Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively
date_range Débute le 13 mars 2017
event_note Se termine le 10 avril 2017
list 4 séquences
assignment Niveau : Introductif
label Management et Ressources humaines
chat_bubble_outline Langue : Anglais
card_giftcard 4.8 points
3.6 /5
Avis de la communauté
5 avis

Les infos clés

credit_card Formation gratuite
verified_user Certification gratuite
timer 8 heures de cours

En résumé

How to Reason Deductively Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning is important. This series of four short courses will teach you how to do it well. You will learn simple but vital rules to follow in thinking about any topic at all and common and tempting mistakes to avoid in reasoning. We will discuss how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments by other people (including politicians, used car salesmen, and teachers) and how to construct arguments of your own in order to help you decide what to believe or what to do. These skills will be useful in dealing with whatever matters most to you. Courses at a Glance: All four courses in this series are offered through sessions which run every four weeks. We suggest sticking to the weekly schedule to the best of your ability. If for whatever reason you fall behind, feel free to re-enroll in the next session.We also suggest that you start each course close to the beginning of a month in order to increase the number of peers in the discussion forums who are working on the same material as you are. While each course can be taken independently, we suggest you take the four courses in order. Course 1 - Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments Course 2 - Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively Course 3 - Think Again III: How to Reason Inductively Course 4 - Think Again IV: How to Avoid Fallacies About This Course in the Series: Imagine that a friend denies that modus ponens is a valid form of argument. Can you prove that it is valid without using modus ponens itself and thereby assuming that it is valid? If so, how? If not, what does this show about the validity of modus ponens? How can phrases like "and", "or", "if", and "not" work as "truth-functional connectives"? In this course, you will learn how to evaluate deductive arguments for validity. In particular, you will learn new ways of representing the information that is contained in the premises of a deductive argument. Using these new representational devices (devices that we call "truth tables" and "Venn diagrams"), we will be able to apply rules to determine whether or not a particular deductive argument is valid. Suggested Readings: Students who want more detailed explanations or additional exercises or who want to explore these topics in more depth should consult Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, Ninth Edition, Concise, Chapters 6 and 7 by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin. Course Format: Each week will be divided into multiple video segments that can be viewed separately or in groups. There will be short ungraded quizzes after each segment (to check comprehension) and a longer graded quiz at the end of the course.

more_horiz Lire plus
more_horiz Lire moins

Le programme

  • Week 1 - Welcome to the Course

    Welcome to Think Again: How to Reason Deductively! This course is the second in a series of four courses jointly titled Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. We are excited that you are taking this course, and we hope that you will stick ar...

  • Week 1 - Propositional Logic and Truth Tables

    CONTENT: This week we will teach you how such phrases as “and”, “or”, “if”, and “not” can work to guarantee the validity or invalidity of the deductive arguments in which they occur. It will also teach you to understand the functioning of these phra...

  • Week 2 - Categorical Logic and Syllogisms

    CONTENT: This week will teach you how such phrases as “all”, “some”, and “none” can work to guarantee the validity or invalidity of the deductive arguments in which they occur. It will also teach you to understand the functioning of these phrases us...

  • Week 3 - Representing Information

    CONTENT: This week we will teach you how to use the tools that you’ve learned about in the preceding modules in order to represent information. Information can be communicated in very different ways – by means of different languages or signaling sys...

  • Week 4 - Catch-Up and Final Quiz

    This week gives you time to catch up and review, because we realize that the previous weeks include a great deal of challenging material. It will also be provide enough time to take the final quiz as often as you want, with different questions each time.


Les intervenants

Dr. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor

Dr. Ram Neta, Professor


Le concepteur

Duke University has about 13,000 undergraduate and graduate students and a world-class faculty helping to expand the frontiers of knowledge. The university has a strong commitment to applying knowledge in service to society, both near its North Carolina campus and around the world.

La plateforme

Coursera est une entreprise numérique proposant des formation en ligne ouverte à tous fondée par les professeurs d'informatique Andrew Ng et Daphne Koller de l'université Stanford, située à Mountain View, Californie.

Ce qui la différencie le plus des autres plateformes MOOC, c'est qu'elle travaille qu'avec les meilleures universités et organisations mondiales et diffuse leurs contenus sur le web.

Avis de la communauté
3.6 /5 Moyenne
Le meilleur avis

Really good course, the material and explanations are good, and even in some cases, resolving or understanding some ideas is challenging, you can get the idea with a little practice

le 2 décembre 2017
Quelle note donnez-vous à cette ressource ?
le 11 février 2018

The professor teaching the course did a good job explaining the concepts behind deductive reasoning. There are however some minor things that annoyed me:(1) Some of the definitions could have been more formal. Sure, you can describe a category as a "collection of things", but a more rigid approach is useful for the more mathematically inclined.(2) Wrong answers in the quizzes are not always explained. You just see "You should not have selected this answer." Okay, but WHY NOT? The learning experience would be better if an explanation would always be given.(3) Some parts are incomplete. For example, the topic on immediate categorical inferences only discusses conversion. It would have been nice to discuss the obversion and contrapositive inference as well. Another example is the lack of the explicit treatment of the biconditional introduction and elimination argument, while the conjunction and disjunction introduction and elimination methods are fully covered.(4) The time spent on the course is short in comparison to Think Again I. For example, week 3 contains less than an hour's effort. Week 2 is also rather short. Instead of cutting it short, useful concepts such as the square of opposition, which is pretty much the basis of the relations between categorical propositions, could have been discussed.(5) At the end of one of the lectures, three links are given for further practice. One of the links didn't work.(6) Some quizzes deal with material that is discussed in later sections.(7) The exam was unbalanced. One lecture was about addressing the validity of an argument containing an unknown/ foreign word. The exam had many many questions about this (IMHO) less relevant subject. All in all: the professor gets a 4.5, the content gets a 3, which makes a 4-.

le 4 décembre 2017

I am sharing my disappointment of the care taken by the lecturer in preparing for his lectures. He is obviously an expert in Logic, and must be very intelligent to hold his academic position - so I have given the course a pass mark. For example his use of Venn Diagrams was sloppy. I had already worked out that I could use Venn Diagrams before he introduced the idea, and I had sketched unambiguous diagrams to help me visualize the use of quantifiers. The lecturer just used an X to mark the intersection between two sets. This is an imprecise way of showing the intersection, and he could have easily drew different Venn Diagrams that unambiguously showed the various quantifiers. Also why did the lecturer choose to sit in a crappy little room, and not even take time to remove distracting objects from the desk behind him etc. To me he sent a signal that he couldn't even take time to arrange for a appropriate background nor design clear visual aids for his students. There are other Logic courses, and I will try them and hope they are better prepared and more respectful of students.

le 2 décembre 2017

Really good course, the material and explanations are good, and even in some cases, resolving or understanding some ideas is challenging, you can get the idea with a little practice

le 17 avril 2017

Great explanations for most subjects. The tests are significantly more complicated than the excercises covered by the lectures.

le 12 septembre 2016

The material in this course is well presented, though scarce at times. However it has its share of problems :-little to no interaction from TA's or mentors in the forums-the quizzes are often out of sync with the lectures-the final exam has severe problems with questions (form not content).In more detail, on the final exam, some of the questions don't even contain all the content to answer them. They can request multiple answers but have single question boxes and/or the reverse.

Vous pourriez être intéressé par...