That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion. Both types of reasoning are routinely employed. One difference between them is that in deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world. This is where inductive reasoning steps in.
Coontz expresses throughout her excerpt that the 1950’s may have been a golden age in economics; but it wasn’t so much the golden age for the women or minorities. In paragraphs 8-12, it gives us a history of what it
It is an umbrella term, associated with many types of disciplines outside the historical realm, and can be segregated into an explanation of national identity or the archival support in the background. On top of this, all of the authors agree that memory and history are interdependent. They are able to question and enhance each other because of the opposite natures. As such, it can be guaranteed that historians of this generation are subject to the subjectivity of the memory-history relationship. Absolute truth to what happened in the past is impossible to find, but we may be able to piece together perspectives to create a story of the historical past.
The second of Hume’s points is that the causal principle is doubtful. His evidence for this is that we can conceive of things without a cause therefore things without a cause are possible this is also backed up by Mackie who says that the causal principle has no evidence and only exists in a methodological sense. However this argument also has severe faults that discredit it. If the arguments from causality are questionable then that means that the arguments from conceivability are questionable as well. This could also mean that a logically necessary truth could be conceived as false if you don’t completely understand it.
Describe the role and status of royal and non-royal women in Persia society of this period. Supported by many historians and sources found, the Persian empire during the reign of Darius and Xerxes was strongly patriarchal. This is evident through the lack of sources of women during that time as the images that exist are mostly of men. Many Greek writers such as Herodotus did mention and name some Persian women of the court but these accounts are coloured by Greek prejudices of the authors so can’t always be reliable source of evidence. Thus, understanding of women in Persia during the reign of Darius and Xerxes is limited as sources found only briefly add to our understanding of the economic and social roles of non-royal and royal women throughout the empire.
It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
While this counterexample satisfies the conditions of the D-N model it explains a cause using the effect rather than explaining the effect by means of the cause. This lack of account for causal influences makes this D-N argument stray into the realm of inaccuracy. Another problem that arises with the D-N model is when all four adequacy conditions
Furthermore, historians take history and document it with their own values and opinions in mind. Whenever history is documented, there will always be emphasis on specific points over others. This also confirms the fact that reported history will never be exactly what happened. As historians put emphasis on different parts of historic events, they direct peoples’ opinions and the event will not be told as it
Under this conception, language is not an adequate tool to determine which particulars belong within a concept. Regardless of this semantic confusion, without a conception of language that is not idea-based, (III) would also seem to rule out a word from mentally representing every possible quality of concept-instances. Thus, without further development of a theory of language, this understanding of Hume’s theory is bizarrely both circular and