Script video 9

Script video 9
In the previous lecture we saw one example of inference to the

best explanation, but it might help to go through just one more.
Reproduce el video desde ::10 y sigue la transcripción0:10
I told you, that detectives often inference to the
best explanation to figure out who committed the crime.
One really neat example of this kind of argument, was
provided by some students in the first offering of this course.
Just check out the video that they made. >> I think I'm
going to go for a run. Phillip and McKenzie are sleeping.
Work up an appetite.
I might dig into some of those cookies later.
[SOUND].
That was a good run. I think I'm going to have some cookies.
What?
Oh, man. That was a brand-new dish.
The dish broke, and I was wondering, if you heard
anything or if you have anything to do with it.
>> No, I just woke up. >> You didn't hear, huh.
I wonder what, how this could have happened.
You didn't feel any earthquake, did you, or something?
>> Well, I suggest that
perhaps it was Timmy. >> Timmy?
You know, come to think of it, I'm looking at this counter, and
I'm seeing a dump of cat's hair, I think we found our answer.
>> Mm-hm. Timmy did it.
>> Phillipa.
>> Timmy.
>> Timmy what do you have to say for yourself?
>> Meow.
>> Love that video didn't you? Great production values.
He's ready for Hollywood. The actors, Emmys.
Oh man. And what every hard professionals.
Reproduce el video desde :1:40 y sigue la transcripción1:40
And the argument was good too.
First of all, it was really clear, I mean
you know exactly why they think Timmy did it.
Structure was really good.
You start with a phenomenon that needs to be
explained, namely the dish was broken on the floor.
And you look for alternative explanations, and you compare those
different explanations, and the best explanation, is that Timmy did it.
Okay, so what are the competing explanations?
Well, McKenzie might of done, but she denied it, she wouldn't lie
to her parents, she looks so innocent, at least I thought so.
We'll see whether other people agree.
And the other possibility is an earthquake, but nobody felt an earthquake,
and they probably would have felt an earthquake, so that's no good.
Maybe Philipa did it. Wait a minute.
I don't know if you noticed that little box.
Phillipa sleeps like a log, and he got back at 7:45.
That's when the dish was broke, she didn't come down till 9:45.
If she's sleeping like a log, how could she have done it?
So we've got different hypotheses that are
being considered, and he's looking for the best.
So what makes it best is not just that
those other hypotheses have things that rule them out.
But also that this hypothesis has a lot of positive support for it, one
thing that's nice is he found the hair on the counter, that was crucial.
Because now the hypothesis that Timmy did it, explains not
just the dish, but also the hair on the counter.
And that's a sign, of a good explanation.
That it explains not just the particular things, but it's
powerful, and broad, it applies to other things as well,
and explains other phenomenon. that need to be explained.
So, overall eh, I think there's pretty good reason to think that Timmy did it.
And the kicker that proves it all is that the cat confessed.
You heard it yourself. The cat said.
>> Meow.
>> Of course, your argument could be stronger, because inductive strength
comes in degrees.
But the fact that it could be stronger doesn't mean it's no good.
You can get a pretty good reason by ruling out the most plausible hypotheses,
even if there are a few that you didn't quite get to in presenting your argument.
And sure enough, in the discussion forums, some students pointed out weaknesses.
Which amounted to looking at these different
hypotheses as possible explanations of the data.
A lot of students seem to suspect McKenzie.
Here's one of them.
Joe writes, Hi Kevin, while watching the interrogation
of McKenzie I got the feeling she was hiding something.
She had means, motive and opportunity. I think in order to add to the
strength of the inductive argument that she's innocent,
she should volunteer for a lie detector test.
And then he goes on, I suspect Timmy was framed.
Considering how minorities and the poor are treated in the
justice system I recommend he remain silent until he secures representation.
Well, I don't know about the second half
of that but, with regard McKenzie, there's an interesting
point to be, notice here.
Joe didn't know Mackenzie and he didn't trust her.
Thinks she looked suspicious. But Kevin, he knows McKenzie.
He lives with her.
He spent a lot of time with her and he trusts her.
So we have a nice example of how an inductive argument
might be strong for one person and not for the other person.
Because Kevin has this background information
that McKenzie's trustworthy, whereas Joe does not have that background information.
So the argument that Kevin gave in the very short
form in which it occurred, might be good enough for him.
Because of his background knowledge about Mackenzie's worthiness.
Course it's not good enough for Joe,
because Joe doesn't have that background knowledge.
And that's just a fact about inductive arguments in general.
That they might be strong for some people, and not so strong for other people.
And we could make the argument
even stronger, by looking at other explanations.
So what about Phillipa, well she sleeps like a log, but maybe she was
sleep walking and knocked the cookies over when she was sleep walking.
What about Kevin himself, how come he is getting off the hook.
Maybe he did it when he came back from running because he had sweat in
his eyes and didn't notice it and didn't
hear the plate drop because he was so tired.
Maybe there was a burglar who came in, and while they were stealing things, they
knocked the cookies over and that made noise,
and so they got scared and ran away.
Maybe it was Santa Claus.
He has been known to eat cookies that are left out on the counter for him.
Maybe it was a ghost.
These are all kinds of possible explanations, and you could
drive yourself crazy trying to rule out every possible explanation.
So to a certain point you have to decide, when is the argument strong enough?
And that depends on what you're going to do with it.
Now, I've said I think this is a good argument.
I think Timmy did it.
The confession really is the kicker.
But I'm not ready to give Timmy capital punishment.
I'm not ready to banish Timmy from the house.
There's some steps that would just be too
harsh, in response to this amount of evidence.
However, I do think, that the evidence is strong
enough, that we can guide our action with it.
At least in ways that don't have a lot of cost.
So for
example, my suggestion to Kevin and his entire family is,
don't put the cookies on the edge of the counter.
I mean, if Timmy's going to knock them off and you
don't want them knocked off, you gotta accept some responsibility yourself.
And this argument can be good enough, to guide our action, about
where to put the cookies on the counter, when to leave them out.
And when not to leave them out. Even if
it's not good enough, to justify capital punishment.
So one thing that we need to think about in accessing, not just how strong an
argument it is, but whether it's strong enough,
is what are we going to do with it?
And what are the costs incurred if we're wrong.
Claro, puedo explicar el tema de forma sencilla. El tema se llama "Cómo razonar de
forma inductiva".
Cuando razonamos de forma inductiva, estamos tratando de llegar a conclusiones
generales basadas en ejemplos o evidencias específicas. Es como cuando sacamos una
conclusión general a partir de varios casos particulares.
Por ejemplo, si vemos que todos los perros que conocemos tienen pelo, podemos llegar
a la conclusión de que todos los perros tienen pelo. Estamos generalizando a partir de
los casos individuales que hemos observado.
Sin embargo, es importante tener en cuenta que el razonamiento inductivo no siempre es
100% seguro. Siempre existe la posibilidad de que haya casos que contradigan nuestra
conclusión general. Por eso, es importante ser conscientes de las limitaciones del
razonamiento inductivo y estar abiertos a revisar nuestras conclusiones si encontramos
nueva evidencia.
En resumen, el razonamiento inductivo es una forma de llegar a conclusiones generales
basadas en ejemplos o evidencias específicas. Aunque no es infalible, puede ser una
herramienta útil para tomar decisiones y sacar conclusiones en muchas situaciones.
¿Cuáles son los componentes clave del razonamiento inductivo?¿Cómo podrías aplicar
el razonamiento inductivo en una situación de la vida real?¿Cuál es el proceso detrás del
razonamiento inductivo?

Script video 9

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 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Script video 9

In the previous lecture we saw one example of inference to the

You might also like