ArticlePDF Available

Gas or No Gas: Challenging Deductive Reasoning Skills Using a Carbohydrate Digestive Enzyme Experiment

February 1996
The American Biology Teacher 58(2)

Authors:

Lone Star College

Presents an example involving the metabolism of carbohydrates by microorganisms that provides results that contradict the generally speculated outcome, which is not an unusual situation in many scientific investigations. (JRH)

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Usefulness of beta-galactosidase demonstration in diagnostic bacteriology

Article

Dec 1966

Chapter

The Domain of Deductive Reason

January 1973

Farhang Zabeeh

The primary aim of this chapter is to present a true description of Hume’s theory of deductive sciences, viz., arithmetic and geometry, which appears scattered throughout his work; and to settle once and for all the divergent and often contradictory assertions of Hume’s critics, e.g., Kant, Baumann, Metz, Windelband, etc., on this issue. Secondarily, the aim is to show the inadequacy of Hume’s ... [Show full abstract] two principles, i.e., the principle of meaning and the principle of analyticity, as these principles are applied in the domain of mathematics.

Chapter

Invited Talk: Structured Engineering Argumentation

June 2018 · Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Robin E. Bloomfield

The decision to trust an engineering system—whether to fly in an aircraft, to drive a car - can have real world, societal, environmental and economic consequences. Engineering arguments are multidisciplinary and have a number of characteristics. A significant component of these decisions is science-based and may deploy sophisticated engineering calculations, mathematical models, simulations of ... [Show full abstract] the world and the engineered systems. However, this does not mean the judgments are purely deductive or logical. The framing of the problems, the validation of the assumptions, the application of “stopping rules” to decide when there is sufficient confidence is often an exercise in expert judgement. The overall process is socio-technical with challenge necessary to build confidence, and seeking dissent and counter-evidence important. One contribution to achieving confidence in engineering decisions is assurance cases: “a documented body of evidence that provides a convincing and valid argument that a system is adequately dependable for a given application in a given environment”. Our approach is based on the key concepts of claims, arguments and evidence (CAE): Claims—statements about a property of the system, Evidence that is used as the basis of the justification of the claim, Arguments link the evidence to the claim. Engineering justifications are too complex to express in terms of a simple CAE triple. If we are developing a top down justification, the claims need to be expanded into subclaims until we can identify evidence that can directly support the subclaims. Engineering assurance arguments tend to be some 10 s to 100 s of nodes and have considerable supporting narrative. We have developed an approach to structuring such arguments based on a set of archetypal CAE fragments that we have termed CAE building blocks. The identification of the blocks was supported by an empirical analysis of the types of engineering arguments that are made about safety and dependability from defence, finance and medical applications. Our approach factors out the argument into parts that can be addressed deductively and the side-warrant, which highlights the properties assumed of the world and have an inductive component. In this way we hope to get the benefits of deductive reasoning without losing the important argument that justifies why, in the real world, such deduction is appropriate and valid. These two aspects: the use of CAE fragments and the factorisation of deductive and inductive allow us to speculate how we can best exploit a variety of automated reasoning approaches.

Article

The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #4. Interpreting the C...

January 1990

Peter Facione

Group norms are provided for the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)--College Level, a standardized 34-item multiple-choice test designed to assess the core critical thinking skills associated with baccalaureate general education. The CCTST offers three subtests conceptualized in terms of a national Delphi study on critical thinking. These three subtests--analysis, evaluation, and ... [Show full abstract] inference--correlate strongly with each other and the overall CCTST when used as either a pretest or posttest. Subtests are also offered based on the more traditional division of reasoning into "deductive reasoning" and "inductive reasoning." These latter two subtests also correlate strongly with each other and the overall CCTST when used as either a pretest or posttest. Statistical analyses, correlations, and recommended percentile rankings for raw scores are presented in nine tables. These norms were developed on the basis of analyses of 1,673 test forms for representative samples of college students at a comprehensive urban state university during the 1989-90 school year. (SLD)

Article

Full-text available

Deductive Reasoning in the Structuralist Approach

October 2013 · Studia Logica

Holger Andreas

The distinction between the syntactic and the semantic approach to scientific theories emerged in formal philosophy of science. The semantic approach is commonly considered more advanced and more successful than the syntactic one, but the transition from the one approach to the other was not brought about without any loss. In essence, it is the formal analysis of atomic propositions and the ... [Show full abstract] analysis of deductive reasoning that dropped out of consideration in at least some of the elaborated versions of the semantic approach. In structuralist theory of science, as founded by Sneed and Stegmüller, the focus is on global propositions concerning the question of whether or not certain empirical systems satisfy a set-theoretic predicate that encodes the axioms of a scientific theory. Hence, an analysis of deductive reasoning from atomic premisses with the help of a given theory is missing. The objective of the present paper is to develop a deductive system on the basis of the structuralist framework. This system comes with a novel formulation of empirical propositions in structuralism.

View full-text

Last Updated: 22 Oct 2024

Gas or No Gas: Challenging Deductive Reasoning Skills Using a Carbohydrate Digestive Enzyme Experiment

Abstract

Recommended publications

The Domain of Deductive Reason

Invited Talk: Structured Engineering Argumentation

The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #4. Interpreting the C...

Deductive Reasoning in the Structuralist Approach