|
Empirical
2
entries
found.
  
|
#Main
Entry:
em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation:
\-i-kəl\
Variant(s):
also
em·pir·ic
\-ik\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1569
1
:
originating
in
or
based
on
observation
or
experience
<empirical
data>
2
:
relying
on
experience
or
observation
alone
often
without
due
regard
for
system
and
theory
<an
empirical
basis
for
the
theory>
3
:
capable
of
being
verified
or
disproved
by
observation
or
experiment
<empirical
laws> |
Premise
In
discourse
and
logic,
a
premise
is
a
claim
that
is
a
reason
(or
element
of
a
set
of
reasons)
for,
or
objection
against,
some
other
claim.
In
other
words,
it
is
a
statement
presumed
true
within
the
context
of
an
argument
toward
a
conclusion.
Premises
are
sometimes
stated
explicitly
by
way
of
disambiguation
or
for
emphasis,
but
more
often
they
are
left
tacitly
understood
as
being
obvious
or
self-evident
("it
goes
without
saying"),
or
not
conducive
to
succinct
discourse.
For
example,
in
the
argument
Socrates
is
mortal,
since
all
men
are
it
is
evident
that
a
tacitly
understood
claim
is
that
Socrates
is
a
man.
The
fully
expressed
reasoning
is
thus:
Since
all
men
are
mortal
and
Socrates
is
a
man,
it
follows
that
Socrates
is
mortal.
In
this
example,
the
first
two
independent
clauses
preceding
the
comma
(namely,
"all
men
are
mortal"
and
"Socrates
is
a
man")
are
the
premises,
while
"Socrates
is
mortal"
is
the
conclusion.
In
the
context
of
ordinary
argumentation,
the
rational
acceptability
of
a
disputed
conclusion
depends
on
both
the
truth
of
the
premises
and
the
soundness
of
the
reasoning
from
the
premises
to
the
conclusion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal's
Triangle
|
We
can
use
Pascal's
Triangle
to
help
us
find
the
probability
of
multiple
events
when
there
are
only
two
outcomes.
Each
side
of
the
table
represents
one
of
two
choices,
and
the
numbers
from
left
to
right
signify
the
number
of
true
outcomes
for
those
choices.
Each
row
is
labeled
with
its
stage
in
the
experiment.
The
total
of
the
numbers
added
across
one
row
gives
the
sample
space
for
that
experiment.
EXAMPLE
What
is
the
probability
in
a
family
with
five
children
that
all
five
are
girls?
We
look
at
the
fifth
row
(5
children)
of
the
chart.
We
label
from
the
left
side
5
girls,
4
girls,
3
girls,
etc
across
the
row
to
zero
girls.
We
choose
the
first
number
in
the
row
and
divide
this
number
by
the
total
outcomes,
found
from
adding
up
the
numbers
across
the
entire
row.
Thus
P(5
girls)
=
1/32.
EXAMPLE
What
is
the
probability
of
tossing
four
coins
and
getting
the
following
results?
We
look
at
the
row
four
and
label
the
numbers
no
heads,
one
head,
two
heads,
etc
across
the
row.
P(3
heads)
=
4/16
P(2
heads
and
2
tails)
=
6/16
P(no
heads)
=
1/16
P(more
than
2
heads)
=
P(3
or
4
heads)
=
4/16
+
1/16
=
5/16 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deduction
&
Induction
Deductive
and
Inductive
Thinking
In
logic,
we
often
refer
to
the
two
broad
methods
of
reasoning
as
the
deductive
and
inductive
approaches.
Deductive
reasoning
works
from
the
more
general
to
the
more
specific.
Sometimes
this
is
informally
called
a
"top-down"
approach.
We
might
begin
with
thinking
up
a
theory
about
our
topic
of
interest.
We
then
narrow
that
down
into
more
specific
hypotheses
that
we
can
test.
We
narrow
down
even
further
when
we
collect
observations
to
address
the
hypotheses.
This
ultimately
leads
us
to
be
able
to
test
the
hypotheses
with
specific
data
--
a
confirmation
(or
not)
of
our
original
theories.
Inductive
reasoning
works
the
other
way,
moving
from
specific
observations
to
broader
generalizations
and
theories.
Informally,
we
sometimes
call
this
a
"bottom
up"
approach
(please
note
that
it's
"bottom
up"
and
not
"bottoms
up"
which
is
the
kind
of
thing
the
bartender
says
to
customers
when
he's
trying
to
close
for
the
night!).
In
inductive
reasoning,
we
begin
with
specific
observations
and
measures,
begin
to
detect
patterns
and
regularities,
formulate
some
tentative
hypotheses
that
we
can
explore,
and
finally
end
up
developing
some
general
conclusions
or
theories.
These
two
methods
of
reasoning
have
a
very
different
"feel"
to
them
when
you're
conducting
research.
Inductive
reasoning,
by
its
very
nature,
is
more
open-ended
and
exploratory,
especially
at
the
beginning.
Deductive
reasoning
is
more
narrow
in
nature
and
is
concerned
with
testing
or
confirming
hypotheses.
Even
though
a
particular
study
may
look
like
it's
purely
deductive
(e.g.,
an
experiment
designed
to
test
the
hypothesized
effects
of
some
treatment
on
some
outcome),
most
social
research
involves
both
inductive
and
deductive
reasoning
processes
at
some
time
in
the
project.
In
fact,
it
doesn't
take
a
rocket
scientist
to
see
that
we
could
assemble
the
two
graphs
above
into
a
single
circular
one
that
continually
cycles
from
theories
down
to
observations
and
back
up
again
to
theories.
Even
in
the
most
constrained
experiment,
the
researchers
may
observe
patterns
in
the
data
that
lead
them
to
develop
new
theories.
Entropy
Ice
melting
-
a
classic
example
of
entropy
increasing[1]
described
in
1862
by
Rudolf
Clausius
as
an
increase
in
the
disgregation
of
the
molecules
of
the
body
of
ice.[2]
In
thermodynamics
(a
branch
of
physics),
entropy,
symbolized
by
S,[3]
is
a
measure
of
the
unavailability
of
a
system’s
energy
to
do
work.[4][5]
It
is
a
measure
of
the
randomness
of
molecules
in
a
system
and
is
central
to
the
second
law
of
thermodynamics
and
the
fundamental
thermodynamic
relation,
which
deal
with
physical
processes
and
whether
they
occur
spontaneously.
Spontaneous
changes,
in
isolated
systems,
occur
with
an
increase
in
entropy.
Spontaneous
changes
tend
to
smooth
out
differences
in
temperature,
pressure,
density,
and
chemical
potential
that
may
exist
in
a
system,
and
entropy
is
thus
a
measure
of
how
far
this
smoothing-out
process
has
progressed.
The
word
"entropy"
is
derived
from
the
Greek
εντροπία
"a
turning
toward"
(εν-
"in"
+
τροπή
"a
turning").[
Causality
From
Wikipedia,
the
free
encyclopedia
(Redirected
from
Cause)
Jump
to:
navigation,
search
The
Illustrated
Sutra
of
Cause
and
Effect.
8th
century,
Japan
Causality
denotes
a
necessary
relationship
between
one
event
(called
cause)
and
another
event
(called
effect)
which
is
the
direct
consequence
(result)
of
the
first.[1]
While
this
informal
understanding
will
suffice
in
everyday
use,
the
philosophical
analysis
of
causality
has
proven
difficult.
The
work
of
philosophers
to
understand
causality
and
how
best
to
characterize
it
extends
over
millennia.
In
the
western
philosophical
tradition
explicit
discussion
stretches
back
at
least
as
far
as
Aristotle,
and
the
topic
remains
a
staple
in
contemporary
philosophy
journals.
Though
cause
and
effect
are
typically
related
to
events,
other
candidates
include
processes,
properties,
variables,
facts,
and
states
of
affairs;
which
of
these
comprise
the
correct
causal
relata,
and
how
best
to
characterize
the
nature
of
the
relationship
between
them,
has
as
yet
no
universally
accepted
answer,
and
remains
under
discussion.
According
to
Sowa
(2000),[2]
up
until
the
twentieth
century,
three
assumptions
described
by
Max
Born
in
1949
were
dominant
in
the
definition
of
causality:
- "Causality
postulates
that
there
are
laws
by
which
the
occurrence
of
an
entity
B
of
a
certain
class
depends
on
the
occurrence
of
an
entity
A
of
another
class,
where
the
word
entity
means
any
physical
object,
phenomenon,
situation,
or
event.
A
is
called
the
cause,
B
the
effect.
- "Antecedence
postulates
that
the
cause
must
be
prior
to,
or
at
least
simultaneous
with,
the
effect.
- "Contiguity
postulates
that
cause
and
effect
must
be
in
spatial
contact
or
connected
by
a
chain
of
intermediate
things
in
contact."
(Born,
1949,
as
cited
in
Sowa,
2000)
However,
according
to
Sowa
(2000),
"relativity
and
quantum
mechanics
have
forced
physicists
to
abandon
these
assumptions
as
exact
statements
of
what
happens
at
the
most
fundamental
levels,
but
they
remain
valid
at
the
level
of
human
experience."[2]
[edit]
History
[edit]
Western
philosophy
[edit]
Aristotle
In
his
Posterior
Analytics
and
Metaphysics,
Aristotle
wrote,
"All
causes
are
beginnings..."[3],
"...
we
have
scientific
knowledge
when
we
know
the
cause..."[4],
and
"...
to
know
a
thing's
nature
is
to
know
the
reason
why
it
is..."[5]
This
formulation
set
the
guidelines
for
subsequent
causal
theories
by
specifying
the
number,
nature,
principles,
elements,
varieties,
order
of
causes
as
well
as
the
modes
of
causation.
Aristotle's
account
of
the
causes
of
things
is
a
comprehensive
model.
Aristotle's
theory
enumerates
the
possible
causes
which
fall
into
several
wide
groups,
amounting
to
the
ways
the
question
"why"
may
be
answered;
namely,
by
reference
to
the
material
worked
upon
(as
by
an
artisan)
or
what
might
be
called
the
substratum;
to
the
essence,
i.e.,
the
pattern,
the
form,
or
the
structure
by
reference
to
which
the
"matter"
or
"substratum"
is
to
be
worked;
to
the
primary
moving
agent
of
change
or
the
agent
and
its
action;
and
to
the
goal,
the
plan,
the
end,
or
the
good
that
the
figurative
artisan
intended
to
obtain.
As
a
result,
the
major
kinds
of
causes
come
under
the
following
divisions:
- The
material
cause
is
that
"raw
material"
from
which
a
thing
is
produced
as
from
its
parts,
constituents,
substratum,
or
materials.
This
rubric
limits
the
explanation
of
cause
to
the
parts
(the
factors,
elements,
constituents,
ingredients)
forming
the
whole
(the
system,
structure,
compound,
complex,
composite,
or
combination)
(the
part-whole
causation).
- The
formal
cause
tells
us
what,
by
analogy
to
the
plans
of
an
artisan,
a
thing
is
intended
and
planned
to
be.
Any
thing
is
thought
to
be
determined
by
its
definition,
form
(mold),
pattern,
essence,
whole,
synthesis,
or
archetype.
This
analysis
embraces
the
account
of
causes
in
terms
of
fundamental
principles
or
general
laws,
as
the
intended
whole
(macrostructure)
is
the
cause
that
explains
the
production
of
its
parts
(the
whole-part
causation).
- The
efficient
cause
is
that
external
entity
from
which
the
change
or
the
ending
of
the
change
first
starts.
It
identifies
'what
makes
of
what
is
made
and
what
causes
change
of
what
is
changed'
and
so
suggests
all
sorts
of
agents,
nonliving
or
living,
acting
as
the
sources
of
change
or
movement
or
rest.
Representing
the
current
understanding
of
causality
as
the
relation
of
cause
and
effect,
this
analysis
covers
the
modern
definitions
of
"cause"
as
either
the
agent,
agency,
particular
causal
events,
or
the
relevant
causal
states
of
affairs.
- The
final
cause
is
that
for
the
sake
of
which
a
thing
exists,
or
is
done
-
including
both
purposeful
and
instrumental
actions.
The
final
cause,
or
telos,
is
the
purpose,
or
end,
that
something
is
supposed
to
serve;
or
it
is
that
from
which,
and
that
to
which,
the
change
is.
This
analysis
also
covers
modern
ideas
of
mental
causation
involving
such
psychological
causes
as
volition,
need,
motivation,
or
motives;
rational,
irrational,
ethical
-
all
that
gives
purpose
to
behavior.
Additionally,
things
can
be
causes
of
one
another,
reciprocally
causing
each
other,
as
hard
work
causes
fitness,
and
vice
versa
-
although
not
in
the
same
way
or
by
means
of
the
same
function:
the
one
is
as
the
beginning
of
change,
the
other
is
as
its
goal.
(Thus
Aristotle
first
suggested
a
reciprocal
or
circular
causality
-
as
a
relation
of
mutual
dependence,
action,
or
influence
of
cause
and
effect.)
Also;
Aristotle
indicated
that
the
same
thing
can
be
the
cause
of
contrary
effects
-
as
its
presence
and
absence
may
result
in
different
outcomes.
In
speaking
thus
he
formulated
what
currently
is
ordinarily
termed
a
"causal
factor,"
e.g.,
atmospheric
pressure
as
it
affects
chemical
or
physical
reactions.
Aristotle
marked
two
modes
of
causation:
proper
(prior)
causation
and
accidental
(chance)
causation.
All
causes,
proper
and
incidental,
can
be
spoken
as
potential
or
as
actual,
particular
or
generic.
The
same
language
refers
to
the
effects
of
causes;
so
that
generic
effects
assigned
to
generic
causes,
particular
effects
to
particular
causes,
and
operating
causes
to
actual
effects.
It
is
also
essential
that
ontological
causality
does
not
suggest
the
temporal
relation
of
before
and
after
-
between
the
cause
and
the
effect;
that
spontaneity
(in
nature)
and
chance
(in
the
sphere
of
moral
actions)
are
among
the
causes
of
effects
belonging
to
the
efficient
causation,
and
that
no
incidental,
spontaneous,
or
chance
cause
can
be
prior
to
a
proper,
real,
or
underlying
cause
per
se.
All
investigations
of
causality
coming
later
in
history
will
consist
in
imposing
a
favorite
hierarchy
on
the
order
(priority)
of
causes;
such
as
"final
>
efficient
>
material
>
formal"
(Aquinas),
or
in
restricting
all
causality
to
the
material
and
efficient
causes
or,
to
the
efficient
causality
(deterministic
or
chance),
or
just
to
regular
sequences
and
correlations
of
natural
phenomena
(the
natural
sciences
describing
how
things
happen
rather
than
asking
why
they
happen)..
[edit]
Causality,
determinism,
and
existentialism
Causality
has
taken
many
journeys
in
the
minds
of
men
for
over
3000
years.[6]
Determinism
and
existentialism
are
but
a
few
of
the
manifestations
of
this
journey.
The
deterministic
world-view
is
one
in
which
the
universe
is
no
more
than
a
chain
of
events
following
one
after
another
according
to
the
law
of
cause
and
effect.
To
hold
this
worldview,
as
an
incompatibilist,
there
is
no
such
thing
as
"free
will".
However,
compatibilists
argue
that
determinism
is
compatible
with,
or
even
necessary
for,
free
will.
Learning
to
bear
the
burden
of
a
meaningless
universe,
and
justify
one's
own
existence,
is
the
first
step
toward
becoming
the
"Übermensch"
(English:
"overman"
or
"superman")
that
Nietzsche
speaks
of
extensively
in
his
philosophical
writings.
Existentialists
have
suggested
that
people
have
the
courage
to
accept
that
while
no
meaning
has
been
designed
in
the
universe,
we
each
can
provide
a
meaning
for
ourselves.
Though
philosophers
have
pointed
out
the
difficulties
in
establishing
theories
of
the
validity
of
causal
relations,
there
is
yet
the
plausible
example
of
causation
afforded
daily
which
is
our
own
ability
to
be
the
cause
of
events.
This
concept
of
causation
does
not
prevent
seeing
ourselves
as
moral
agents.
Paranoia
Paranoia
is
a
disturbed
thought
process
characterized
by
excessive
anxiety
or
fear,
often
to
the
point
of
irrationality
and
delusion.
Paranoid
thinking
typically
includes
persecutory
beliefs
concerning
a
perceived
threat.
In
the
original
Greek,
παράνοια
(paranoia)
simply
means
madness
(para
=
outside;
nous
=
mind).
Historically,
this
characterization
was
used
to
describe
any
delusional
state.
Sometimes
in
common
usage,
the
term
paranoia
is
misused
to
describe
a
phobia.
For
example,
a
person
may
not
want
to
fly
out
of
fear
the
plane
may
crash.
This
does
not
in
itself
indicate
paranoia,
but
rather
a
phobia.
The
lack
of
blame
in
this
case
usually
points
to
the
latter.
An
example
of
paranoia,
however,
would
be
fear
that
the
pilot
is
an
alcoholic
with
no
evidence
to
suggest
such,
and
would
crash
the
plane
as
a
result
of
this.
[edit]
Use
in
psychiatry
More
recently[1],
the
clinical
use
of
the
term
has
been
used
to
describe
delusions
where
the
affected
person
believes
he
is
being
persecuted.
Specifically,
they
have
been
defined
as
containing
two
central
elements:
- The
individual
thinks
that
harm
is
occurring,
or
is
going
to
occur,
to
him
or
her.
- The
individual
thinks
that
the
persecutor
has
the
intention
to
cause
harm.
Paranoia
is
often
associated
with
psychotic
illnesses,
sometimes
schizophrenia,
although
attenuated
features
may
be
present
in
other
primarily
non-psychotic
diagnoses,
such
as
paranoid
personality
disorder
and
obsessive
compulsive
disorder.
Paranoia
can
also
be
a
side
effect
of
medication
or
recreational
drugs
such
as
marijuana
and
particularly
stimulants
such
as
methamphetamine
and
crack
cocaine.
In
the
unrestricted
use
of
the
term,
common
paranoid
delusions
can
include
the
belief
that
the
person
is
being
followed,
poisoned
or
loved
at
a
distance
(often
by
a
media
figure
or
important
person,
a
delusion
known
as
erotomania
or
de
Clerambault
syndrome).
Other
common
paranoid
delusions
include
the
belief
that
the
person
has
an
imaginary
disease
or
parasitic
infection
(delusional
parasitosis);
that
the
person
is
on
a
special
Shadenfreud:
The
pleasure
derived
from
the
misfortunes
of
others. |
