Introduction

To
Logic
Prepared by:
Celedonio c. San Diego
Philosophy 1
CHAPTER 15
INDUCTION
 1. General Notion of Induction
2. Intellective Induction
• some example
• Definition of Intellective Induction
3. Rational Induction
• Some example
• Definition of Rational Induction
• Comparison of Intellective and Rational
Induction
 4. The Argument From Analogy
• Definition
• Use and Limitations
• Rules or Cautions
5. Further Comments on Induction
• The extent to Which Induction Belongs to Logic
• No rules for the Induction Ascent
GENERAL NOTION OF INDUCTION

 Induction- we
define induction as the process by
which our minds proceed from a sufficient
number of instances to a universal truth.
example: From the fact that this piece of copper conducts
electricity and that pieces two, three, and four also conduct
it, we might infer (rightly or wrongly) that all copper
conducts electricity.
 -But induction ca also begin with universal truths and
proceed to still more universal truths, as when we proceed
from what is true of various species to a statement about the
genus that these species belong to.

example: From the fact that copper, iron, silver, and gold,
which are species of genus “metal” conduct electricity, we
might infer (rightly or wrongly) that all metal conducts
electricity.
We must distinguish:
(a) between incomplete induction, which some
logicians misleadingly call imperfect induction, and
complete or perfect induction,
(b) between intellective and rational induction.
These two division overlap that is, both incomplete
and complete induction can be either intellective or
rational.
 Incomplete or imperfect induction- proceeds from what is
known of individual subjects having a nature to an
assertion about a nature as much.
 Itproceeds from I to A from a limited number of instances
to a universal statement as when we infer that all copper
conducts electricity because pieces one, two, three, and
four conduct it.
 We made extensive use of incomplete induction when we
established the validity or invalidity of various logical
forms.
 Example:
(Every dog is an animal; therefore some animal is a
dog).
We clearly understand the validity of the logical form
“Every S is P; therefore some P is an S”.
When we speak of induction without qualification, we
generally have in mind incomplete induction.
Complete induction- according to certain
logicians who misconstrue its nature, it
consist in affirming something of the
individuals of a class, one by one, and then
affirming it of the entire class.
Notice that the statement that all in this
room are wearing shoes merely summarizes
what has already been said and involves no
advance in knowledge.
Complete Induction, rightly understood,
consist in proceeding from what is true of
each species of a genus to an assertion about
the genus itself, as when we assert that
copper, iron, silver, gold, and so on, and so
on, conduct electricity and therefore all
metal (not all metals) conducts it.
We also made extensive use of complete
induction in establishing the validity or
invalidity of various logical forms.
 INTELLECTIVE INDUCTION

We shall lead up to a definition of intellective

induction by analysing a few examples and
reflecting on how our minds proceed to regard
to each of them.
 A. Some examples
1. We shall examine two contingent propositions
from which it is possible for us ascend to a
universal truth.
2. We shall examine a proposition from which we
shall immediately see that we can ascend to a
universal truth.
3. While examining these propositions, we shall
not pay attention to their form, but to the reality
that the present to the mind.
 1) THIS HOUSE IS RED. Consider the
following propositions and suppose that
what is asserted in them is true.
1. This is red.
2. John is running down the street.
When you consider these propositions, you
see no necessary connection between the
subject and predicate.
 The actualities understood in these
judgements are contingent; hence, it is
impossible to ascend from them to universal
statements about house as such or man as
such.
In the following example, however, from a
consideration of a single instance, our minds
spontaneously ascend to a universal truth.
2.) THIS WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THIS
PART. The entire rectangle represents a whole
card; the dotted lines mark off a part of the
whole card.

WHOLE
part

On seeing the whole card and the part, we

know what is expressed in the proposition.
This whole card is greater than this part.
Insofar as it would be possible for this card,
and this part not to exist at all, this too is a
contingent proposition.
On looking at this card and its part, we
clearly understand that the whole card is
greater than this part only as a matter of fact,
but that it must be greater and cannot be
otherwise.
Inother words we grasp the intelligibility of
the fact that this whole card is greater than
this part we clearly perceive the intrinsic
reason why it is impossible for the whole
card not to be greater than this part.
 A whole is greater than any of its parts.
 By insight into the particular example we know
that this must be true. We cannot withhold our
assent to the proposition “ A whole is greater than
any of its part” because we clearly understand
that it cannot be otherwise-we grasp the
intelligibility, necessary relationship between
whole and its parts so completely that we know
with absolute certainty that, if a whole and a part
exist at all, the whole must be greater than a part.
B. Definition of Intellective Induction
Our definition of intellective induction is
nothing but description of what we do when,
on looking at the whole card and the part of
the card, we pass from the proposition “This
whole card is greater than any of its parts.”
Intellective induction then, is the process
whereby our minds rise from a consideration
of particular cases to a universal truth
because we understand through insight into
the particular case that the universal is
necessarily true.
The rules of formal inference are established
exclusively by intellective induction.
In explaining these rules we always begin
with examples whose validity or invalidity is
obvious and then through insight into these
examples we draw up the universal rules.
The mere fact that the antecedent is true but
the co sequent is false shows that this logical
form is invalid and then through insight into
the quantitative relationship of the subject
and predicate as illustrated in the term “dog
and animal” we clearly see the reason for the
invalidity.
 3. RATIONAL INDUCTION
 We shall re-examine the first two examples given
in the last section and compare them with a third
example.
 Then we shall give a definition of rational
induction.
 We shall compare intellective and rational
induction in such a way as to throw further light
on the nature of each of them.
 A. Some Examples
1. This house is red.
2. John is running down the street.
3. The apple, unsupported, falls toward the
earth.
If we look at this third example in itself as a
single concrete statement of fact and without
references we see no necessities other than
those seen in the first two propositions.

“Unsupported things fall toward the earth.”

In such generalization we do not see the
intelligibility of the fact any more clearly
than in a single instance.
In other words, we are sure that the only
sufficient reason for the constancy with
which unsupported things falls toward the
earth is the presence of some necessity by
reason of which they must fall toward the
earth.
 B. Definition of rational induction
Rational induction is a description of what
we do when, after experiencing, for instance,
that the countless things fall toward the earth
when unsupported.
Rational induction is the process whereby
our minds rise from a consideration of
particular case to a universal judgment.
C. Comparison of intellective and rational
induction
A comparison of intellective and rational
induction will throw further on the nature of
the each of them.
The difference between intellective and rational
induction:
Intellective induction, while considering the
particular instance, we see and understand the
intrinsic necessity.
Rational induction we do not see this
intrinsic necessity.
The difference implies two other differences:
Intellective induction depends on no
previous judgments and gives absolute
certainty.
Rational induction rests at least implicitly,
on previous judgments and does not by itself
give absolute certainty.
4. THE ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY
 A. Definition
 The argument from analogy is probable argument
based on a resemblance.
 The argument from analogy proceeds from one or
more particular instances through an unexpressed
universal to another particular instance that is
similar to the former but not (logically) identical
with them.
 B. Use and Limitations
Arguments from analogy are very importance
in the practical concerns of everyday life and
in scientific investigation.
In itself, analogy does not lead to certainty
but merely points the way to probable answer
to our problems or suggest the direction that
our investigations might take.
 C. Rules or Cautions
 If an arguments from analogy is to be legitimate,
the resemblance on which it is based must be
significant; that is, there must be good reason to
think that there is a necessary connection between
the attributes in which two subjects are similar
and the attribute we wish to predicate of the one
subject because of its resemblance to the other.
When we use argument from analogy we
must take into account important differences.
 5. FURTHER COMMENTS ON
INDUCTION
Inthis section we shall indicate the extent to
which the study of induction belongs to logic
and explain why there are no rules for
induction as there for deduction.
A. The Extent to Which Induction Belongs
to Logic
Logic as we shall see in chapter 16 and as we
have already indicated briefly in chapter 1), is
not a science of real beings but of second
intentions.
The scope of logic is therefore limited to
what we can know by reflecting on our
knowledge and on the attributes relationships
that things have as they exist in the mind and
that they get as a result of being though of.
Now, all that logic can do about the various
kinds of induction is to acknowledge their
existence, describe their nature, and confess
its inability to make rules to regulate them.
B. No Rules for the Inductive Ascent
There must be no rules governing induction
as the rules of the syllogism, and so on
govern deduction.
The reason is that inductive arguments are
not reducible to logical forms that are valid
regardless of their matter, but depend for their
validity on the special character of the matter
under consideration.
Directives on scientific investigation tell us
how to conduct experiments how to test
hypothesis and so on, but are not rules for
making the inductive ascent itself.
Such directives lie outside the scope of logic
inasmuch as they are instruction on the
handling, not of second intentions, but of real
beings.
 The End
Thank You!!