[Vision2020] [Q2] Induction II

[Art Deco]

Michael,

 

Thank you for your acquiescence with the characterizations of deductive and inductive arguments.  Thank you also for your graciousness in participating in this public dialogue and your patience with an aging, faltering non-professional.

 

In our quest for common agreement about tools to use to validate/invalidate knowledge claims we have agreed, in brief, that:

 

[1]   Valid deductive arguments are arguments structured such that if the premise(s) are presumed true, then the conclusion(s) must also be true.

 

[2]   Correct inductive arguments are arguments structured such that if the premise(s) are presumed true, there is some probability that the conclusion(s) are also true.

 

There are a number of minor points about arguments we need to see if we agree upon before we tackle characterizing the inductive process (which we appear to be in agreement upon except for one or two very minor clarifications).

 

 

A.   Missing Premises

 

Some arguments can be made into valid deductive arguments by adding apparently missing or assumed premise(s).

 

Example:

 

The argument:

 

[P1] Claude's mom says he puts too much peanut butter on his grapefruit.

 

Therefore,

 

[C]  Claude does indeed put too much peanut butter on his grapefruit.

 

can be changed into a valid deductive argument by adding a premise:

 

[P1] Claude's mom says he puts too much peanut butter on his grapefruit.

[P2] If Claude's mom says something, it is true.

 

Therefore,

 

[C]  Claude does indeed put too much peanut butter on his grapefruit.

 

Similarly, some arguments can be made into correct inductive arguments by adding apparently missing or assumed premise(s).

 

Example:

 

The argument:

 

[P1] Clarabelle was bitten by Wes Nance.

 

Therefore,

 

[C]  Clarabelle will develop a fulminating case of scabies.

 

can be changed into a correct inductive argument by adding a premise:

 

[P1] Clarabelle was bitten by Wes Nance.

[P2] Most people bitten by Wes Nance develop a fulminating case of scabies.

 

Therefore,

 

[C]  Clarabelle will develop a fulminating case of scabies.

 

The point of the above is that when evaluating arguments or a series of arguments allegedly supporting a knowledge claim, it is important to understand the assumptions made or needed to make those arguments valid or correct.

 

 

B.   Extraneous, Irrelevant, or Unnecessary Premises

 

Just as assumptions/premises can be missing from arguments, there can be extraneous, irrelevant, or unnecessary premises.

 

Example:

 

The valid deductive argument just below doesn't need premise [P3] in order to be valid - the premise [P3] is unnecessary and irrelevant for the purposes of evaluating the validity of the argument.

 

[P1] If you put honey on a moose turd, it will taste sweeter.

[P2] Darold put honey on his moose turd.

[P3] Swilly's makes the best tiramisu on the Palouse.

 

Therefore,

 

[C]  Darold's moose turd will taste sweeter.

 

Similarly, the correct inductive argument just below doesn't need premise [P3] in order to be correct - the premise [P3] is unnecessary and irrelevant for the purposes of evaluating the correctness of the argument.

 

[P1] 99% of those who are bitten by a rabid egret will contract rabies and die if not treated promptly.

[P2] Spacey Milford was bitten by a rabid egret.

[P3] In a prolonged state of intense euphoria, Nancy unintentionally left her bra under the bed at Chris's house.

 

Therefore,

 

[C]  Spacey Milford will die if not treated promptly.

 

Just as it is important to identify missing premises/assumptions in arguments, it is important to remove unnecessary premises/assumptions from an argument.  The result is often clarifying and revealing.  Such elisions of unnecessary premises/assumptions are a modern application of a corollary of Occam's Razor.

 

 

Please let me know Michael whether or not you are in agreement with the two points made above.  If we are in agreement, then I will try in my dotage to muddle through the next step we need to discuss in our mutual quest to find an agreeable method to investigate knowledge claims.

 

Thank you again for your graciousness in participating in this public discussion.




Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843

(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:11 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Induction


  Wayne,

   

  Sorry, I did not see that email.  If anyone else has sent me an email expecting a response let me know.

   

  The answers to both your questions (below) is 'yes.'

   

  Please forgive me for being such a deceiving liar;  I hope all this illustrates well the kind of deception that comes from Christ Church on such a regular basis :-)  

   

  thanks

  Michael

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051117/6d9a7ebc/attachment-0001.htm