INDUCTION

GENUS: General principle

DIFFERENTIA:which states that events in nature are REGULAR, not RANDOM

ANALYTIC DEF’N

// The past, while not a carbon copy of the future,

nevertheless resembles it. //

ANALYTIC DEF’N

DENOTATA:The sun will rise in the East

tomorrow. Flipping that switch will turn the lights

off.

DEF’N by MILL & HUME

John Stuart Mill:

- assumption that there are such things in nature that are parallel

- under a sufficient degree of similarity, these events happen as often as the same circumstances recur

"This universal fact, which is our warrant for all inferences from

experience, is that the course of nature is uniform"

John Stuart Mill:Example:

“The next piece of snow that I will examine will be cold.”

David Hume- the foundation of induction (according to

Mill) is that the future will resemble the past- any suspicion that the course of nature may

change = experiences are useless = no inference/conclusion

“It is impossible, therefore, that any argument from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the

future since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that

resemblance”

David HumeExample:

“The next piece of snow that I will examine will be cold. “

All beliefs about unobserved matters of fact are derived from experience by induction.

Other Philosophers

- No need to justify the principle because it works.

- To justify the principle by saying that it works is tantamount to using the principle to justify itself.

• Fountainhead of all empirical arguments

• Connects one particular event with another, preventing isolation of events

• PREMISES: observed CONCLUSION: unobserved

NATURE of INDUCTION

NATURE of INDUCTION

• Using as evidence what you observed to be true in some instances to a conclusion that the same observation will obtain in most cases, yet unobserved (induction to justify your conclusion)

• What is claimed in the conclusion GOES BEYOND the evidence found in the premises.

• The conclusion is made probable on the basis of the truth of the premises

//(in most cases) Inductive arguments must content themselves with mere probability. //

INDUCTION vs.

DEDUCTION

* Specific to General

* Uses observations* Conclusion is regarded as a hypothesis (premises support the conclusion but do not ensure it)

* General to Specific

* Uses general truths/facts

* Used to test or confirm a hypothesis * Reason/Logic-based - false premise = false result - inconclusive

premises = inconclusive conclusion

INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION

* Strengthen your argument or hypothesis by adding another piece of information

* Adding more evidence will not/cannot improve your argument

INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION

Example

Socrates was Greek. Most Greeks eat fish. Therefore, Socrates

ate fish.

Example

All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore, Socrates

was mortal.

INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION

Example

2 is divisible by 2. 2 is an even number. Therefore, all even numbers are divisible by 2.

Example

All even numbers are divisible by 2.

2 is divisible by 2. Therefore, 2 is an

even number.

INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION

INDUCTION

Inductive arguments can include:-> PART-TO-WHOLE: where the whole

is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger).

-> EXTRAPOLATIONS: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area (same logic)

-> PREDICTIONS: where the future is assumed to be like the past.

-> ANALOGIES, HUNCHES, and so forth.

Part-to-Whole

All chocolates I’ve tasted are sweet.Most chocolates are sweet.

Extrapolations

A ball is observed to move one meter in one second.

//The ball will move 10 meters in 10 seconds.

Predictions

The Azkals have won in all of their previous matches. Therefore, the Azklas will win in their next game.

MORE EXAMPLES

"Every time you eat shrimp, you get cramps. Therefore you get cramps because you eat shrimp."

"Mikhail hails from Russia and Russians are tall, therefore Mikhail is tall."

"When chimpanzees are exposed to rage, they tend to become violent. Humans are similar to chimpanzees, and therefore they tend to get violent when exposed to rage."

"The women in the neighboring apartment has a shrill voice. I can hear a shrill voice from outside, therefore the women in the neighboring apartment are shouting."

RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

Marble experiment: *100 marbles ; same SIZE, WEIGHT &

BRIGHTNESS; -> but unsure of the COLORS

*Random selection of marbles

RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

GET 1 MARBLE.

RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

GET ANOTHER 9.

RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

GET ANOTHER 41.

RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

GET ANOTHER 48.

RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE

When you have complete evidence to confirm your generalization, you have

NOT made an inductive inference.

REMEMBER: known to the unknown; observed to the unobserved

Sources

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ded_ind.htmlhttp://www.buzzle.com/articles/inductive-reasoning-examples.htmlhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/induction.htmhttp://www.criticalthinking.com/company/articles/inductive-deductive-reasoning.jsphttp://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.htmlhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#Ind

-end-