Induction Flashcards
Induction
When an arguer intends that the if the premises of an argument are true they SUPPORT (but do not guarantee) the conclusion. Each of the following are examples of Induction.
Arguing from General to Specific
An inference from the fact that something is generally true to the claim that it will also be true in this specific instance.
Argument Form
Most Xs are Ys
This is an X
Thus, this is a Y
Argument Form Example
Most teachers are liberal.
Prof Vitt is a teacher, therefore he is a liberal.
What makes this form better or worse? This argument is made stronger by the greater number of Xs that are in fact Ys.
Specific to General—Inductive Generalizing
An inference from observed instances to unobserved instances.
Argument Form #1
This X is a Y
That X is a Y
Thus, Most Xs are Ys.
Argument Form #2
Such and such % of Xs are Ys
Therefore the same % of all Xs are Ys
Argument Form Example #1
This pan dulce is delicious
That pan dulce is delicious
Most pan dulce is delicious
Argument Form Example #2
80% of LBCC students are taller than 5’3”
Thus, 80% of all students are taller than 5’3”.
What makes this form better or worse?
The better the sample is in terms of Size, Diversity, the better it is. (This is how we do poling to infer)
If a sample is biased, then this argument will be weaker.
If there are no members of sample, then you should not draw any inference.
It will not always be correct.
Example: There are no nba players in this room, therefore there are no nba players in California.
Any sample size of 1:
Example: I do not like Jerry Murray, I doubt many people would
Oooh, look at the rash I got from that plant, I will stay away from it in the future.
Argument from Analogy
An inference which states that because two things are similar in one respect, they are similar in another respect. (Classic in legal reasoning, also found in the history of philosophy). This could be remarkably weak depending on the form of contrext.
Argument Form
X and Y both have properties p, q, and r
X has F
Thus, Y has F.
Argument Form Example
Cynthia and Jacob both love the same music, art, and literature.
Jacob loves Disco.
Thus, Cynthia will probably like Disco also.
What makes this form better or worse?
The number of related similarities between X and Y
The number of related differences between X and Y
The Diversity of the related similarities
The number of entities that the comparison includes
In law’Another defendent had the same weopon and same facts so the court ruled this way in favor of the defendent
The opposing side says those cases seem to be similiar but they’re crucially different and here’s where they’re different.
Argument from Expertise/Authority
We routinely rely on another source, or person (i.e., that person’s expertise, education, or experience) to help us determine whether a statement is true. When an unbiased and properly qualified person makes such a statement, we can inductively infer that the premises are more likely to be true. (Weather person, school teacher, a doctor)
Argument Form
Wash has a Ph.D in economics from Cal State Long Beach.
Wash specializes in measuring economic growth for the United States.
Wash thinks the United States economy will grow in the next fiscal quarter.
Thus, the United Staters economy will probably grow in the next fiscal quarter.
Right general degree but do they specialize in this kind of thing - psrticluarly important in law. Things can get so specific in types of law
Tax lawyer would know nothing about criminal procedure anymore
You have to learn all of it in theory to pass the bar but then things get very specialized after that.
What makes this form better or worse?
Increasing the number of experts can help to show a consensus. (Not a garuntee still, alwyas have to be willing to revise your opinion0. The better you understand the expert testomony, that helps to inform your decision. Particulary if you can contrast two different forms of expert testomony and understand why one diverges from the other) Whether or not an expert is representing a special interest group or business. This happens all the time in courts of law where one side hires an expert to say x and the other side hires an expert to say not x. Have to be able to use your own mind and determine which expert ismore credible and which argument are they putting forward better. Be very concerned when the expert testimony conforms to your prejudgment. If what they say sounds right to you, look at it again because you already agree with it, you’re going to accept a lower threshold of evidence. So just pay close attention.
For example,10 Medical specialists (Forensic Pathologists) reviewed medical evidence from the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
9 out of 10 Medical specialists concluded that the medical evidence was authentic and that it established the president was not killed by a conspiracy.
Thus, the medical evidence from the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy is probably authentic and the president was not killed by a conspiracy.
NOTE: There are no guarantees! Because we are discussing induction, it could turn out that the opposite of what we think is true, is in fact true. It is possible that all of these experts are wrong. As a critical thinker, you have to keep these things in mind.
Look at whether the expert is representing a special interest group or a business.
Very often, experts are paid to form an opinion. There should be nothing unusual about this. It happens quite frequently in a court of law that each side of a case puts on an “expert” who is hired to come to a conclusion that supports a certain conclusion. This is where the hard work of being a critical thinker comes into play. You have to work to understand what the expert is saying and compare it to what other conflicting experts say.
Be wary of ONLY supporting the expert that confirms your pre-judgment.
If a new method or technology has developed such that prior expertise can be revised, then you can keep your inference open to revision.
Enumerative Induction
An argument which is based on a number of prior instances that support it to a future unobserved one. A pattern that develops.
EXAMPLE ONE:
Professor Vitt hit his head entering the classroom on Monday.
Professor Vitt hit his head entering the classroom on Tuesday.
Professor Vitt hit his head entering the classroom on Wednesday.
Professor Vitt hit his head entering the classroom on Thursday.
Thus, probably Professor Vitt hit his head entering the classroom on Friday.
Here, the general idea is that prior instances can support future instances. A kind of pattern develops that can also move into the future. One would hope that Professor Vitt would learn not to bump his head, but maybe he just has a pattern of doing that.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Now, there is another, broader notion of “enumeration induction” where an argument is based upon a number of supporting instances, but those supporting instances are not identical events indexed to a different incident.
- Clean has threatened to use a fire hose on Wash’s kitten before.
- Wash’s kitten was found soaking wet with a broken paw.
- Clean owns a fire hose.
- Clean has been practicing hitting Kitten shaped targets with his fire hose.
- Thus, Clean is guilty of using a fire hose on Wash’s kitten.
It is very important to note that premises 1-4 support (not explain) the conclusion #5 that Clean used the fire hose on a kitten. We are not saying that premises 1-4 are explained by 5. We are using 1-4 as evidence to help establish that a certain conclusion is probable. Support an unobserved event. Supporting conclusion.
ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EXPLANATIONS - premises support conclusions evidentarily, explanations provide interpretations of the relations of facts to one another.
Constant Conjunction
A special case -It can be an example of other types of induction such as Enumerative Induction, ‘General to Specific’ or even ‘Specific to General’ induction. If you are quizzed on such a question, I will make eliminate any overlap. Constant Conjunction as an inductive inference is when two events are always observed together in the past, and then the inference is that they will continue to be observed in the future. These arguments usually move from past observations to future observations. However, it is seen so often, that we will treat it as a specific sub-category.
Argument Form Example
This A has been followed by B.
This A also has been followed by B.
That A has been followed by B.
That A also has been followed by B.
Thus, a future A will follow B.
Argument Form Example
I got sick, drank olive oil, and then got better last time.
Thus, the next time I get sick, I will drink olive oil and it will make me feel better.
Drinking olive oil helped you get better after feeling sick. How do we know if I hadn’t drunken the olive oil that I wouldn’t have gotten better anyway. Basically correlation and causation.
