Arguments and

Explanations
Deductive vs Inductive arguments
Deduction and induction are two different forms of reasoning, and they are the
most common forms of argumentation.

All dogs have 4 legs Tommy always leaves for college at

7:00 a.m.
Tommy is a dog Tommy is always on time.
Tommy has 4 legs Tommy assumes, then, that if he
leaves at 7:00 a.m. for school today,
he will be on time.
Deductive vs Inductive arguments

First difference between the two:

Induction or inductive reasoning involves forming a

general conclusion or theory from specific or
particular, empirical premises.
Deduction or deductive reasoning involves forming a
conclusion about specific or particular cases from
general rules or premises.
Deductive arguments explained - Forming a conclusion about
a particular case, from premises about general case.
Premise is about a general class [all dogs = dog class].
All dogs have 4 legs If something is true for the class “dog” in general, it must
be true for a particular member of the class dog.
Tommy is a dog Tommy is a particular member of the class-dog.

Tommy has 4 legs So what is true for all dogs, is true for Tommy.

Premise is about a general class [all dogs = dog class].

All dogs have 4 legs Tommy is a particular member of the class: 4-legged
Tommy has 4 legs stuff
The premises and conclusions don’t add up
Tommy is a dog because we don’t have any truths/facts in
the premises about 4-legged-stuff. This is a
bad, or invalid argument
Deductive arguments explained - If the argument provides
logically conclusive support for its conclusion, it is valid. If the
premises of a valid argument are true, then the argument is sound.

Conclusion (Tommy has 4 legs) is logically

All dogs have 4 legs supported by the premises. Also the premises
Tommy is a dog are true. Therefore this is a sound and valid
argument.
Tommy has 4 legs

All dogs have 4 legs The premises do not logically support the
conclusion here. This is an invalid argument.
Tommy has 4 legs
Tommy is a dog
Inductive arguments explained - Forming a general conclusion
or theory or prediction drawing from premises about multiple
particular cases or observations. It’s a kind of generalization or
probable prediction.

Tommy always leaves for college at
7:00 a.m.
Tommy is always on time.
Tommy assumes, then, that if he
leaves at 7:00 a.m. for school today,
he will be on time.
A is a dog. A barks. B is a dog. B barks. C is a
dog. C barks. D is a dog. D barks… etc.
If X is a dog, X will bark.
Premises are about the particular
case of Tommy, leaving at a
particular time, repeatedly observed
everyday. What is true of the
particular cases repeated everyday
is extended to apply to the general
case [today, and henceforth].
Deductive vs Inductive arguments
Second difference between the two:

Conclusions reached by deductive reasoning cannot be incorrect if

the premises are true. That’s because the conclusion doesn’t
contain information that’s not in the premises.
A conclusion reached via inductive reasoning goes beyond the
information contained within the premises—it’s a generalization,
and generalizations aren’t always accurate. Unpredictable,
unknown factors may be at play.
Induction and its types
We can think of 3 main types of inductions:

1.Induction by Counting (enumeration):

Yesterday, the egg laid by the hen hatched into chicken.
Today, the 1st egg hatched into a chicken, 2nd egg hatched into a chicken, 3rd
egg has hatched into a chicken, 4th egg has hatched into a chicken….
Therefore the 10th egg also will likely hatch into a chicken.
Other examples: Opinion polls are based on inductive reasoning. The opinions of
a 100 or so people, can be used as a sample to represent the opinion of a
population of millions of people.
Stereotyping is a fallacious kind of induction by enumeration or counting. It’s a
wrong generalization. It involves forming a general conclusion based on a few
particular observations.
Induction and its types
2.Induction by Comparison (analogy):
Tolerating a vicious dictator is like tolerating a bully on the block.
If you let the bully push you around, sooner or later he will beat you up and take
everything you have.
If you let a dictator have his way, he will abuse his people and rob them of life and liberty.
If you stand up to the bully just once, he will never bother you again.
Likewise, if you refuse to be coerced by a dictator or if you attack him, his reign will be
over.
Therefore, the best course of action for people oppressed by a dictator is to resist and
attack.
Analogical induction (or induction by comparison) has this pattern:
Thing A has properties P1, P2, P3 plus the property P4. Thing B has properties P1, P2,
and P3. Therefore, thing B probably has property P4. But be sure that the comparisons of
similarities or dissimilarities are relevant. [It’s silly to say: “I have two eyes, a head and
two legs. Birds have two eyes, a head and two legs. Birds fly. So I also can fly.”]
Guess the induction type in the examples below
1.Character is the foundation stone upon which one must build to win respect. Just as no
worthy building can be erected on a weak foundation, so no lasting reputation worthy of
respect can be built on a weak character. [Analogy]
2.Forty percent of the pickles that you’ve pulled out of the barrel are exceptionally good.
So 40 percent of all the pickles in the barrel are probably exceptionally good.
[Enumeration]
3.Every Mio Phone I’ve bought in the last two years has had a faulty monitor. Therefore
all Mio Phones probably have faulty monitors [Enumeration]
4.Mice are mammals, have a mammalian circulatory system, have typical mammalian
biochemical reactions, respond readily to high blood pressure drugs, and experience a
reduction in blood cholesterol when given the new Drug Z. Humans are mammals, have
a mammalian circulatory system, have typical mammalian biochemical reactions, and
respond readily to high blood pressure drugs. Therefore, humans will also experience a
reduction in blood cholesterol when given the new Drug Z. [Analogy]
Induction and its types
3. Cause-Effect or theoretical: Formula - If Cause(s), then Effect(s).

An induction from an event or phenomenon A which is claimed to have caused

event or phenomenon B. A is called the cause. B is called the effect.

Heat makes water boil.

Necessary conditions - without this, event can’t occur.

Clouds -> Rain
Sufficient conditions - if this occurs, the event occurs. Guarantees the event.
Everything outside is wet -> Rain
Explanations
An explanation is a statement (or statements) asserting why or how something is
the case.

Example: The bucket leaks because there’s a hole in it.

He was sad because his dog died.
She broke the pipe by hitting it with a wrench.

These explanations and all others are intended to clarify and elucidate, to increase
our understanding.

Distinction between an explanation and an argument: While an explanation

tells us why or how something is the case, an argument gives us reasons for
believing that something is the case.
Explanations - Types
Procedural explanations to explain how something is done or how an
action is carried out. (Eg: Instruction manual)
Functional (teleological) explanations to explain how something functions
or fits into a plan
Interpretive explanations to explain the meaning of terms or states of
affairs.
Theoretical explanations to explain causes and effects (scientific)
We focus on a type called Inference to best explanation
Inference to the best explanation
Phenomenon Q is a known fact.
E provides the best explanation for Q.
Therefore, it is probable that E is true.

Inference to best explanation: we reason from [premises about a state of affairs] to

[an explanation for the state of affairs].
“What is the best explanation/theory for this particular state of affairs?”
The young debutant dropped the catch again.
The best explanation for that mistake is that he’s nervous.
So he’s definitely nervous.
The defendant’s fingerprints were all over the crime scene, the police found the
victim’s blood on his shirt, and he was in possession of the murder weapon.
The only explanation for all this that makes any sense is that the defendant
actually committed the crime.
He’s guilty.
Inference to the best explanation - Example
Fact/Phenomenon to be explained: My vehicle did not start
this morning.
The following theories are competing to offer the best explanation for the above
fact.

1. Battery died
2. No fuel
3. Problem with the starter
4. Somebody cursed my car
5. All or several of the above

Many accepted scientific theories are inferences to the best explanation.

Criteria for good explanations or good theories
Internal consistency: A theory that is internally consistent is free of contradictions
External consistency: A theory that is externally consistent is consistent with the
data it’s supposed to explain
Fact to be explained: My vehicle did not start this morning.

1. Battery died
2. No fuel
3. Problem with the starter
4. Somebody cursed my car
5. All or several of the above
Consider this explanation: Each night, you are sabotaging your own car while you
sleepwalk
Criteria for explanations to be adequate
Testable - there’s a way to determine whether an explanation/theory is true/false

Fruitful - yield new insights compared to other theories

Scope - The more a theory explains or predicts, the more it extends our
understanding. And the more a theory explains or predicts, the less likely it is to be
false because it has more evidence in its favor. the best theory is the one with the
greatest scope

Simplicity - the best theory is the one that is simplicity

Conservatism - the best theory is the one that fits best with our well-established
beliefs
Inference to the best explanation - Example
Phenomenon: The rapid spread of an unknown, dangerous,
viral disease throughout North America.
Theories: (1) The lack of awareness and defenses against a
new mutated virus,
(2) bureaucratic bungling at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention,
(3) a massive conspiracy of doctors who want higher fees for
treating seriously ill patients.
Inference to the best explanation - Example
Phenomenon: A sudden and dramatic drop in the price of
most corporate stocks.
Theories:
(1) Rumors of a recession,
(2) manipulation of the stock market by one powerful
stockholder,
(3) particularly nasty weather on the East Coast.