[Vision2020] Induction II

[Michael]

Wayne,

 

My answer to your further analysis of induction and deduction (below) is
'yes.'  This all seems agreeable to me.  However, I anticipate disagreement
about how sufficient inductive and deductive arguments are as a sufficient
method for investigating truth claims.  Perhaps you are narrowing the
epistemological goals here with the word "investigating," but I'm not sure.
But with that qualification, I'll repeat: it all sounds good to me.

 

Thanks

 

Michael Metzler

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051118/a83c484c/attachment-0001.htm