I think the website made more sense after reading the chapter. Reviewing the concept of inductive reasoning was helpful. Inductive reasoning is usually based on information derived from observation or proven by means of experiment. A use of inductive reasoning shows that if I observe that something is true many times, then I should conclude that it will be true in all instances. Key points are: a) make observations b) form conclusions from observation and proven data c) prove conclusions with deductive reasoning (the process of drawing a conclusion by starting with the cause and ending with the effect).
Applying the chapter information regarding normal conditions was helpful in understanding the difference in causal arguments. Things that would “normally” happen are crucial to determining that the causal argument is an “out of the ordinary” incident. I also liked the use of examples in explaining the two rules when dealing with causation: 1) the cause must precede the event in time and 2) even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. In addition, explaining by eliminating reverse causation (things that happened before the incident) or post hoc ergo proper hoc (looking too hard for a cause) you can miss important factors in determining a real case for cause and effect. The exercise was the most helpful part of the website, showing the difference in difference and commonality. For me, examples clarify the concepts and hopefully, help be apply the correct use in my writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment