Module 9A Flashcards
Define Non-Deductive Argument:
- Most beliefs are formed through non-deductive arguments, whereSUPPORT IS LESS THAN COMPLETE but often SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT OUR BELIEFS.
- Most of what we believe on the basis of arguments relies on non-deductive reasoning
If all good arguments were deductively valid, most of our beliefs would be based on poor arguments… EXPLAIN
– Deductive validity alone does not account for the majority of our beliefs;
- non-deductive arguments play a crucial role in supporting our convictions.
Non-deductive arguments form the basis for much of our belief system.
These arguments may not offer complete support, but they provide enough justification for our beliefs.
Inductive Arguments
Definition:
In inductive inferences, conclusions covering unobserved things are drawn from:
- experiences or observations,
- expanding knowledge based on perception,
- observation,
- testimony, or
- authority.
Basis of Inductive Inference:
Inductive arguments involve REASONING FROM what we have EXPERIENCED OR OBSERVE TO CONCLUSIONS THAT ENCOMPASS UNOBSERVED ASPECTS, —CONTRIBUTING TO KNOWLEDGE EXPANSION.
Justification of Reliance on Experts
If we ….BASE KNOWLEDGE ON EXPERT OPINIONS, the RELIANCE ON EXPERTS IS JUSTIFIED THROUGH INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT.
Type of Inductive Arguments:
Inductive Analogies:
Examination of a type of inductive argument involving analogies.
Major Types of Inductive Arguments:
(i) Singular Inductions
(ii) Inductive Generalizations
(iii) Explanatory Inductions
Explanation: These are three major types of inductive arguments.
– ALSO DON’T FORGET INDUCTIVE ANALOGIES
Common Characteristics of Inductive Arguments:
- Premises Content: (INFERENCE BASIS)
– Reports on /Drawing conclusions on observations or experiences. - Conclusion Type:
– Factual statement about past, present, or future events. - Nature of Extrapolation:
—Involves extrapolating from observed to unobserved. - Probability Aspect:
— The conclusion is made probable by the premises.
Arguments in which premises are observational or experiential reports, leading to a factual conclusion about past, present, or future events. The conclusion extrapolates from observed to unobserved, and it is made probable by the premises.
Type of Inductive Argument:
Singular Inductions
Characteristics:
- Argument from EXPERIENCE of similar situations to a conclusion about a SINGLE OCCASION
Example: Dining at Zorba’s and predicting Zorba will dance on the table during the next visit.
Type of Inductive Argument:
Inductive Generalizations
Characteristics:
- Conclusions about all members of a class based on information about a sample.
- Example: Waiters at UWA cafés, where most observed waiters are students at UWA.
Type of Inductive Argument:
Explanatory Inductions
Characteristics:
- Arguments from OBSERVED DATA TO PROBABLE CAUSE..
- Example: Receipt of a postcard with Bangkok scene and Thailand postmark as evidence of safe arrival in Thailand.
Causal explanation involves the observed data (postcard) and the probable cause (being in Thailand).
Concept: Inference to the Best Explanation:
In inductive arguments, the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises.
In cases where multiple explanations are possible, we make an inference to the best explanation.
—- It is possible that you went to India instead and asked a friend to post the card. Or perhaps you
didn’t leave W.A. at all, wishing to save money and for me to think that you were having a good time.
— In cases such as this, what we make is what is called anINFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION.
Good explanatory inductions are ones in which the explanation offered is the
BEST OF THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Good Explanatory Inductions
In explanatory inductions, the quality of the explanation offered is crucial.
— Good explanatory inductions provide the best among possible alternatives.
Example of Inference to the Best Explanation:
Premises:
(a) Alain is out of his office every Thursday between 2 p.m and 3.30 p.m.
(b) I see him rushing off before 2 each week.
(c) He has a gleam in his eye when he returns.
(d) When he returns, he is showered, red in the face, . . .
(g) He is looking sharper, fitter, . . .
Conclusion: Alain has weekly workouts at the gym.
————–Complex Form of the Argument:————————-
There is a range of facts (a), (b), (c), . . . (g).
Good explanation: Alain goes to the gym for weekly workouts.
No other rival hypothesis provides a better explanation.
Therefore, Alain has weekly workouts at the gym.
Different Types of Facts:
Some observed facts form part of the causal explanation (e.g., (d) and (g)), while others are expected to be true if the conclusion is true (e.g., (b)).
This distinction is crucial in EVALUATING STRENGTH OF INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION. .
Illustrative Example: Lee Harvey Oswald and Motive
– In some cases, observed facts are expected to be true if the conclusion is true.
– For example, if Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Kennedy, we would expect to find it true that Oswald had a motive, even though the killing did not cause him to have the motive.
Evaluating Inductive Arguments
Evaluation involves assessing ACCEPTABILITY and SUPPORT in inductive arguments.
Challenge in Inductive Arguments:
EVEN IN GOOD inductive arguments, ALL PREMISES CAN BE ACCEPTABLE AND TRUE, YET THE CONCLUSION MAY FAIL TO BE TRUE WHEN IT GOES BEYOND THE EVIDENCE.