Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Inductive Arguments
Let us begin by examining several examples of the kind of arguments an inductive logic
should explicate. Consider the following two arguments:
Example 1.. Every raven in a random sample of 3200 ravens is black. This strongly
supports the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
Conclusion: The proportion of all members of B that have attribute A is between r−q and
r+q (i.e., is within margin of error q of r).
Let's lay out this argument more formally. The Premise breaks down into three separate
premises:
Semi-formalization Formalization
Premise 1 The frequency (or proportion) of members with attribute A F[A,B∩S] = r
among the members of B in S is r.
Premise 2 S is a random sample of B with respect to whether or not its Random[S,B,A]
members have A
Premise 3 Sample S has exactly n members Size[S] = n
Therefore (with degree of support p) ========[p]
Conclusion The proportion of all members of B that have attribute A is F[A,B] = r ± q
between r−q and r+q (i.e., is within margin of error q of r)
Any inductive logic that encompasses such arguments should address two challenges. (1)
It should tell us which enumerative inductive arguments should count as good inductive
arguments, rather than as inductive fallacies. In particular, it should tell us how to
determine the appropriate degree p to which such premises inductively support the
conclusion, for a given margin of error q. (2) It should demonstrably satisfy the CoA.
That is, it should be provable (as a metatheorem) that if a conclusion expressing the
approximate proportion for an attribute in a population is true, then it is very likely that
sufficiently numerous random samples of the population will provide true premises for
good inductive arguments that confer degrees of support p approaching 1 for that true
conclusion—where, on pain of triviality, these sufficiently numerous samples are only a
tiny fraction of a large population. Later we will see how a probabilistic inductive logic
may meet these two challenges.
All objects remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by some external force.
An object's acceleration (i.e., the rate at which its motion changes from rest or uniform
motion) is in the same direction as the force exerted on it; and the rate at which the object
accelerates due to a force is equal to the magnitude of the force divided by the object's
mass. If an object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal
amount of force on the first object, but in the opposite direction to the force exerted by
the first object.
The evidence for (and against) this theory is not gotten by examining a randomly selected
subset of objects and the forces acting upon them. Rather, the theory is tested by
calculating observable phenomena entailed by it in a wide variety of specific situations—
ranging from simple collisions between small bodies to the trajectories of planets and
comets—and then seeing whether those phenomena really occur. This approach to testing
hypotheses and theories is ubiquitous, and should be captured by an adequate inductive
logic.
I.D : SP07-bb-0106
Article # : 06
SUMMARY
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________