Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article - Deductive Vs Non-Deductive Arguments
Article - Deductive Vs Non-Deductive Arguments
There are phrases people may use in arguments to indicate that they are
deductive.
It’s good to read the Bible on as many days of your life as possible.
Therefore, any day is a good day to start reading the Bible every day.
The number of chicks in the pen is less than 10. The number of chicks in
the pen is more than 6. It’s not 7 and it is not 9. The number of chicks in
the pen is an integer, because you can’t really have half a chick in the pen.
Certainly, then, the number of chicks in the pen is 8.
Many philosophers and scientists over the centuries have tried to mimic
Euclid’s style of reasoning by providing deductive arguments for their
views. However, such standards for arguments cannot always be met
successfully. And that’s where non-deductive arguments come into play.
As with deductive arguments, there are phrases people may use to indicate
that arguments are non-deductive.
it is likely that …
it is probable that …
it is plausible that …
It’s cloudy today, so there’s a high probability that it will rain today.
The greediest person who was left alone in the room is Aunt Mary.
Chances are that Aunt Mary is the one who stole the apple tart.
Every observed witch is a widow, so it’s likely that every witch is a
widow.
Only all the observed wizards that we’ve seen so far were widowers. So
the next one we expect to be a widower.
Now, this whole discussion raises a further question: how are we to decide
whether arguments are deductive are non-deductive?
This is a difficult question. Part of the difficulty is that the answer varies
with context. Mathematicians only accept deductive arguments, because
they are after certain knowledge. Mathematicians are not going to accept
arguments that are merely strong. They want deductive arguments. But in
a court of law, we cannot only expect deductive arguments. It would be
much too demanding and we would almost never be able to put criminals
in jail. Instead, cases have to be established beyond reasonable doubt, so
that we are very confident in our conclusions, even though we are aware
that we might be wrong. We need to strike the right balance, as we don’t
want it to be too easy to put people in jail either.
Part of the answer also lies in the principle of charity. The idea is quite
simple. Most people are not aware of the distinction between deductive
and non-deductive arguments, and they may try and prove things
(deductively) when a non-deductive argument would be much more
suitable. In that case, the principle of charity tells you to treat the argument
as being non-deductive.