IB TOK 11

Reason

Here are some important Knowledge Questions concerning Reason:

• What is reason and how is it different than other WOK’s?

• To what extent is reason seen as more truthful than the other
WOK’s? Why is this so?
• What is the relationship between validity and truth and how do
they relate to formal and informal logic?
• How are inductive and deductive logic used and in what
circumstances?
• To what extent is reasoning/logic independent of culture?
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Introductory Logic Problem:

There are 5 houses in 5 different colours. In each house lives a person with a different nationality. These 5 owners drink a different
beverage, smoke a different brand of cigar and keep a different pet. No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or
drink the same drink. From the following facts, and the sentences above, can you determine who keeps the fish?

1. The Brit lives in a red house.

2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets.

3. The Dane drinks tea.

4. The green house is on the left of the white house.

5. The green house owner drinks coffee.

6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.

7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.

8. The man living in the house right in the centre drinks milk.

9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.

10. The man who smokes Blend lives next to the one who keeps cats.

11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.

12. The owner who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.

13. The German smokes Prince.

14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.

15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbour who drinks water.

Write a few sentences explaining how you solved this puzzle. Include the words deductive and inductive logic if you can
(see the first page of the packet).
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Some ideas/definitions concerning Reasoning and Logic:
• Reasoning concerns evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation and is used to extend our
knowledge from known facts. Logic is the branch of philosophy that explores the way we reason. The terms will
often be used interchangeably.

• Reason/logic is associated with rationalism (in the way that perception is associated with empiricism)

• Logic tends to be divided into two areas: deductive and inductive

• Deductive Logic or Deductive Reasoning is a rule-governed method (sometimes called formal logic) which
allows a specific conclusion to be drawn from a set of premises (statements). Deductive reasoning concerns
validity which some say relates to truth. But an argument can be valid but not true as in the following example:

All people are blue

Thomas is a person
Thomas is blue

• Inductive Logic (informal logic) allows a general conclusion to come from a collection of specific cases. Much of
science is based on informal logic (though deductive logic plays a role as well). Different forms of induction
include generalizations, analogies and hypotheses. Induction concerns reliability rather than validity, for the most
part.

• Validity: Validity is the strength of conclusions, inferences or propositions.

• Reliability: the consistency of a measurement or the repeatability of it.

Reliability and Validity: What's the Difference?

From: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Colosi/lcolosi2.htm

Reliability

Definition: Reliability is the consistency of your measurement, or the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time
it is used under the same condition with the same subjects. In short, it is the repeatability of your measurement. A measure is
considered reliable if a person's score on the same test given twice is similar. It is important to remember that reliability is not
measured, it is estimated.

There are two ways that reliability is usually estimated: test/retest and internal consistency.

Test/Retest
Test/retest is the more conservative method to estimate reliability. Simply put, the idea behind test/retest is that you should get the
same score on test 1 as you do on test 2. The three main components to this method are as follows:

1.) implement your measurement instrument at two separate times for each subject;
2). compute the correlation between the two separate measurements; and
3) assume there is no change in the underlying condition (or trait you are trying to measure) between test 1 and test 2.
 IB TOK 11



Reason

Internal Consistency
Internal consistency estimates reliability by grouping questions in a questionnaire that measure the same concept. For example, you
could write two sets of three questions that measure the same concept (say class participation) and after collecting the responses, run a
correlation between those two groups of three questions to determine if your instrument is reliably measuring that concept.

Validity

Definition: Validity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions. More formally, Cook and Campbell (1979) define it
as the "best available approximation to the truth or falsity of a given inference, proposition or conclusion." In short, were we right?
Let's look at a simple example. Say we are studying the effect of strict attendance policies on class participation. In our case, we saw
that class participation did increase after the policy was established. Each type of validity would highlight a different aspect of the
relationship between our treatment (strict attendance policy) and our observed outcome (increased class participation).

Types of Validity:

There are four types of validity commonly examined in social research.

1. Conclusion validity asks is there a relationship between the program and the observed outcome? Or, in our example, is
there a connection between the attendance policy and the increased participation we saw?

2. Internal Validity asks if there is a relationship between the program and the outcome we saw, is it a causal relationship?
For example, did the attendance policy cause class participation to increase?

3. Construct validity is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there is there a relationship between how I
operationalized my concepts in this study to the actual causal relationship I'm trying to study/? Or in our example, did our
treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our measured outcome - increased class
participation - reflect the construct of participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized treatment and
outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.

4. External validity refers to our ability to generalize the results of our study to other settings. In our example, could we
generalize our results to other classrooms?
 IB TOK 11



Reason
LOGIC: INTRODUCTION
Or, THE VERY LEAST YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH KNOWING ABOUT LOGIC

He's a fool who cannot conceal his wisdom. - Benjamin Franklin

The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison

• Logic is the branch of philosophy that explores the way we reason. It is the study of the principles of sound
reasoning.

• Logic is a formalization of a reasoning process which we use every day, as we apply the generalizations
which we have already made to new particular examples we encounter.
e.g. You check the table of contents or index of a book not consciously thinking:
All books have tables of contents.
The History of Canada is a book.
The history of Canada has a table of contents.

• Formal logic presents a set form for expression and rules, so that ideas may be examined with maximum
clarity and certainty in argument. It attempts to overcome ambiguity of language and fuzziness of
thought.

• This clarity and certainty make formal logic a powerful tool for thought.

• One may want to examine closely the premises before accepting them. Only if they are true will the
conclusion certainly be true.

• Truth applies to the content of the statements. Validity applies to the logical sequence of the argument,
the thinking process itself. LOGIC IS CONCERNED NOT WITH TRUTH BUT RATHER WITH VALIDITY.
Logic produces knowledge based on reason rather than experience. Consider this argument:

Frank is an 11th grade student at the International School of Kuala Lumpur.

All 11th grade students at ISKL study taxidermy.
Therefore, Frank studies taxidermy.

This is a valid argument. If all the 11th grade students at ISKL study taxidermy, and Frank is an 11th grade
student at ISKL, then he must study taxidermy. Notice the argument does not have to be true to be
valid. Nobody at ISKL studies taxidermy but the argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the
premises. The premises can be false but the argument is valid. LOGIC TESTS REASONING, NOT
TRUTH!

• No new information in the sense of fresh, newly discovered data is created in the logical process. Logic
looks only at the information already given, and combines it, manipulates it, and out of it draws logical
inferences. The conclusions reached – the new knowledge obtained – is the result of understanding
implications already in the information given.

• Logical training is an asset to clarity and ease of manipulation of ideas. Yet, like any training, it develops
the mind according to a certain pattern. Creative thinking, or the generation of fresh ideas and fresh
approaches, may actually be impeded by such training.

If you want to truly understand something, try to change it" - Kurt Lewin
 IB TOK 11



Reason

Formal Logic

In the language of logic, each of the first two lines is called a premise. The last line is called the conclusion. The three
sentences together are called an argument. If the conclusion follows logically from the two premises, the argument is
said to be valid. If the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, it is invalid.
Logic is all about reasons and reasoning. It is concerned with reasons for believing and its central task is to establish
whether something is valid or not. Being valid is not the same as being true but, as you will see, perhaps it gets us as
close as we could possibly be to the truth.
The purpose of logic is to take statements (or “propositions”) and determine their consistency using logical rules and
principles. These are usually stated in a syllogism (aka deductive reasoning).
Syllogism definition: a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a
conclusion. For example: Every virtue is laudable.
Kindness is a virtue.
Therefore, kindness is laudable.
SYLLOGISM RULES:

Rule # 1 A syllogism must have three terms, each used exactly twice.

All A is B. All men are mortal.

All C is A. OR Socrates is a man.
Therefore , all C is B. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Rule # 2 A syllogism must have either no exclusions (neg.) or two exclusions, one of which
must appear in the conclusion.

Girls are not allowed to join the club.

Tara is a girl.
Tara is not allowed to join the club.

HUH?

Here is an illustration of a little logic: a certain British Army regiment decided to engage a barber; but, since there were
more men in the regiment than he could take of, and since some of the men did not mind shaving themselves, the
commanding officer declared that the barber “was to shave all those men who do not shave themselves.” This seemed
quite clear; but what about the barber himself? If he does shave himself, then he is not to shave himself; and if he does
not shave himself, then he is to shave himself.
…bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the
practical side of logic. Charles Sanders Peirce

Syllogism definition: a word used by logicians to describe the argument in which a conclusion is based on two premises.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
INDUCTIVE REASONING:

While deductive Logic has neat rules, and is mechanical in a sense, Inductive Logic has no such certainty.
However, it is what is used far more in daily life. It is holistic (evaluates and relates the whole picture) and also
gives us the convenience of NOT having to examine each piece of evidence. For this very reason, it can offer
uncertainty, but also can offer general certainties. (Samples/surveys are often used to generalize form.)

Inductive logic must make a leap from the particular to the general – from ‘some’ to ‘all’.

There are three forms of Induction:

a. Generalization – to conclude from samples of the same class
b. Analogy - to conclude from strong similarities
c. Hypothesis - to conclude from different facts the same base

All three are to be judged for their RELIABILITY - none claim validity. Thus, for a reliable generalization, one must
have:
- sufficient number of cases
- representative cases
- consistency with other beliefs/theories

WHAT ARE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS? WATCH FOR FALLACIES:

Scotch and Soda makes me drunk.

Rye and soda makes me drunk.
Whisky and Soda makes me drunk.
Aha! Soda makes me drunk.

Nature of the Cases:

- Homogenous – cases have identical characteristics (one sip of sour milk will do)- usually reaches for Laws
or Nature. These do not need large number of samples.
- Heterogeneous - usually reaches for the human element (not tied to the uniformity of nature) Could need
multiple samples

Thus the Natural Sciences are often thought to be more reliable than the Social Sciences. (Later in the course you
will measure this)

The supreme irony of life is that no one gets out of it alive. - Robert Heinlein

The pleasant life is not produced by continual drinking and dancing, nor sexual intercourse, nor rare dishes of
seafood and other delicacies of a luxurious table. On the contrary, it is produced by sober reasoning which
examines the motives for every choice and avoidance, driving away beliefs which are the source of mental
disturbances. - Epicurus
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Formal Logic Worksheet (Deductive Reasoning)
SYLLOGISMS – A deduction drawn from two premises. It is the basic Aristotelian argument form. The major
part of a syllogism is in the predicate of the conclusion. Mark the syllogisms valid or invalid.
Do not worry too much about the rules, just try to use your instinct.

1. All taffy is sticky.

Some sticky things are unpleasant.
Therefore, some taffy is unpleasant. _____________

2. All leaves are green.

All figs are leaves.
Therefore, all figs are green. _____________

3. All children like to play.

All females like to play.
Therefore, all females are children. ______________

4. All zebras have stripes.

No zebras are polar bears.
Therefore, no polar bears have stripes. _____________

5. No ship is safe.
All ships are large.
Therefore, no large things are safe. _____________

6. All men are smart.

All smart things are small.
Therefore, all men are small. ______________

7. All triangles have three sides.

No three-sided things are squares.
Therefore, no triangles are square. ______________

8. All flags can wave.

Some flags are red.
Therefore, some red things can wave. ______________

9. Nothing that spins is square.

All tops are spinning objects.
Therefore, no tops are square. _____________

10. All presidents are short.

All short people are brave.
Therefore, all presidents are brave. ____________
 IB TOK 11



Reason
The following eight statements involve hypothetical syllogisms (if…then). Here, an antecedent (A) and a consequence
(C) are used in the major premise. In this type of logic, (A) must happen before (C) in time and the conclusion must
necessarily follow from (C).

State whether each formal argument is VALID or INVALID. (bold or highlight V or INV.) In a hypothetical syllogism,
the conclusion MUST be valid if either of these situations is true:
(1) the minor premise affirms the antecedent (AA) or
(2) the minor premise denies the consequence (DC).
The first one is analyzed for you, for the rest, try to explain your invalid choices:

1. If I go on a diet (A), then I will lose weight. (C) (major premise)

And I went on a diet, (affirms the antecedent (AA)) V INV
So, I lost weight. (therefore conclusion is valid)

2. If I go on a diet, then I will lose weight.

And I lost weight. V INV
So, I went on a diet.

3. If I go on a diet, then I will lose weight

I didn’t lose weight. V INV
So, I didn’t go on a diet.

4. If I go on a diet, then I will lose weight.

I didn’t go on a diet, so I didn’t lose weight. V INV

5. If it snows, then school will be closed.

The school was closed, thus, it snowed. V INV

6. If it snows, then school will be closed.

It snowed, so, the school was closed. V INV

7. If it snows, then my car won’t start. My car started. So, it didn’t snow. V INV

8. If it snows, then my car won’t start. It didn’t snow. So, my car started. V INV

9. If I lose weight, then I will go on a diet.

I went on a diet. So, I lost weight. V INV

10. If the school will be closed, then it snowed.

The school was closed, thus, it snowed. V INV
 IB TOK 11



Reason
The following five statements involve disjunctive syllogisms (either…or). The major premise offers two possibilities (P
+ Q). The minor premise must deny one of the possibilities. Then, it necessarily follows that you affirm the other
possibility in the conclusion. State whether each formal argument is VALID or INVALID. The first one is done for
you.

1. Either Joan was joking (P) or she really loves him. (Q)
She really loves him. (minor premise does not deny, it affirms) V INV
So, she wasn’t joking. (technically, this is not valid given the rules)

Note: While it might seem a logical conclusion, it is not valid in the sense of how the word “or” is treated (exclusive
or inclusive). In other words, a disjunct cannot be affirmed, it must be denied.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

2. Either Joan was joking or she really loves him.

She was joking. V INV
She doesn’t love him.

3. Either Joan was joking or she really loves him.

She doesn’t love him, so, she was joking. V INV

4. Either Joan was joking or she really loves him.

She wasn’t joking, so, she really loves him. V INV

5. Either Joan was joking or she really loves him.

She was joking. So, she loves him. V INV

Make Your Own: Write one typical syllogism (Aristotelian), one hypothetical syllogism and one disjunctive syllogism
all on a single topic of your choice (like basketball or nuclear physics). They should all be valid but not necessarily
true! Then try to write one that does not make sense and is funny.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Informal Logic

An argument is not a fight, but the progression of ideas from premises to conclusion. In logic, we start with premises (our
assumptions, our “givens”), we reason from them, and finally we reach conclusions.

Formal logic demands a careful laying out of ideas for scrutiny in the form of a syllogism, or 3- part step in reasoning:

Major premise: all men are mortal

Minor premises: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
(This is an example that logic texts use relentlessly.)

Informal logic does not demand that the reasoning be laid out in any particular form. A fallacy is an error in logical
thinking. There are many – oh, so many – fallacies waiting to be committed.

CATEGORY 1: FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE (also fallacies of logic)

This category of fallacies deals with those errors in thinking created by bringing in ideas or emotions which are not
relevant to the argument.

1. ad hominem: (argument against the man) shifting from argument based on reason to an attack on the arguer:
“You can’t believe him. He’s been in prison.”

2. ad verecundiam: (appeal to authority) accepting an argument not on its own merit but because of the status of the
person putting it forward. Acceptance of authority is particularly dubious if the status of the person has nothing to
do with the issue under discussion. “vitamin C must be a cure for colds, because Dr. Newton says so, and he is a
highly regarded physicist.”

Both of these above share a tactic: arguing for the acceptance or rejection of a statement not on the basis
of the argument but on the basis of the source, the speaker.

3. ad populam: (argument to the people or appeal to the gallery) attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by
arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude – a favorite device of advertising and propaganda. It can
involve slanted language, glamorous association, or mass appeal: “1000 housewives can’t be wrong.”

4. special pleading : accepting a general principle, but making oneself or one’s own group an exception.
“Everyone should pay income tax honestly, but I really need the money.” “A lineup is a fair way of getting lunch,
but I have to go to the front because…..”

5. Evasion / ignoring the question / red herring: getting off the topic, distracting the attention from the argument.
Diversionary tactics are often used by people who find the direction of discussion rather uncomfortable.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
CATEGORY 2: FALLACIES OF LOGIC
This category of fallacies groups together errors of thinking based on failure of clear reasoning – failure to reason from
evidence in inductive reasoning, and failure to follow a logical pattern in deductive reasoning.

6. problem with the premise (The premises of an argument are the assumptions with which we start. We need to
recognize what we are assuming.)

a. missing premise: The assumption is not stated, but lies behind the statement made. E.g. “This dress must
be good, because it was very expensive.” We may agree or disagree with the premise, but only by calling
it to conscious awareness can we examine it. This fallacy can also lead to “begging the question”. E.g.
“This senseless language requirement should be abolished. “ First we must establish that the language
requirement is senseless, and only then argue that on such grounds it should be abolished.
b. False premise: The premise (regardless of whether it is a missing premise or one clearly expressed) is
false. If we start with false information, we are scarcely likely to reach sound conclusions. E.g. “He must
be pretty rich, because he goes to Pearson College.”

Closely related are 7,8, and 9 below. Something has gone wrong with the movement from the premises to the
conclusion in a deductive argument.

7. complex question: Failure to separate the premise from the conclusion based it, so that neither “yes” nor “no” is
appropriate. In agreeing or disagreeing, we are implicitly accepting a premise that we may want to reject. E.g.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” “Have you stopped cheating on exams?”

8. argument in a circle: using as a conclusion material that has already been assumed in one of the premises:
A: “You’ve got to do what I say because I’m in charge.”
B: “How do I know that you are in charge?”
A: “Because everyone’s got to do what I say.”

9. non sequitur: (“it does not follow”) assuming that a statement follows from the one before, even though they
may not be related. “I can’t understand why I do so badly in Math; after all, I bought the most expensive textbook
on the bookstore shelf.”

Although we can never have certainty in an empirical inductive conclusion, we still want sufficient
evidence (whatever that is) before we consider a belief justified. The next two fallacies are based on
accepting inadequate evidence.

10. hasty generalization: sloppy inductive reasoning, generalizing from unrepresentative or insufficient cases:
“That racial/ethnic/religious groups is so X. I work with three people from that group. And they’re very X.”
How do we deal with taking a stand when we are giving opposing statements?

11. false dichotomy / oversimplification is a generic term for ignoring alternatives and complexities and thus
implying that the question can be settled more easily than is the case. A black or white argument, one form,
ignores differences of degree, and presents only the extremes as alternatives. One of the most famous is George
Bush’s, “you are either with us or against us.”

12. truth is in the middle: assuming that an average or a compromise is necessarily the solution to alternatives. If I
see two $5 bills on the floor and ask myself whether it would be reasonable to steal them, does it make any sense
to conclude that it would be all right to take one?
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Other major fallacies:

13. false cause: It can be difficult to make a causal connection between events. In seeking the causes of a war, how
many do we take into account, and which ones do we emphasize? How do we separate them from each other?
How far back in history do we go, tracing causes of the causes? Can we eliminate false hypotheses by setting up a
control, as in a lab experiment? Do we assume the causal connection will hold in the future? We search for
explanations, but make lots of mistakes on the way.
Non causa pro causa (not the cause, for the cause): mistaking what is not the cause of a particular effect for its
real cause. “Oh, she didn’t help you with math? I thought that was why you got a good mark this time.”
Posthoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): assuming that because one event followed
another, it must have been the result of the other: “When that important dignitary visited the college, the weather
improved. I wish he’d return and bring the sunshine back!” “after that black cat crossed my path, I had a terrible
day. It must have brought me bad luck.” “I ate breakfast today – and I got mail!”

14. false analogy: using a likeness to something else as the basis for argument. Any two things have some point of
similarity; it cannot be concluded that they therefore are alike in other regards. “The mind is like a knife, cutting
through difficult problems. But just as too much cutting dulls a knife, so too much education dulls the mind.” The
mind is also like a wheel, like a bird, like a car, like a song. . . .etc.

CATEGORY 3: FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE

Language alone can distort and subvert the reasoning process. Formal logic and mathematics try to avoid fuzzy meaning
by replacing words with precisely defined symbols. Below are three of the most common language fallacies.

(a) Jargon: This is the use of sophisticated and sometimes technical language. It usually occurs within a specific
group (teachers know what formative assessment is, most other adults do not) and allows members to
communicate quickly and more effectively. However it can be used to make simple things seem complex and can
be exclusionary to non members of the group.

(b) Euphemisms or “Weasel Words”: Worse than jargon, weasel words is the INTENTIONAL use of alternate
wording to DECEIVE the listener. The military is rife with such language as in “collateral damage” (dead
civilians or innocents) or “friendly fire” (killing your own troops) to name a few.

(c) Emotive Wording: This is the most dangerous language fallacy because it uses emotionally loaded terms to
encourage an illogical reaction. The word “terrorism” or “terrorist” can be used in ways to arouse suspicion and
malice towards a group or an act in the same way the term ‘freedom fighter” can do the opposite.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
FIND THE MISSING PREMISES (the first one is done as an example)

1. It must be a good university; the fees are extremely high.

Missing premise: all good universities have high fees (and vica versa) or words to that effect

2. A couple invited for the first time to the home of John and Mary Smith: “What a delicious dinner! Mary, you are
such a good cook!

3. If you’re so hungry, why don’t you just order a pizza?

4. African to Canadian: “When the arena opens, will you teach me to play hockey?”

5. If you want to know whether Maria has arrived, why don’t you ask a Latino?

6. No, I don’t want to join one of those showy activities like Coastwatch. I want to visit an old age home so that I’m
doing real service.

7. How am I suppose to get any sleep in the afternoon if you keep bringing your friends into the room?

8. “Oh no! The button has come off my shirt. Well, I’m glad there are lots of girls at this college.”

9. If we’re going to have a party on Saturday, who’s going to arrange for the alcohol?

10. I’m not going to service today, because I have to work on my EE.

11. “It’s useless writing a letter on this Amnesty International case. Do you think His Excellency is going to pay any
attention to a letter from me?

12. “You have to be careful about showing explicit movies here, you know. Not everyone here is western.”

13. What kind of TV programs do you watch at home?

14. On first meeting, making conversation: “What’s your favorite rock group?”
 IB TOK 11



Reason
LOGICAL FALLACIES: Name the following fallacies (there may be more than one answer, but find one you
are comfortable with for now). The first one is done for you.

1. Yes, I know there’s supposed to be just one dessert per person. But I really like cake.
Special pleading

2. My essay is so far overdue now that another day won’t matter.

3. It’s so strange. She’s Swedish, but she doesn’t know how to cook.

4. “Good morning. Have you got over your bad mood?”

5. The mind is like a knife, cutting through difficult problems. But just as too much cutting dulls a knife, so too
much education dulls the mind.

6. Of course it didn’t rain! I carried my umbrella.

7. Yes, there’s a Santa Claus. But he doesn’t bring presents to children who don’t believe in him.

8. Surely you are not supporting that project! That horrible man Frank Brown is organizing it.

9. “Halt! Who goes there? Friend or foe?”

10. Yum! Cheesecake! Well, just a few more calories won’t make any difference!

11. No, of course I haven’t had any accident this year. I had seatbelts installed in the car.

12. Teenagers should not have drivers’ licenses. I was almost run over twice by teenagers on my way to work this
morning. They’re just such bad drivers.

13. What you’re saying can’t be taken seriously. You’re much too young to know what you’re talking about.

14. Are you with us, or against us?

15. I’m going to wear my lucky shirt to my math exam. I wore it for the last exam, and I did quite well.

16. Oh no! My coat is missing two buttons. I’ll have to find a girl to fix it for me.

17. One judge to another: “Don’t worry about it. One day you’re feeling depressed and you give 20years to some
poor guy. The next day you feel great and everybody gets a suspended sentence. It all evens out in the end.”

18. Just after I started taking Theory of Knowledge the doctor told me I needed glasses. That course can really distort
your vision.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Deduction and Induction

Part 1: Use the area below to paste ideas/definitions/points about deductive and inductive logic/reasoning. Sometimes
these are referred to as induction or deduction. Also, reasoning and logic are, at times, used interchangeably in the
literature.

Part 2: Venn Diagram. Use text boxes (without borders) and overlapping circles to create a Venn diagram. Use the
heading “Deductive Logic” in one circle and “Inductive Logic” in the other.

Part 3: Sherlock Homes Clip. Watch the “Watson Tries Deduction” clip from the old BBC series Sherlock Holms.

1) How is the word deduction used in the clip (i.e. in what context)?

2) Write two formal logic syllogisms based on the dialogue in the clip

3) How is the term “truth” used in this clip? How does that relate to Logic?
 IB TOK 11



Reason
CNN Debate on Gun Control: Logical Fallacies

Quote statements made by Alex Jones and Pierce Morgan and write the logical fallacies associated with
them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg
 IB TOK 11



Reason
REASON AS A WAY OF KNOWING
Stuart, Tony. 2000. Regarding the World. Sevenoaks: Caxton and Holmesdale.

Physically, there is very little that is special about humans. Mentally, most of what
happens isn't all that special either. There is one thing, however, that humans do
that no other species does, not even the really clever ones like chimps and dolphins:
we ask 'why?'

Animals can be trained to show how intelligent they are. Examples would include
carrying out a sequence of complicated tasks, or manipulating language symbols to
answer questions and to make statements. A chimp can be asked to retrieve a
banana from some inaccessible place. It might try to get it; it may not bother. It
doesn't think 'why?' Ask a young child to do something and you may well be asked
'why?' The child wants a reason.

Answering a “why” question

Pick any statement you like. Ask the question 'why?' Answer the question. Ask
'why?' again. Keep repeating the process for as long as you can. You'll probably
find you can't get much further than about four successive answers. Let's try it:

"The weather’s nice today."

“Why?”
“Because it’s sunny.”
“Why?”
"Because there is no cloud cover.”
“Why?”
"Because the relative temperature, pressure and
saturation of the air above us means that water
molecules have not aggregated into droplets."
"Why?"
"It’s a natural law."
"Why?"
"Your guess is as good as mine - or anyone else’s."

And there is nowhere else to go - we've run out of reasons for the nice weather and, if we were to continue, would be looking
for reasons for relative strength of guesswork and so on.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Reasons are explanations. They give an account of something which fits in with our view of the world. That is not
to say that reasons are always correct because that depends on how good our view of the world is. If we believe in a
world in which fairies, gnomes, wicked witches and magic castles are entirely credible, then:
"Why did Cinderella meet the charming Prince?"
Could be satisfactorily answered with:
"Her fairy godmother enchanted various animals and vegetables."

However, the more we reason about things, the less satisfied we become with reasons like the last one. We want our reasons
to be true.

PUZZLE 1 A certain company designs a pesticide to kill locusts. They test it on the locusts in the lab
etc, and it works fine. They test it against "outdoor conditions" and find that it doesn't decompose /
evaporate / react with the crop in the field / become less effective in any way.
So they test it on some field with a locust problem. Surprisingly, they find that the population of the
locust actually increases!!
Can you come up with a plausible explanation?

(Incidentally it's similar to the reason why fisherman who fished during World War II caught more
sharks than usual when they went out fishing.)

Reasoning and truth

Reasoning is the process we go through to produce satisfactory explanations. What gives us confidence that our
reasoning about something is true? Here we hit a tough philosophical problem: What is truth? The simple answer to
this is:

"The truth is what is the real actual state of things. We can check our reasons by checking with the physical world
out there. If you say 'The weather s nice' and I look out of the window and see that it is sunny, then what you say is
true."(Correspondence test)

This definition of truth depends on there being a physical world of facts that exists independently of our
mental world. . If this assumption is true, then all we have to do to get at the truth is to compare our mental
world with the physical world and see if they agree. If they do, then our reasoning is spot on; if they don't,
then we need to try again, perhaps after collecting a few more facts.

To me, this seems such a beautiful bit of reasoning that it's a pity that someone had to ask 'Why?' But
someone did and it's hard to give them a good reason in reply. The difficulty is that “the real, the actual,
state of things” which we think of as existing independent of our minds can only be thought of when we
have taken it into our minds in the first place. Thus, the world we think of has to be a mental world - the
only way we could get out and think about the 'real, physical' world would be not to think at all!

Is there a good answer to this problem? It seems that most philosophers agree that the best answer is as
follows: Our mental world is shaped by the belief that the thoughts we have represent some real, physical
world. In other words we have objective thoughts and these apply to the real, physical world. If we try to
make these objective thoughts nice and orderly, then we generate an objective world which is the nearest
we are ever going to get to the real thing.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Having revealed that in this part of knowledge there is a lot of deep and scary water, I leave it to you and
other hardy explorers to pull on the scuba gear if you like. I'm heading back to firmer ground.

PUZZLE 2 A hunter was chasing a bear. He sees the bear in the distance and hurries to the
spot where saw it. On reaching the spot, he finds the bear has moved away. Deciding to look
for the bear, he walks 1km south, then 1km east and 1km north. In the mean time, the bear
moved 1km south, and then went 1km north again. At the end of this, the hunter finds himself
at the same spot of the bear, and shoots it. (He misses because he's a lousy shot, and the bear
ate him, but that's a different story)
All distances stated above are accurate to within one wavelength of Sodium light, and all
directions correct

What color was the bear?

Pure reason
This is a way of acquiring knowledge that will strike you as blindingly obvious. The main attraction of it is that you
don't have to make any reference to what I've been calling the physical world at all. Indeed, without this sort of
knowledge you cannot begin to make sense of any objective (and physical) world at all. By this I mean that before
you can make sense of any information that comes into your mind, there has to be a set of basic beliefs about how
things are. If you don't have this set of basic beliefs, then it would be impossible to begin thinking in the first place.
Such beliefs include the fundamentals of arithmetic (which I'll turn to in more detail in the 'Mathematics' section);
logical statements and principles; the belief that an event has to have a cause; the belief that there are laws of nature
that can be discovered; the belief that people and other objects occupy a particular place and that they persist in time.
As I say, all these things seem so obvious that there seems little point in questioning them.

Asking ourselves if these basic beliefs are true or not threatens to take us back to the deep waters of the previous
section. Perhaps we can be satisfied with just accepting that this is how the mind is and, as before, acknowledging
that, although we can be certain of some of the things in our mind, we cannot ever be equally certain about what
we'd call the physical world. Such basic beliefs are as true for us as anything can be. But the question we might ask
is: Is my set of basic beliefs the same as yours? Do we all reason in the same way?

The answer must be 'yes'; reasoning is universal (we all do it the same way) and objective (and, if we are careful,
will get the same answer). However, the reason why it must be 'yes' isn't so straightforward as we might like. That's
because it isn't an explanation of why it is so, it's an explanation of why it cannot be any other way.

Some people say that reason is always going to be subjective because we have only our own thoughts about which
we can be sure; you cannot be equally sure about the processes of thought going on inside anyone else's head. Thus,
the 'truth' that I have about things is just my truth. Your 'truth' may be different and as valid as any other person's
'truth'. This must be wrong because it doesn't make sense.

Consider this:

Andrew: "Everybody has their own version of the truth."

Barbara: "I think that all people share the same truth."
 IB TOK 11



Reason
If what Andrew has said is true, then what Barbara has said must be true (since she is one of the 'everybody'). But if
what Barbara says is true then Andrew must be wrong. On the other hand, if what Barbara has said is true then what
Andrew has said must be false, so Andrew must be wrong.

In short, Andrew's argument proves itself wrong. Notice that this doesn't prove that Barbara is right (that there is
objective truth). But it does show that the counter-argument is not right.

A more compelling argument for reason being universal is that no matter what arguments are ranged against it, these
arguments themselves must appeal to reason. Someone might say "We reason as we do because that is the way our
culture has brought us up ". However, we can still ask such a person "Why do we?" And ultimately the answer they
give us will be using reason and not using a cultural explanation. Even if they answer "Because that’s how our
culture has brought us up" can you see that this is a reasonable explanation rather than a cultural one?

Reason is the absolute end of the line. We cannot question reason except by using reason. And if you refuse
to use reason, you are mad.

Reasoning and Logic

Logic is all about reasons and reasoning. It is concerned with reasons for believing and its central task is to establish
whether something is valid or not. Being valid is not the same as being true but, as you will see, perhaps it gets us as
close as we could possibly be to the truth. What separates logic from other sorts of reasoning is most easily
demonstrated by using a couple of examples:

Imagine a virgin male aged 20. Why is he celibate? We might reply that he is celibate because he was brought up in
a strict household where obedience to the moral code of the Bible was instilled in him and that these lessons were
reinforced by his school and church. This is a reasonable explanation for his celibacy but it is not strictly logical.

Contrast the above with this:

A man believes the following:

1. Having sexual relations outside marriage is wrong.
2. I am unmarried.
3. I am doing no wrong.
Therefore, I am celibate.

Just by looking at the man's beliefs we can see that his celibacy must follow from them. (Notice that we do not have to share
his beliefs - and they may not all be true. But neither of these considerations affects the logic.) We would say that the man
has a good reason for being celibate. This would not be the case for the following, however:

A man believes the following:

1. Most unmarried people are celibate.

2. That woman is unmarried.
Therefore, she is celibate.

Here the conclusion is a bad reason because it does not necessarily follow.

(In logic, necessarily means 'must certainly always and forever be'.)

She may be celibate, but further evidence is needed because the evidence of these beliefs alone are not enough to
guarantee it.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
A simple test for whether a conclusion is valid or invalid (i.e. a good reason or a bad reason) is to ask: "Can the
beliefs be true and yet the conclusion be false?" We can answer 'yes' to the second example and this shows it is
invalid. In general, an argument is valid if it is impossible for all the beliefs set out initially to be true and yet the
conclusion be false.

Thus, if:

1. All books without pictures are dull.

2. This is a book without pictures.
Therefore, this is a dull book.

The conclusion is perfectly valid (and may even be true). Logic is built up from principles that are self-
evidently true. It would be impossible to imagine that anyone could disagree with the logic in the previous example
(provided they understood the meaning of the sentences, of course). Or that the logical identity of 'A dog is a dog' is
open to question. Or that we can have two statements like' He is male' and' He is not male' being both true for one
and the same person at one and the same time. The inconsistency of the last logical principle is often made use of
when we try to change someone's belief. We might argue:

'Look, you think all teachers are boring, don't you? And you agree Mr. Brown is a
teacher. Right? And yet you say he so interesting! Make up your mind!'

We would expect that merely by pointing out these statements that it is obvious that Mr. Brown cannot be
interesting. Further argument would be unnecessary.

The purpose of logic is to take statements (or 'propositions') and determine their consistency using such logical rules
and principles as those above. To achieve this, logic uses symbolic notation to stand for beliefs and the ways of
manipulating them. This is mathematical because quantity is involved - from a through some and most to all.
There was great hope early in the 20th century that logical analysis could be brought to bear upon all our statements
of belief; just fit the belief into the appropriate equation, press the button and, hey presto, out pops the answer 'valid'
or 'not valid'. Unfortunately, natural language has not proved as competent as had been hoped. Thus logic uses
artificial language that gets as close to our natural language as it can. In doing this it has made great contributions
towards clarifying and demystifying certain ways of thinking. It is a powerful tool for laying bare weaknesses in
argument, false beliefs, and inconsistent thinking. It is, perhaps, not sophisticated enough to make us confident that
we are nearer the truth by using it (as yet?), but it is invaluable for cutting away past daftness.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
Practical reason

In this sort of reasoning we relax the requirement for certainty. We have to do this because we want to extend our knowledge
beyond the certainties that we can derive from areas such as mathematics and logic. Our world consists of other areas which
are of great importance to us such as science, arts and ethics. We want answers to the question 'why?' in these areas too and
reasoning has proved to be a powerful way of getting them.

What limits reason to something less than certainty outside math and logic has to do with the quality of the input and the
range of possible outcomes that could result. '2 + 2', for example, is a top-quality input because we can be certain of each of
the things in it (each' 2' and the '+' could not be mistaken or confused). Likewise '= 4' is the only possible outcome (it cannot
be wrong). But 'humans and chimps share a common ancestor' has far more in its contents that can be questioned; and so
'because they both have many genes in common' is less certain: there may be other explanations for the similarities. And
further still 'Bach and Beethoven are great composers' is far less obviously followed by 'because their music has such scope
for re-interpretation'; and' Killing people is wrong' is not always justified by 'because human life is sacred'. That said, even if
certainty eludes us, we do look for satisfactory explanations - reasons - for such things. This is what we call practical reason;
explanations that help us live our lives more fully. We want to understand the world. We want to have confidence that our
explanations of the world approach (even if they don't coincide with) the truth. Reasoning has proved the best way for
making consistent sense of the world.

Finally, the great thing about reason is that it can be used to challenge any authority. You can keep asking “Why?” until the
authority gives you a satisfactory explanation, tells you that you are too stupid to understand, or shuts you up. You assert
your humanity when you demand to know “Why?”

Stuart, Tony. 2000. Regarding the World. Sevenoaks: Caxton and Holmesdale.
 IB TOK 11



Reason
From the IB Syllabus

Reason
What is the difference between reason and logic? How reliable is inductive reasoning? Are we predictably
irrational?

Reason allows us to go beyond the immediate experience of our senses. It is closely linked to logic—
the deducing of valid conclusions from given starting points or premises. Human reasoning can also be
inferential in nature, allowing conclusions to be drawn that cannot be strictly deduced from their premises.
It then becomes an interesting question of whether standards of rationality and norms of reasoning are
grounded in culture. Areas of knowledge might set their own requirements for the types of reasoning that
are accepted.

Inductive reasoning is the process of supporting general statements by a series of particular ones—the
reverse of deductive reasoning which tends to proceed from the general to the particular. Inductive
reasoning is by its nature inferential. Statements involving the word “all” are often not strictly provable
given the difficulties in making observations of an infinite set of particulars. This is of importance in the
natural sciences but also in human sciences such as psychology and economics.