Inductive

Question 0

No inductive argument is a valid deductive argument.

Answer 0

Deductive arguments try to determine their conclusion with certainty.

The criteria for evaluating inductive arguments are criteria that tend to show that an inductive argument is strong or weak.

Question 1

Principle of the Uniformity of Nature

Answer 1

That the laws of nature that have held in the past will continue to hold in the future; assumed in all inductive arguments.

Question 2

Strength of inductive arguments’ conclusion

Answer 2

Strength of a conclusion is determined by the amount of evidence needed to show that the conclusion is false.

A ‘strong conclusion’ takes little or merely one example to prove its conclusion false.

A ‘weak conclusion’ takes a lot of evidence to show it is false. They tend to be more general; ie harder to prove to be wrong.

Question 3

Inductive generalizations are based on a sample.

Sample: a limited collection of objects of the kind under investigation.

Answer 3

Diversity of the sample makes for better information, and if the number used in the sample is increased the probability of the truth of the conclusion increases.

Question 4

Inductive counterexample

Answer 4

A case that is sufficient to show that the conclusion of an inductive argument is false.

Question 5

Criteria for evaluating inductive arguments by enumeration

Answer 5

1. As the number of objects taken into accounts increases, the generalization is strengthened.
2. The more diverse the sample is, the better the basis for the generalization is.
3. The stronger the conclusion is, the weaker the argument is.

Question 6

Analogy

Answer 6

A likeness drawn between two or more entities in one or more respects.

Analogies are used to enhance description and to aid in explanation, such as metaphor and simile.

Question 7

Analogical argument

Answer 7

A type of inductive argument in which it is concluded that two entities are alike in some respect, on the ground that they are alike in some other respect(s).

Every analogical inference proceeds from the similarity of two or more things in one or more respects to the similarity of those things in some further respect.

Question 8

The 4 basic elements of an analogy

Answer 8

1. Ground for the analogy
2. Objective extension of the analogy
3. Basis of the analogy
4. Problematic extension of an analogy

Question 9

1.Ground for the analogy

Answer 9

The entities having all the properties under consideration

Question 10

2. Objective extension of the analogy

Answer 10

The entity compared to the ground of the analogy and which is known to have a number of properties in common with the entities in the ground.

Question 11

3. Basis of an analogy

Answer 11

Those properties known to be common to the ground and the objective extension of the analogy.

Question 12

4. Problematic extension of an analogy

Answer 12

That property common to the objects of the ground not known to be a property of the object extension.

Question 13

The 6 criteria for appraising analogical arguments

Answer 13

1. Number of entities
2. Number of similar respects
3. Variety of instances in the premises
4. Relevance
5. Disanalogies
6. Claim that the conclusion makes

Question 14

1. Number of entities

Answer 14

In general, the larger the number of entities compared (the larger the ground for the analogy), the stronger the argument is.

Question 15

2. Number of similar respects

Answer 15

The larger the number of respects in which the entity in the conclusion is similar to the entities in the premises (the more properties that are included in the basis), the more probable it is that the conclusion is true.

Question 16

3. Variety of the instances in the premises

Answer 16

When a significant number of things are similar in a significant number of respects (when the ground and the basis are strong), differences among objects in the ground can strengthen the evidence for the conclusion of the analogy.

Question 17

4. Relevance

Answer 17

Respects add to the force of the argument when they are relevant, and a single highly relevant factor contributes more to the argument than a host of irrelevant similarities.

Question 18

5. Disanalogies

Answer 18

Disanalogy: a point of difference, a relevant respect in which objects in the ground for the analogy differ from those in the objective extension.

Disanalogies undermine an analogical argument; dissimilarities among the premises reinforcing period. Disanalogies tend to show that there are relevant respects in which the case in the conclusion differs from those in the premises; dissimilarities among the premises tend to show that what might have been thought causally relevant to the attribute of interest is not relevant at all.

Question 19

6. Claim that the conclusion makes

Answer 19

Generally, the weaker the conclusion the less burden is placed upon the premises and the stronger the argument; the stronger the conclusion the greater is the burden on the premises and the weaker the argument.

Question 20

H1: a hypothesis must be testable

Answer 20

Tests can give evidence to confirm a hypothesis

Question 21

H2: if predictions based upon a hypothesis are true, this tends to show that the hypothesis is true

Answer 21

If there is no way to test a hypothesis, there is no direct way to falsify it. Thus, if the hypothesis has testability it can be confirmed or falsified and is practical and not just theoretical.

Question 22

H3: a hypothesis is more probably true if it has a broader explanatory scope, that is, if it explains more phenomena than alternative hypotheses.

Answer 22

Consilience: the tendency of several forms of inductive evidence to point to the same conclusion.

H3 is important when a hypothesis will explain an anomaly, a fact that cannot be explained in the basis of an accepted hypothesis or theory.

Question 23

H4: Principle of Parsimony (Ockham’s Razor)

Answer 23

If either of two hypotheses will explain a phenomenon and one involves fewer theoretical assumptions, the hypothesis that involves fewer assumptions is more probably true.

The smaller the number of theoretical assumptions, the easier it is to falsify the hypothesis (theory) as well as to confirm it.

Question 24

H5: a hypothesis is more probably true if it is consistent with the best theoretical explanations available.

Answer 24

1. Theories can give guidance as to what are probably relevant hypotheses.
2. Theories can give explanation as to why a hypotheses might be true.
3. Theoretical explanations are conservative; new ones come about if they explain things that the previous ones did not.

Question 25

H6: a hypothesis is more probably true if it is fruitful

Answer 25

A hypothesis is fruitful if it correctly predicts previously unknown phenomena.