wildlifeprotection.info Religion Deductive Reasoning And Strategies Pdf


Friday, May 24, 2019

Deductive Reasoning and Strategies Schaeken, Walter. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. English Reasoning. Request PDF on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , W. Schaeken and others published Deductive reasoning and strategies. Deductive Reasoning and Strategies. Category: Science. pdf download: PDF icon [Walter_Schaeken,_Gino_De_Vooght,wildlifeprotection.info

Deductive Reasoning And Strategies Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, French
Genre:Children & Youth
Published (Last):28.04.2016
ePub File Size:30.53 MB
PDF File Size:16.17 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: ERINN

wildlifeprotection.info - Free ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online for free. both theoretical and empirical research directed toward the role of strategies in deductive reasoning. DownloadPDF MB Read online. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning, the kind of reasoning and logic, the main psychological models of deductive reasoning, and the.

It is the source of all troubles in the world from personal conicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world. Do you agree with Rahulas statement? Is the idea of self this dangerous? Can you cite instances to support it? Can you cite reasons to disagree with this statement? Pay special attention to the news for the next few days. To what extent can the troubles in the world be attributed to the idea of self? What about troubles in your own personal life?

Reect on your recent arguments or moments of tension with others. To what extent was your thinking affected by your need to protect your self-concept? Finally, as an exercise in self, try to respond to others today and tomorrow without a sense of self, without protecting an ego. How difficult was it? What were the results?

Letting go means reducing as much as possible your identication with the constituents that you use to dene your self. You can begin this letting go by listing the major ideas you have of your self on the lines below. Now imagine that you are fty years older. Which traits will be gone? Which people and things will have been replaced? Which activities will you no longer be doing? Most likely your idea of self today will not be your idea of self tomorrow, yet you will probably believe that you are the same person Philosophers debate whether a person is actually the same or not over time.

Should we, therefore, identify with those traits, activities, and loves to the point that it leads us to conceit, anger, defensiveness, and an inability to take constructive criticism when those cherished things are threatened? On the other hand, would it be acceptable to believe in something so much that you would die for it? Do you think it would be possible to let go of your idea of self and still act to defend some principle? Some of the more basic ones that impact on our thinking are denial, projection, and rationalization.

Denial Experience with an alcoholic population suggests that certain individuals will deny to the point of dying. What an unpleasant reality is varies from one person to another. For the alcoholic, it is his or her drinking problem. Thus, because of denial, many alcoholics are unable to think critically about their drinking behavior.

Similarly, college students may deny that they are doing poorly in school, that they are lazy, or that their boyfriend or girlfriend really does not love them. By keeping these unpleasant realities from conscious awareness, we protect ourselves from a reality that is unpleasant, but we also inhibit our ability to think objectively about the situation and to make intelligent decisions for our own and others best interests.

Projection There I see the beam in my own eye as a mote in my brothers eye. It is right there because I am unconscious of the beam in my own eye. Projection is the defense mechanism by which we see in others a part of ourselves that we cannot accept and do not recognize.

We may believe others are hostile toward us when it is we who are hostile toward them. We may see in others our own incompetence and deceitfulness, which we are unable to accept in ourselves. We may see selsh motives in others, which are really the selsh motives in us which we do not consciously recognize.

In short, we see others not as they are, but as we are. Our thinking about ourselves and others is therefore grossly distorted when we engage in projection. Like denial, this interferes with our ability to think critically about ourselves, others, and our social situations. Notice in the example below how a mans perception of others as crazy and his desire to hurt someone seem to be projections of his own inner reality.

Well, how do you feel about all those things they are saying? What do you mean, feel? Theyre crazy. They want to see me destroyed. Oh, well, thats awful. Its scary to have people say crazy things about you. What would make them do that?

Theyre jealous of me, that I have my wife; they must be trying to get her from me. Well, of course, youre a proud man, and it must be difficult to have them talking about you like that.

Now lets see if theres any way we can help you stay on top of things and keep in control.

We can both agree that youre a strong man, and its important not to let it weaken you. Im strong. But Im very worried that her family might make me do something crazylike want to hurt someone. Vaillant and Perry, , p. Of all the defense mechanisms, rationalization is perhaps the greatest inhibitor of clear thinking.

Rationalization is distorted thinking that attempts to justify behavior motivated by self-interest or unacceptable drives. It serves to protect us from bad feelings by, for example, turning selsh motives into honorable ones.

For example, the captain of the cruise ship Oceanos, which sank in the Indian Ocean, was asked why he left his ship in a lifeboat while hundreds of passengers were still on board. He replied that the order to abandon ship applies to everyone, and once the order is given it doesnt matter when the captain leaves.

He also mentioned that he could control rescue operations better from the shore. In essence, rationalization is lying to ourselves about the real reasons for our behaviors and feelings. It is essential that we believe in this lie for it to protect us; if we knew we were lying, it would do us no good.

Many of us can recognize it during tax season: I prepare my taxes the way I do because of the way the government spends our money, you knowhundreds of dollars for a plain hammer and thousands of dollars for a toilet seat. Its our duty as U. Maybe if we all held back a little Uncle Sam would get the message. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. If our motives are good they do not need to be rationalized. But sometimes, in spite of our good motives, undesirable consequences occur, consequences that threaten our self-esteem.

The actions of others can also threaten our self-esteem.

Such ego-threatening situations can lead us to cognitive biases. These biases in our thinking and perception that serve to protect or elevate our self-esteem are called self-serving biases. As noted above, we do not always think about and perceive things as they are, for that would often mean looking at ourselves in an unpleasant light. Consequently, most people tend to see what they need to see and what they want to see in order to maintain or strengthen positive feelings about themselves Maslow, One aspect of the self-serving bias is the tendency to take credit for our successes and to blame our failures on external factors Zuckerman, ; Bradley, For example, a student failing an exam might attribute her failure to an unfair test or an incompetent instructor rather than her poor study habits.

And when politicians lose elections, they are likely to attribute their loss to negative campaigning by their opponent or a lack of funds necessary to get their message across rather than their own personality aws or their own awed political perspective. Whereas we often attribute our failures to situational factors and our successes to personal ones, a second aspect of the self-serving bias is the tendency to make opposite attributions when judging the behavior of others that threatens our own self-esteem.

When a student competitor in college gets a better grade than we do, we may nd it threatening to our self-esteem and attribute it to luck or some privileged relationship with the instructor. Yet, when others fail, we may look to their character for an explanation and ascribe their failure to their incompetence, ignorance, or laziness.

The tendency to engage in ego defenses and self-serving biases should decrease as our psychological health increases. As a healthy person we are better able to own up to the totality of who and what we are, both positive and negative Jung, When we can truly accept ourselves as we are with our faults, that is, when we can think of ourselves as worthwhile persons in spite of our failings, then we have less need to repress, deny, project, or make misattributions to protect ourselves.

As healthier people we are less threatened by the successes of others and more able to tolerate our own failures; we own up to our mistakes and give credit to others. In sum, we think better for being better. Other Attribution Errors Our attributions about our own and others behaviors are often wrong because they are biased by our need to protect our self-esteem.

But they can also go wrong for other reasons. For example, if we saw a young man speeding by in a red convertible with a beautiful lady by his side we would probably attribute his behavior to immaturity and showing off.

This is because of a tendency we have to attribute the behavior of others to their personal traits instead of to their situation. Oftentimes our internal attributions are wrong and the situation is the real force behind the behavior. In such instances we have committed the fundamental attribution error.

In the example above the student is speeding to the hospital because his gorgeous wife is about to deliver a baby. The actor-observer bias extends the fundamental attribution error one more step by stating that we tend to make internal attributions when observing the behavior of others but situational attributions when assessing our own behavior except when examining our success.

Thus, employees observers may attribute a managers strict rules to the managers rigid personality, whereas the manager actor explains the rules as necessary to deal with the stresses and pressures coming from her superiors. On the other hand, a manager the observer now may see her unproductive employees as lazy and unmotivated, whereas they the actors perceive their unproductive behavior as a natural consequence of working for an insensitive, authoritarian personality. The differences in attribution are probably rooted in differences in points of view: Fortunately, this bias can be minimized by having each side empathize with the other Regan and Totten, Have you ever made an erroneous attribution for someone elses behavior?

Have you ever been victim of such an attribution? Self-Serving Biases? Self-serving biases are cognitive distortions that put us in a favorable position. The statements below come from the insurance forms of car-accident victims who were asked to summarize the accident. Are these self-serving biases or just grammatical mistakes?

A pedestrian hit me and went under my car. As I approached the intersection a sign suddenly appeared in a place where no sign had ever appeared before. My car was legally parked as it backed into the other vehicle. The indirect cause of this accident was a little guy in a small car with a big mouth.

An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my vehicle, and vanished. The telephone pole was approaching. I was attempting to swerve out of the way, when it struck my front end. I had been driving for forty years when I fell asleep at the wheel. To avoid hitting the car in front of me, I struck the pedestrian. The pedestrian had no idea which direction to run, so I ran over him.

I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law, and headed for the embankment. Therefore, it is worthwhile to look at the dark side of ourselves and accept it as part of who we are. So as not to walk away from such an exercise depressed and full of loathing about ourselves, it is important to write down our positive characteristics as well.

At home in a private place, write down ten positive characteristics of your personality. Then, be honest with yourself and write down some of your less-positive characteristics that you have not really looked at before.

To help you identify those dark elements, which the psychologist Carl Jung called the shadow, reect back on how you have reacted to criticism from others in the past and consider these statements by one of Jungs students, M.

If you feel an overwhelming rage coming up in you when a friend reproaches you about a fault, you can be fairly sure that at this point you will nd a part of your shadow, of which you are unconscious. It is particularly in contacts with people of the same sex that one stumbles over both ones own shadow and those of other people. When an individual makes an attempt to see his shadow, he becomes aware of and often ashamed of those qualities and impulses he denies in himself but can plainly see in other people such things as egotism, mental laziness, and sloppiness; unreal fantasies, schemes, and plots; carelessness and cowardice; inordinate love of money and possessionsin short, all the little sins about which he might previously have told himself: That doesnt matter; nobody will notice it, and in any case other people do it too.

Jung, , pp.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitors cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overow until he no longer could restrain himself. It is overfull. No more will go in! Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you rst empty your cup? We tend to perceive and think about others and situations in terms of the ideas we have already formed about them.

These ideas are called schema. Often we distort the truth to make it t into our existing schema, or we notice only those aspects of others behavior or ideas which fit into our existing ideas about them.

In other words, human beings are reluctant to change their perceptions and ideas to accommodate the facts accommodation ; instead, it is easier to fit our observations and thinking into our existing schemata assimilation.

If our prior experience with someone is that he is extremely selsh and we form an idea of him as a selsh person, then we tend to see his actions as selsh. If he suggests a new policy at work to increase morale and productivity, we wonder about the selsh motives that must be underlying his new policy.

Surely he cannot be interested in the well-being of others and the companys productivity. Similarly, if a teacher believes that a student is not very bright, frequent questions from that student may be interpreted by the teacher as verication of the students ignorance. On the other hand, if the teacher is told that a student is intelligent and highly motivated, the students questions may be seen as reecting that persons insight and motivation.

Imagine what your reaction would be if you heard that a dictator was freeing some political prisoners and giving millions of dollars to the poor in his country. You would probably either discount the information as mere propaganda or question his motives, believing that he was trying to manipulate his people for some reason. His behavior would not likely cause you to change your perception of him from a ruthless dictator to a compassionate benefactor. A good example of a schema that inuences the way we perceive and think is the stereotype.

Stereotypes are simplistic, biased views about members of a certain group. We learn stereotypes from a variety of sources. Sometimes we over-generalize from our limited experience with members of a group. Often we learn our parents stereotypes by listening and observing them, and we. Whatever their source, stereotypes have a powerful effect on our thinking.

It is important to realize that stereotypes are inaccurate. They assume that groups are more homogeneous than they are. For some reason when it comes to our group we see the richness and diversity of its members, but when it comes to our perception of other groups, we assume that their members are all alike. On what basis can we possibly assume so? Certainly, similarities exist among group members but not to the degree that stereotypes imply.

An open mind is essential to critical thinking. But there is no easy recipe for acquiring an open mind, especially regarding prejudice.

Negative thoughts toward a minority group may go, but negative feelings often linger on. Those feelings may lead us to continuing negative behaviors and attitudes toward a group. Although stereotypes in particular, and schemata in general, often distort our thinking, sometimes we do change our views of people and situations when we experience facts contradicting our schema. Some research suggests that this accommodation is most likely to occur when the new information is moderately discrepant with our schemata Bochner and Insko, If an idea is very similar to our existing views, we are likely to minimize the difference and assimilate it into our existing schema, thus not modifying our views.

Likewise, if the information is highly discrepant, it simply cannot t into our schema and we reject it. For example, if typical Christians were exposed to arguments that Jesus never existed and that the entire New Testament is a myth, they would nd this information very discrepant and would probably reject it without the least consideration.

On the other hand, information that Jesus was unusually friendly with a political group whose intent was to overthrow the Romans might simply be assimilated into their schema of Jesus as a spiritual leader, who just happened to appeal to some political groups bent on overthrowing Roman rulers. Little or no change would be made in their concept of Jesus. Moderately discrepant information, however, is too different to be easily assimilated and yet not so different that it must be rejected.

Thus, if we are likely to change our views in the face of evidence, moderately discrepant information will most likely, but not necessarily, lead to that change. Can you imagine any real or ctitious revelation about Jesus that could be considered by most Christians as moderately discrepant with their views?

They are in part what separates humans from machines and the lower animals, for machines can compute but they can not experience joy. And animals may nd themselves attached to others, but they do not love them. Emotions give our world taste and richness, joy and surprise, but also pain and sorrow. Emotions can affect and inspire thought, said William James, but he also said they can destroy it.

Later in this book we look at how emotions can give birth to thinking, but for now our attention focuses on their inhibiting inuence, on their capacity to bury, twist, and fragment the thinking process and take it to the depths of the irrational. Some philosophers, like Seneca, considered it wholly without value:. Seneca sees absolutely no value in anger. No provocation justies it, no situation permits it, and no benet is gained by it. Once allowed, anger entirely consumes its possessor and renders dull his capacity for reasoning and sensible action.

Averill, , p. Anger has destroyed intimacy, thwarted good judgment, motivated senseless killings, inspired numerous wars, and probably burned more bridges in the career paths of men and women than any other single force.

The prospects of working memory training for improving deductive reasoning

It also distorts our perception of a situation, colors our ability to think critically about it, and impairs our self-control. The cause of anger may be a threat to something we hold dear. It may also be due to frustration, which is often caused by the blocking of a goal, or even by stress and hormonal changes in our bodies. No matter what the source, it is important not to make important decisions in the heat of anger, for good thinking does not prevail during such moments.

Instead, we want to release the tension caused by the anger and strike out, hurt, or destroy. The short-term goal of releasing tension can supersede and crush years of careful deliberation and planning as we say or do things we know we should. The aspiring businesswoman ruins her career by berating her boss for making a poor decision, or a man angry at his ancs selsh behavior castigates her for all her personal faults and breaks off the engagement.

Although anger may inspire great speeches, it often throws thinking in the backseat as our emotions take control. Earlier we mentioned how previous knowledge, like stereotypes and other schemata, can distort our thinking. Feelings can also affect thinking in a similar way. For example, anger can not only overrule our thinking, but it can distort it so that we believe that what we are doing is justied and rational.

For example, a parent may spank a child because of the parents frustration with the child and need to release anger. The parent may then rationalize the aggression against the child by claiming that such punishment was necessary to teach the child appropriate behaviorin spite of the fact that psychologists have for years been saying that appropriate behavior can be taught by nonviolent methods and that such spanking can be harmful to the child.

The parent does not acknowledge the real motivation for the behavior. Dealing with Anger If anger can lead to unthinking behavior or override our better judgment, we need to lessen its impact. We offer ve suggestions. First, do not vent your anger: The psychological rationales for ventilating anger do not stand up under experimental scrutiny.

The weight of the evidence indicates precisely the opposite: If you keep quiet about momentary irritations and distract yourself with pleasant activity until your fury simmers down, chances are you will feel better, and feel better faster, than if you let yourself go in a shouting match.

Tavris, , pp. This is not to say that one should stew for days with unabated anger. If the anger does not eventually subside, although usually it does, an attempt should be made to calmly talk about the matter. Pick a time when the other person is not angry and will therefore be more likely to listen. Second, get advice about your chosen course of action from others who are not angry. They may be able to give you a clearer perspective and prevent X. Third, become assertive. Anger is sometimes caused by continuous victimization.

Being assertive means standing up for your rights in a nonaggressive manner that diminishes the potential for defensiveness in the other person. Unlike with anger, when one is assertive, one has self-control. Bear in mind, however, that it is irrational to believe that life should always treat us justly.

In other words, dont overdo it. Fourth, learn to relax and to practice other stress-management strategies. Reducing the stress in our lives and practicing relaxation exercises regularly can help us control the frequency of our anger.

Lastly, dont get angry. This may sound simplistic; however, when we consider that anger is rooted in the meaning we give to the events around us, as opposed to the events themselves, it is reasonable to try to alter that initial perception and prevent the anger from occurring altogether.

Psychologists call this cognitive restructuring or reappraisal. For example, if we perceive that someone is trying to slight us in some way, we might ask ourselves if there is another reason for his behavior. It might be possible, for example, that he is unaware of the impact his behavior has on us. Empathy, identifying with the position of the other person, sometimes helps us to make these reappraisals.

Or we might want to put things in proper perspective. For example, if we were counting on someone to mow the lawn for us today and he did not, we can ask ourselves how important it is that the lawn be mowed today as opposed to tomorrow.

Aristotle said, But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right waythis is not easy Nichomachean Ethics. This statement suggests that there is a place for anger. Even Jesus got angry: And making a kind of whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, also the sheep and oxen, and he poured out the money of the changers and overturned the tables John 2: In what situations, if any, do you think anger is an appropriate response?

What would be the right way to express it? Be careful that you do not rationalize your past behavior. We dene it more prosaically as. Most people have experienced it in romantic love, whence the statement Love is blind.

In love or wherever it is found, passion is able to unseat reason, and rational thought becomes rationalized thought. How many women regretably become pregnant because they surrender to the heat of passion? How many lives have been lost to the passion for the high of drugs, and how many good relationships to passion felt for someone else? When we love a person or thing, we do not see the dark side; we tend only to justify our desires. Romantic lovers, for example, idealize their partners and often nd them without faults.

Contrary opinions from friends and family are seen as motivated by jealousy or born of misunderstanding. Our passion may be our religion, our food, or our drugs. It may be sports, the television, a person, a home, or a material object. Whatever the source, we tend to immerse ourselves in our object of passion, revel briey in its taste, and only later, if ever, nd our reason again.

Depression When our object of passion is lost, we may nd ourselves dysphoric or seriously depressed. This response is echoed in the story of Romeo and Juliet and the numerous young and old alike every year who commit suicide out of a deep sense of loss. But the loss of something dear to us is only one cause of depression.

Other causes include biochemical factors, severe stress, a sense of hopelessness, lack of sunlight, and illogical thinking.

Of particular interest to us are the effects that depression may have on thinking. Several studies on depression support the idea that irrational cognitions are correlated with depression. For our purposes irrational and illogical are the same, although some make a distinction here. However, some disagreement exists about whether unhealthy cognitions cause depression, or whether depression causes unhealthy cognitive styles.

Research supports both hypotheses. The conclusion from a longitudinal study on this topic, using a sample of people, is that people change their expectancies and subscribe to irrational beliefs as a result of being depressed, and not the other way around Lewinsohn et al.

Other studies e. The kinds of irrational thinking that often accompany depression include a tendency to see or exaggerate the negative side of a situation and to diminish the positive:. A depressed patient observed that a faucet was leaking in a bathroom, that the pilot light was out in the stove, and that one of the steps in the staircase was broken. He concluded, The whole house is deteriorating.

The house was in excellent condition except for these. Beck, , p. Depressed people also tend to minimize their successes and maximize their failures by attributing their successes to external causes and their failures to internal causes. In general, depressives are more critical of themselves than they should be and see the world and their future in a more negative light than nondepressives do.

That is why suicide prevention centers must often help suicidal people think of alternatives to their problems. Their ability to see their situations clearly is often impaired by their negative mood.

As Schneidman points out, suicidal people, most of whom are depressed, may see only two alternatives to their dilemma: Depression in various degrees is so prevalent that it is often called the common cold of mental illness. Ten percent of college students, for example, exhibit moderate depression Craighead, We have a much greater chance of experiencing mild depression some time in our lives, and even mild depression can negatively color our thinking.

Dealing with Depression Serious depression requires serious psychological or medical intervention by a professional. But if we are suffering from the blues, we must realize that our thinking about ourselves and about life in general is probably colored somewhat by our negative mood. If possible, we should put off major decisions until our mood lifts or talk to others to help us explore alternative courses of action and achieve better insight into our situation.

If we have not already done so, we should exercise, for studies show that exercise can lessen depression Stein and Motta, In the meantime, we can try to identify the causes of our depression and take action to correct them or, if necessary, seek advice on handling those causes. Sometimes the cause of our depression is our own irrational thinking. For example, if we encounter a person who does not like us we may become extremely upset about it and spend much of our waking hours wondering what it is about us that is difficult to like.

We may also strive excessively to please that person, and we might even suffer insomnia worrying about it. Through our own reection or through the help of others we may come to see the irrational assumption underlying our unhealthy reaction: Everyone should like me because Im a nice person.

If we think carefully about this assumption for a moment we can see there is no truth to this, for plenty of nice people, including Jesus, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa had enemies.

No matter how nice we may be, some people will invariably misunderstand us or project on us their own inadequacies. Similarly, students who feel lowered. My worth depends upon my achievements. They need only remind themselves that many psychopaths have done well on college exams to realize the error in this kind of thinking.

Cognitive psychologists help people with dysfunctional thinking to see the irrational nature of their thoughts and then suggest rational replacements. Our friends and colleagues may help us do the same, and we can even learn to do this ourselves. In the paragraph below we can see how one cognitive psychologist challenged the distorted thinking of a student who was fearful of giving a speech sound familiar? I have to give a talk before my class tomorrow and Im scared stiff.

What are you afraid of? I think Ill make a fool of myself. Suppose you do. Why is that so bad? Ill never live it down. Never is a long time. Now look here, suppose they ridicule you. Can you die from it? Of course not. Suppose they decide youre the worst public speaker that ever lived. Will this ruin your future career? But it would be nice if I could be a good speaker. Sure it would be nice.

But if you ubbed it, would your parents or your wife disown you? Theyre very sympathetic. Well, what would be so awful about it? I would feel pretty bad. For how long? For about a day or two. And then what? Then Id be O. The resolution of depression is not always easy. Fortunately, most people do not become severely depressed. And most who are mildly to moderately depressed, unless it is a major personality characteristic, will nd their depression eventually lifting.

In the meantime, we must be careful about the thoughts and decisions we make while depressed and remind ourselves of the cognitive distortions we may be experiencing. They are particularly likely to appear in times of emotional strain.

As you read them, think about instances in which these thinking errors have distorted your thinking, and how these errors have affected your signicant others. Egocentric thinking, in which the world is seen to revolve unduly around the individual. A person might take responsibility for a disappointing picnic at the lake by saying, I should have known it would probably rain today; it rains a lot in May. I should have waited until June. Or walking by a woman in a store with an angry look on her face, a person wonders, Why is she mad at me?

What did I do?


Polarized Thinking. For example, in depression, a person may see himself only in a negative light and fail to see the good characteristics he has. Or if a person is not extremely successful, she might consider herself a loser. A man might say, People either like me, or they hate me, not realizing that people can also have mixed feelings about him.

A person with a borderline personality disorder often sees people as either all good or all bad. Drawing broad conclusions on the basis of a single incident. A student fails one course at college and then believes she is a failure and will not be able to earn her degree. Or after receiving a reprimand duly or unduly deserved, a person thinks, Everyone hates me.

Or after his girlfriend breaks up with him, a man thinks, Im never going to nd someone who will love me. A common characteristic of anxious people in which they consider the worst possible outcome of an event.

Search form

A young man announces to his mother that he is getting married, and she immediately thinks about the likelihood of a deformed baby or even a divorce in his future. A young woman going out on a blind date expects it to be a real disappointment. Or a father, upon hearing that his son intends to major in philosophy, imagines his son permanently unemployed and expects him to be a constant nancial burden.

Selective Abstraction. Focusing on one detail of a situation and ignoring the larger picture. For example, an instructor receives a very favorable evaluation from 90 percent of her students but dwells instead on the unfavorable comments from the few.

Or a football player, after an overall excellent performance, curses himself for the one pass that he should have caught. Beck, Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.

You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen. Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion.

This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis.

Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions: What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds.

The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [ Rather, they are cogent: that is, the evidence seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and the conclusion is therefore probably true.

Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they are not cogent. It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge it is ampliative. It can make predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.

For example, Albert Einstein observed the movement of a pocket compass when he was five years old and became fascinated with the idea that something invisible in the space around the compass needle was causing it to move.

Deductive Approach (Deductive Reasoning)

This observation, combined with additional observations of moving trains, for example and the results of logical and mathematical tools deduction , resulted in a rule that fit his observations and could predict events that were as yet unobserved. Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set.

Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them? First Published Imprint Routledge.

Deductive Reasoning and Strategies

DOI https: Subjects Behavioral Sciences, Education. Export Citation. Get Citation. Schaeken, W. New York: Routledge, https: By Jonathan St. View abstract.The point is to attempt to become more aware of what you think about and how you think. Do you think it would be possible to let go of your idea of self and still act to defend some principle?

You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Consequently, the hypothesis is advanced that maturation of the frontal lobes can explain the striking improvement in performance at age seven.

The key events in the development of new, more effective strategies appear to be the identification and deletion of redundant steps. Later the subjects were asked about their feelings toward the task.

One tradition focuses on the interpretation of the premises, emphasizing linguistic and pragmatic influences. The point is not to determine what is true about the issues but to illustrate the lack of both thinking and knowledge that tends to go into these beliefs.

Do you know that human life emerged on this planet in about 4. In fact, I have argued for many years that behavior on this task can be accounted for simply in terms of choosing what is pragmatically cued as relevant e.

SHERRYL from Los Angeles
I am fond of exploring ePub and PDF books partially . See my other articles. I absolutely love electronics.