• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Inductive Logic
Deductive and Inductive Logic
What is Reasoning?
Example
: The first theorem Euclid
’ 
s
Elements 
provides a good example of the kind of reasoning that people admire.Suppose we construct a triangle in the following way: 1. Draw a circle centered at point A.Mark a point B on the circumference and draw a line from A to B. Draw a second circlecentered at B that passed through A. Mark one of the points at which the circles intersect as Band draw lines from C to A and from C to B.
Theorem
: All the sides of the triangle ABC are of equal length.
Proof 
: Let |AB| denote the length of the line segments AB, and so on.Step 1: |AB| = |AC| because they are radii of the circle centered at A.Step 2: |BA| = |BC| because they are radii of the circle centered at B.Step 3: |AB| = |BA| because AB and BA denote the same line.Step 4: |AC| = |BC| because they are each equal to the same thing (viz. |AB| ).Step 5: Therefore, |AB| = |AC| = |BC| by steps 1 and 4.
Definition
: An
argument 
is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.The
conclusion 
states the point being argued for and the
premises 
state the reasons beingadvanced in support the conclusion. They may not be good reasons. There are good and badarguments.
Tip
: To identify arguments look for words that introduce conclusions, like "therefore","consequently", "it follows that". These are called
conclusion indicators 
. Also look for
premise indicators 
like "because" and "since".
Remark 
: Each of the five steps in the proof to Euclid
’ 
s first theorem is an argument. Theconclusions in steps 1 to 4 are called
intermediate 
conclusions, while the conclusion in step 5is the
main 
conclusion.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_1.html (1 of 6) [08.04.2007 17:07:55]
 
Inductive Logic
Question:
All arguments, or sequences of arguments, are examples of reasoning, but is everypiece of reasoning an argument? A perceptual judgment such as "I see a blue square", or theconclusions of scientific experts reading in X-rays, or looking through a microscope, may beexamples of reasoning that are not arguments. They are derived from what Kuhn called tacitknowledge, acquired through training and experience (e.g., knowing how to ride a bicycle). Itis not easily articulated, and is not stated in any language.
The Difference between Good and Bad Arguments
In
logic
, we assume that any reasoning is represented as an argument, and the evaluation of an argument involves two questions:1. Are the premises true?2. Supposing that the premises are true, what sort of support do they give the conclusion?
 Answers to question 2:
Compare the following arguments.1. All planets move on ellipses. Pluto is a planet. Therefore, Pluto moves on an ellipse.2. Mercury moves on an ellipse. Venus moves on an ellipse. Earth moves on an ellipse.Mars moves on an ellipse. Jupiter moves on an ellipse. Saturn moves on an ellipse.Uranus moves on an ellipse. Neptune moves on an ellipse. Therefore, Pluto moves onan ellipse.
Definition
: An argument is
deductively valid 
if and only if it is
impossible 
that its conclusion isfalse while its premises are true.
Examples
: Argument 1 is deductively valid, while argument 2 is not.
Remark on terminology
: The notion of deductively validity is such a central and importantconcept in philosophy, that is goes by several names. When an argument is deductively valid,we say that the conclusion
follows from 
the premises, or the conclusion
is deduced from 
, ori
nferred from 
, or
proved from 
the premises. Or we may say that the premises
imply 
, or
entail 
,or
prove 
the conclusion. We also talk of deductively valid arguments as being
demonstrative 
. All these different terms mean exactly the same thing, so the situation is far simpler than itappears.
What
’ 
s possible?
The sense of "impossible" needs clarification. Consider the example:3. George is a human being. George is 100 years old. George has arthritis. Therefore, Georgewill not run a four-minute mile tomorrow.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_1.html (2 of 6) [08.04.2007 17:07:55]
 
Inductive Logic
Suppose that the premises are true. In logic, it
is 
possible that George will run a four-minutemile tomorrow. It is not
physically 
possible. But logicians have a far more liberal sense of whatis "possible" in mind in their definition of deductive validity. Argument 3 is not deductivelyvalid on their definition. So, argument 3 is invalid.
Key idea
: In any deductively valid argument, there is a sense in which the conclusion is
contained 
in premises. Deductive reasoning serves the purpose of 
extracting 
information fromthe premises. In a non-deductive argument, the conclusion
 ‘
goes beyond
’ 
the premises.Inferences in which the conclusion
amplifies 
the premises is sometimes called
ampliative 
 inference.
Therefore
, whether an argument is deductively valid or not, depends on what the premisesare.
 ‘
Missing
’ 
premises?
: We can always add a premise to turn an invalid argument into a validargument. For example, if we add the premise "No 100-year-old human being with arthritiswill run a four-minute mile tomorrow" to argument 3, then the new argument is deductivelyvalid. (The original argument, of course, is still invalid).
Definition
: An argument is
inductively strong 
if and only if it is
improbable 
that its conclusionis false while its premises are true.
Remember
: This definition is the same as the definition of "deductively valid" except that"impossible" is replaced by "improbable."The
degree 
of strength of an inductive argument may be measured by the probability of thatthe conclusion is true
given 
that all the premises are true.The probability of the conclusion of a deductively valid argument given the premises is one, sodeductively valid arguments may be thought of as the limiting case of a strong inductivearguments. Ampliative arguments have an inductive strength less than one.The probability of the conclusion given the premises can change from person to person, as itdepends on the stock of relevant knowledge possessed by a given person at a given time.
Summary
: In response to question 2, we may give answers like "the argument is valid", "thearguments is inductively strong" or "the argument is inductively weak."
Exercise
: Discuss the following examples (all statements are understood to refer to the year1998):4. There are multi-celled organisms living on Mars. Therefore, there is intelligent life on
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_1.html (3 of 6) [08.04.2007 17:07:55]
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...