Script video 8

Script video 8
[BLANK_AUDIO].
We've learned that inferences to the best explanation are inductive arguments.
They're not valid, and they are defeasible.
Reproduce el video desde ::12 y sigue la transcripción0:12
But still, they might be strong and good arguments.
They might give you good reasons to believe their conclusions.
Great, they might be, sure, but how do you
tell whether they really are strong arguments and good arguments?
We need standards to determine when an inference
to the best explanation is a good argument.
Reproduce el video desde ::36 y sigue la transcripción0:36
And to understand those standards,
we're going to view another skit made
by my students a few years ago.
>> It's
time for class.
[CROSSTALK]
>> Whoa, where is everybody? >> Beats me.
It's Monday, isn't it?
>> Yeah, first day of the week, remember the weekend?
>> Hmmm, the weekend.
[NOISE]
Yeah, I remember, vaguely. Good times.
Now, it's back to work.
Reproduce el video desde :1:25 y sigue la transcripción1:25
It's Monday, but what time is it? >> It's 11:15.
>> Well, isn't that when class is supposed to start?
>> Here's the start of a good explanation.
There are surprising circumstances that need to be explained.
>> Yeah, maybe my watch is fast, it has been giving me some trouble lately.
Do you check yours?
>> Oh, I don't wear a watch.
I just ask you when I need to know the time.
>> Great, so I'm your designated timekeeper.
>> kind of, but there's usually a clock around.
One right there.
>> Okay, so we know it's 11:15. >> Right.
>> In any inference to the best explanation, it's crucial
to get an accurate picture of what you're trying to explain.
In this case, if it were 11:10 instead of 11:15, then the
explanation would be different, or there might be nothing at all to explain.
>> So where is everybody?
>> Well, maybe everybody else is late.
After all, the professor does show up a few minutes late.
He told me that he doesn't like to start teaching right away,
because he doesn't like when he's talking and the students walk in.
>> Oh, that makes me mad.
>> So maybe, they're coming in later, because they
don't want to wait around for him to start talking.
It's one of those vicious circles.
>> Okay, maybe that's
it, but then some students should start
showing up, so let's just wait and see
[SOUND].
Enough is enough.
If people were coming they'd be here by now.
I mean the professor's been late but he's never been this late.
>> Ann refutes Bob's explanation, by pointing out new facts
that falsify Bob's hypothesis, that all the students are late.
A good explanation has to be compatible with all of the
facts, not just the particular ones that it's trying to explain.
Bond's hypothesis can't be the best explanation of
why the students aren't here at 11:15, if there still not there by noon.
>> Well that brings us right back to where we started.
Why isn't anybody else here?
>> Your guess is as good as mine. >> Well, well my guess is everybody else
is here, we just can't see or hear them. >> I bet they're laughing
at us right now. >>
[LAUGH]
>> I bet the professor is up there
jabbering away right now like he always does.
>>
[SOUND].
>> Oh, I hope this material is not on the test.
>> Congratulations, you proved me wrong. Your guess is not as good as mine.
>> How? >> Humans can't become invisible.
>> How do you know?
>> Have you ever seen it? >> No.
They're invisible, that's why I've never seen it.
>> Okay, but the laws of physics,
don't allow humans to become silent and invisible.
>> And dismisses
Bob's new hypothesis, because it's not conservative.
It conflicts with well-established, prior beliefs in physics.
If you start believing that humans can become invisible, you'll have
to give up everything you know about how light and matter work.
>> Besides if they were here the seats wouldn't be popped up like this.
>> Nope, because besides being invisible and silent, these students
are also weightless, they don't smell either.
>> Okay, so there is no way to tell whether or not there're students here.
>> You're catching on.
>> But the laws of physics still don't
allow people to be weightless, invisible and silent.
>> Well, the laws of physics are based on observation.
And there is no way these students can be observed at all.
The laws of physics can't apply to something
that can't be observed or at least students.
>> So then nothing could possibly tell whether or not there
are students in these chairs. >> Exactly.
>> Hey Ed.
We're here live with an unidentifiable, unobservable student.
What's it like to be unobservable?
Okay.
Back to you Ed. >> Pretty sweet huh?
>> No, it is not sweet.
The only reason why your idea isn't falsified is because it's not falsifiable!
If you can't prove it then it's useless.
I mean, you might as well say there's invisible elephants floating around.
[NOISE]
>> Ann rejects Bob's new explanation on the grounds that it's not falsifiable.
It's compatible with anything that could possibly happen, but that means
that it can't explain why one thing happens rather than another.
It's completely empty.
[NOISE]
>> I was just joking. This is a philosophy class after all.
Okay, I don't mind jokes.
But let's get serious, because it's not helping us with our problem.
Why isn't anybody here?
>> Speaking of joking, maybe they're all playing a trick on us.
Maybe they decided not to show up.
[LAUGH]
>> Okay, but why would they do that? Is it April Fool's Day?
>> No.
It's January. >> Oh.
Well, then I don't know why they're tricking us.
They just are. >> Okay.
I can't believe that unless you can tell me why they would be so silly.
>> Ann is criticizing Bob's new explanation because it's not deep.
It's shallow, because it depends on a principle that is not self-explaining and
needs to be explained. I don't know, I guess the professor just
decided to cancel class because he didn't feel like teaching today.
[SOUND].
>> Maybe, but then other students wouldn't know, so they would be here.
>> Unless, he e-mailed the entire class.
Then they would know.
Did you check your e-mail recently? >> About an hour ago.
>> Then maybe he e-mailed us in the past hour.
>> I guess.
I mean, that would explain why nobody's here.
Some professors do cancel class at the last minute.
But not him.
He's too strict.
I, I've had five classes with him and he's never cancelled class at the last minute.
>> If you miss even one class in this
course you, you, will, will, fail, fail, fail, fail.
>> So, maybe this time it's different.
>> Yeah. Maybe the sun didn't rise.
Either way it's totally out of character.
[SOUND]
>> Ann's point is that Bob's new explanation is Ad Hoc.
It applies only to the very circumstances that it was
invoked to explain, and it doesn't apply to other cases.
That means it lacks power and breadth. >> Okay, but, I've got it!
Classes must have been cancelled for some reason.
What reason?
>> maybe
it's a holiday. >> Okay, what holiday?
>> I, Martin Luther King.
That's it. It's Marting Luther King day.
>> That would explain it, I mean nobody goes to class but a fool on a holiday.
>> Hi, I'm here.
>> I guess that makes us both fools
>> Yeah, so I guess that's why he didn't send a note, because he
figured no one would come here. I bet he wrote it down in the syllabus.
It also explains why there's no one's in the whole classroom building.
>> Bob's new explanation works because it has
all of the virtues that the other explanations lack.
>> It's powerful, broad, deep, simple,
conservative, and not falsified, and yet, falsifiable.
Those virtues make his explanation good or in his words, sweet.
>> You're right.
You know, I think there's some kind of ceremony today with
the president of the college and some big hotshot from Washington.
For Martin Luther King Day.
So probably that's where the whole class is.
That's why they're not there.
>> Maybe, but even if there weren't a
ceremony, the fact that it's Martin Luther King
Day would explain why nobody is here, so
you don't really need to add anything else.
>> Anne rejects Bob's newest explanation because it's not modest.
It commits him to more matters of fact
than are needed to explain the observations at hand.
>> So I guess the holiday explains it all.
>> Well, not really, we still don't know why
that big head keeps popping in on the side.
>> That's one that I can't figure out myself.
>> It's so weird.
>> I
[INAUDIBLE]
used to babysit me when I was younger.
>> This whole exchange can be seen as a single argument
that takes the form of a long inference to the best explanation.
The first premise is an observation.
Nobody else is in the room. The second premise is an explanation.
The hypothesis that class was cancelled because
of the holiday, plus accepted facts and principles,
gives a suitably strong explanation of the observation in premise
one, namely, the observation that nobody else is in the room.
Premise three is a comparison. No other hypothesis provides
an explanation nearly as good as the holiday hypothesis in premise two.
And the conclusion is that the holiday hypothesis in premise two is true.
The most controversial premise is probably premise three.
It says that no other explanation provides nearly
as good an explanation as the holiday hypothesis.
To justify this premise, we need to compare other possible explanations.
And that's exactly what the two students do throughout the skit.
Their discussion can then be summarized in this background
argument that supports premise three.
The hypothesis that the other students are late is falsified by the passing of time.
The patients in the forecastle were also getting better.
The hypothesis that the other students are invisible is not conservative.
The hypothesis that the other students are undetectable is not falsifiable.
The hypothesis that the other students are playing a joke is not deep.
The hypothesis that
the professor skipped class is not powerful or broad.
The hypothesis that the other students are at a ceremony is not modest.
Reproduce el video desde :12: y sigue la transcripción12:00
No other hypothesis seems plausible.
Therefore no other hypothesis provides an explanation nearly
as good as the holiday hypothesis in premise 2.
Even if the other explanations are inadequate, the inference of the
best explanation fails unless the hypothesis succeeds at
explaining why there was nobody else in the room.
Premise two claims that the holiday hypothesis does
explain why there's nobody else in the room.
So we need to analyze why it succeeds, and
to do that, we can look at another background argument.
The holiday hypothesis explains why nobody else
is there.
Because, if classes were canceled because of
a holiday, then nobody else would be there.
That is, nobody else would be in the room at the usual time.
The holiday hypothesis is also broad, because it explains other actual
observations, such as the observation that the whole building is empty.
The holiday hypothesis is also powerful, because it applies to many separate cases.
For example, it explains why students won't be there on future holidays.
The holiday hypothesis is falsifiable, because the two students might
find out that classes were not cancelled for the holiday.
The holiday hypothesis is not falsified, because the two students do not actually
find out that classes were not cancelled, and
similarly for other ways to falsify the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is also conservative, because it
does not conflict with any well-established beliefs.
The holiday hypothesis is also deep, because it does not
depend on any assumptions that need but lack independent explanation.
So, the holiday hypothesis explains why nobody else is there, and it's broad,
powerful, falsifiable, but not falsified, conservative, deep.
Therefore, the holiday hypothesis plus accepted facts and principles,
gives a suitably strong explanation of why nobody else is in the room.
These two background arguments use a common list
of virtues that are usually called explanatory virtues.
In general, one explanation is better or
stronger than another if it has more of these virtues.
When you understand these explanatory virtues, then
you've mastered inference to the best explanation.
Right?
>> Right.
>> Now we can go on and look at other kinds of inductive argument.
Claro, puedo explicar este tema de forma sencilla. El tema se llama "Cómo razonar de
forma inductiva". En este curso aprenderás a utilizar la lógica inductiva para tomar
decisiones y llegar a conclusiones basadas en la evidencia disponible. Aquí hay algunos
puntos clave para entenderlo:
1. Razonamiento inductivo: El razonamiento inductivo es un tipo de razonamiento
en el que se llega a una conclusión general basada en ejemplos o evidencia
específica. En lugar de llegar a una conclusión definitiva, se busca encontrar la
explicación más probable o la mejor opción.
2. Argumentos inductivos: Los argumentos inductivos son aquellos en los que se
presenta evidencia o ejemplos para respaldar una conclusión. Estos argumentos
no son necesariamente válidos, pero pueden ser fuertes si la evidencia es sólida y
la conclusión es la mejor explicación posible.
3. Razonamiento causal: El razonamiento causal se refiere a la forma en que
identificamos las relaciones de causa y efecto entre los eventos. Aprenderás a
identificar y evaluar argumentos causales para determinar su validez y fuerza.
4. Probabilidad y elección: También explorarás cómo utilizar el razonamiento
inductivo para tomar decisiones basadas en la probabilidad y la elección.
Aprenderás a evaluar diferentes opciones y determinar cuál es la más probable o
la mejor elección.
5. Evaluación de argumentos: A lo largo del curso, aprenderás a evaluar la fuerza
de los argumentos inductivos y a identificar las fallas en el razonamiento. Esto te
ayudará a tomar decisiones más informadas y a evitar caer en trampas lógicas.
Espero que esta explicación te haya ayudado a entender de qué se trata este tema. Si
tienes alguna pregunta adicional, no dudes en hacerla.
¿Cuáles son las virtudes explicativas que se utilizan para evaluar las explicaciones?
¿Cómo se puede aplicar el razonamiento inductivo en la toma de decisiones en la vida
cotidiana?¿Cuál es la diferencia entre un argumento inductivo y un argumento
deductivo?
Dame ejemplos de la vida real

Coach
¡Claro! Aquí tienes algunos ejemplos de razonamiento inductivo en la vida real:
1. Ejemplo 1: Supongamos que todos los días, cuando sales de tu casa, ves que el
suelo está mojado. Basado en esta observación repetida, puedes llegar a la
conclusión inductiva de que llueve durante la noche. Aunque no puedes estar
seguro al 100%, la evidencia acumulada te lleva a creer que la lluvia es la
explicación más probable.
2. Ejemplo 2: Siempre que comes un alimento en particular, como un marisco,
desarrollas una reacción alérgica. A partir de esta experiencia repetida, puedes
inducir que eres alérgico a ese alimento en particular. Aunque no puedes
afirmarlo con certeza absoluta, la evidencia acumulada te lleva a creer que existe
una relación causal entre el alimento y tu reacción alérgica.
3. Ejemplo 3: Has notado que cada vez que estudias para un examen con
anticipación y repasas regularmente, obtienes mejores calificaciones. Basado en
esta observación repetida, puedes inducir que el estudio regular y la preparación
anticipada son factores que contribuyen al éxito académico. Aunque no hay
garantía de que siempre funcione, la evidencia acumulada te lleva a creer que
estos métodos de estudio son efectivos.
Estos son solo algunos ejemplos de cómo el razonamiento inductivo se aplica en la vida
real. Recuerda que el razonamiento inductivo no garantiza la certeza absoluta, pero
puede proporcionar una base sólida para tomar decisiones informadas y llegar a
conclusiones probables.
¿Cuáles son los componentes clave del razonamiento inductivo?¿Cómo se puede aplicar
el razonamiento inductivo en situaciones de la vida real?¿Cuál es el proceso para
evaluar la fuerza de un argumento inductivo?

Script video 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Script video 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Script video 8

Dame ejemplos de la vida real

You might also like