body works with pain vs. our background knowledge of how language works all across the world (as per his example in the video); to assess inductive argument we need to know some things about the content/matter of the argument, e.g., (a) how probable it is that the things we are interested in behave uniformly, (b) we need to know whether the data we have are representative, i.e., whether they represent the data has a whole and not just a special part of it, e.g., we want to know what the life expectancy is of people in 17th century China, but all my data are about rich aristocrats, then we know that those data are probably not representative, and so to have representative data we would need data about all the other classes of people in China at that time; inductive arguments can only be judged based on certain background theories, then we can draw general conclusions; when we draw conclusion we rely on background theories; a scientists will always be a bit bias (not in a social prejudicial kind of way) , looking at the world from a certain perspective.

thank you my friend

Excellent

Can unsound argument be valid? If yes give examples

Oh and it seems also that the logic behind operant and classical conditioning is inductive. So a animals nervous system has in-programmed inductive logic. Cool stuff actually.

Can anyone tell me like the end I did not understood

Thanks alot

Is the framework of inductive reasoning a consequence of deductive reasoning?

Correct grammar for this kind of conditional sentence is: "So, every time I *ask* someone a question in Dutch, they *will answer* in Dutch". If the condition is always true, the expected result will happen.

Sir, i dont know any thing about philosophy but i am too intrested in it. The problem is that my IQ level is not that much that i could understand the way of these books or lectures . But your lectures are digestable. I need a easy way to learn. What do you suggest ? I mean do you suggest any book or any thing. Thanks for sharing with us.

1:04 the truth of the premises guarantees the turth of the conclusion? doesn't the argument have to valid as well?

I love your class

Hello to everybody! Any books you recommend? Thanks 🙂

Great video ! Can god God make a stone he cannot lift ? Is this a deductive or inductive aurgument ?

"What happened when a frog is struck by lightning? The same thing that happened to all other animals." -Storm - X-men

So inferential statistics is inductive in nature?

IF you add to the conclusion that the results were achieved by a specific observer, THEN you can fix the induction problem, by ending the conclusion with "that we observed, know, studied, etc. " Like I put 25 frogs in the freezer for a week, and all of them died. So, all the frogs THAT I OBSERVED die when they are put in the freezer for a week. You just acknowledge the observer influence on the results, thus, inductive became deductive. Like quantum mechanics, you know? Maybe general conclusions are bad? I just watched the first video and already know logic, thanks!

inductive reasoning = probabilistic parametric deductive reasoning, where parameters = set of background theories ??

Can't find 1:3 episode

Hey! Good morning. I'm learning logic. And where my understanding of my logic stands.... Lol.

Why is the arhument about stoves acceptable?

I'm in fact, a freezer resistant frog.

3:46 lmfao That's very funny

I'm reading copi and I really needed this videos. But looking at this guy talking about fascism and murderers kinda creeps me out.

good

this is the meaning of the common “there is no evidence to suggest that …. ”

math was sense that i never had math is beautiful 🐒

thanks, Jesus

It cannot be general and does not need to be general. Scientific theories work for a specific defined domain.

i dont find this all that clear, with induction it seems to me that the first premise is always "true" by that i mean a "fact" not a "value" and by "true fact" i mean it is always an Empirical premise (repeatable and observable by human senses.. aka scientific), there is never a need to make a deductive argument from a empirical premise (almost axiomatic) as we are at solid ground with the premise and cant work backwards, only that we can make inference from empirical premise in a strong or weak sense. Deductive arguments are always from Values or Abstract premises, and can be worked backwards, in a deductive argument the premise can always be false, but the conclusion is always correct.. only that it is only as good as the first premise is true which is nearly always contingent as its a value. ie:P1 Concrete is Grey P2: Elephants are Grey C3: All elephants are made from concrete. Conclusion is true in the vacuum of the argument, but we know there are many variables in P1 and P2 Take an inductive argument with an empirical premise. P1 all Apples fall at 9mtrs per second (necessary) P2: this is caused from a invisible force (contingent assertion) (cant see why they fall 9mtrs a second) C3: invisible force is the Holy spirit mentioned in the bible. (not necessary: unknown cause) While P1 is true, and P2 is a reasonable supposition P3 is also possibly true until proven otherwise. but we know now, P2 is Gravity who's effect we see from Mass, and the un explained source of Mass in P3 is the Higgs boson. My point is that All inductive arguments have to start from a True fact premise, not a value one or a abstract one like "murder is wrong" which i would argue is different from a Proposition which is a value assertion which is the first premise of a deductive argument.

but sir, as far as i know it's quite probable that everyone in the world speaks the same language... money

1 tongue click = 1 new segment of the video

Still a theory

That must be the reason why my body wants to stop exercising at the beginning and enjoys it at the end. stupid hooman

what a cruel example, haha

this is the worst explanation of induction ive ever seen

Imagine being his wife lmao . I’m studying this just to piss off females off when I go on dates.