Logic Lab Presentation Slides Case Study: The Scientific Revolution
Logic Lab
Navigating the Divide: Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning
Warm-up: Verification
Two Truths and a Lie
Write three "facts" about yourself.
Share with your partner.
Partner: Identify the lie and explain your logic.
Skepticism Check
How did you verify the truth? Did you look for patterns in their behavior (Induction) or use a general rule about people (Deduction)?
Field Evidence
Embedded media
07:00
Bacon & Inductive Method
08:20
Descartes & Deductive Method
The Empiricist
Francis Bacon
Inductive Reasoning
"Specific observations → General conclusions"
Focus on experimentation and observation.
Reject "Ancient Wisdom" in favor of facts.
Risk: Jumping to conclusions without enough data.
"The Father of
"Cogito, Ergo Sum"
The Rationalist
René Descartes
Deductive Reasoning
"General laws → Specific conclusions"
Focus on Radical Doubt (Trust nothing).
Mathematics is the ultimate truth.
Risk: Flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions.
In-Class Activity
Logic Lab Workstations
You are about to receive a series of "Data Sets." Your task is to analyze the thinking pattern and identify where the logic might break.
Step 1
Read the Scenario
Step 2
Label: Inductive vs. Deductive
Step 3
Identify the Flaw / Limitation
Reflective Closure
"I think, therefore I am."
In an era of Deepfakes, Fake News, and AI, how does Descartes’ method of Radical Doubt apply today?
Consider:
Can we trust our eyes if AI can create video?
If a machine "thinks," is it real?
What is the only thing you can be 100% sure of right now?
Logic Lab Activity Worksheet Logic Lab: Reasoning Diagnostics
Philosophy / Theory of Knowledge (TOK)
Subject:
Date:
Student Investigator
Inductive (Baconian)
Bottom-up approach. Start with data and specific observations to reach a general rule. Weakness: The "Black Swan" problem.
Deductive (Cartesian)
Top-down approach. Start with a general theory or premise and apply it to a specific case. Weakness: False premises.
Part 1: Scenario Diagnostics
Identify the reasoning type and evaluate the potential for error based on the limitations discussed in class.
01
"Every swan I have observed in the lake this year is white. I have traveled to five other lakes and found only white swans. Therefore, all swans are white."
Reasoning Type
Inductive
Deductive
Identify the Logic Flaw / Limitation
02
"All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."
Reasoning Type
Inductive
Deductive
Identify the Logic Flaw / Limitation
03
"The sun has risen in the East every morning of recorded history. Tomorrow is a morning. Therefore, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow."
Reasoning Type
Inductive
Deductive
Identify the Logic Flaw / Limitation
04
"The government states that all red-labeled containers contain corrosive acid. I have a red-labeled container in my hand. Therefore, I am holding corrosive acid."
Reasoning Type
Inductive
Deductive
Identify the Logic Flaw / Limitation
Part 2: The Logic of Progress
John Green mentions that "for most of history, people did not expect life to get better." How did the shift from Ancient Dogma to Methodological Reasoning (Bacon/Descartes) create the modern concept of "Progress"?
Descartes argues that we should "doubt of our existence while we doubt." In your own words, why is Doubt actually a constructive tool for science rather than a destructive one?
Logic Log Reflection Prompts Philosophy / Theory of Knowledge
The Radical Log: Entry #01
Foundational Premise
"I think, therefore I am."
— René Descartes, 1637
Reflection Prompt
Descartes used Radical Doubt to strip away every belief that could possibly be false until he found something undeniable.
Today, we live in a world of AI-generated video, Deepfakes, and algorithm-driven misinformation.
In your journal, respond to the following:
If our senses can now be tricked by digital "mirages," is Descartes' internal logic the only thing left to trust?
Can a machine that "thinks" (AI) claim the same right to existence as a human? Why or why not?
What is one "fact" you believe today that you might be willing to apply Radical Doubt to?
Investigator Notes:
Radical Doubt // Epistemological Framework // Logic Lab 2026
Logic Lab Teacher Guide Teacher Guide: Logic Lab
Epistemology & The Scientific Revolution
LEVEL: ADVANCED / TOK
Instructional Objectives
Differentiate between Inductive Reasoning (Bacon) and Deductive Reasoning (Descartes).
Analyze the historical impact of the "Progress" mindset.
Evaluate the limitations of empirical observation in philosophy and science.
Key Vocabulary
Empiricism Skepticism Syllogism Heliocentrism Radical Doubt
Lesson Flow
05m
Warm-up: Verification. Use "Two Truths and a Lie" to force students to vocalize *how* they reached a conclusion. If they used body language patterns, that's Induction. If they used a "rule" (e.g., "He wouldn't go to Paris"), that's Deduction.
15m
Crash Course Analysis. Play segments 07:00-08:20 (Bacon) and 08:20-09:45 (Descartes). Pause to discuss how Bacon "advertised" science vs. how Descartes "questioned" it.
20m
Logic Lab Workstations. Students work on the scenario diagnostics. Walk around and challenge them: "If all swans are white, what happens to your logic when you see one black swan?"
Answer Key: Logic Lab Scenarios
Scenario 01 (Swans)
Type: Inductive
The Flaw: This is the classic "Problem of Induction." No matter how many white swans you see, you can never prove all swans are white. You can only prove it's highly likely. One single counter-example (the black swan) destroys the entire conclusion.
Scenario 02 (Socrates)
Type: Deductive
The Flaw: Deduction is "certain" only if the premises are true. If the premise "All humans are mortal" were false (e.g., if humans could become cyborgs/immortal), the conclusion falls apart. It relies on the absolute truth of its starting points.
Scenario 03 (The Sun)
Type: Inductive
The Flaw: Hume's Problem of Induction. We assume the future will resemble the past because it has always done so in the past. It is a circular justification. While scientifically reliable, it is not logically "certain."
Scenario 04 (Red Label)
Type: Deductive
The Flaw: Reliance on authority/premise truth. The "Red Label = Acid" rule is the general premise. If the label was placed incorrectly (human error), the deduction is logical but factually wrong.
TOK Connection
This lesson bridges Natural Sciences (AOK) and Human Sciences. Discuss how the Scientific Method changed from asking "Why?" (Aristotle/Teleology) to asking "How?" (Bacon/Mechanistic).
Extensions
Ask students to find a news headline and reverse-engineer it. Was the headline reached via induction (observing a trend) or deduction (applying a political bias as a premise)?
