From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 27 08:38:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 27 Aug 2001 15:38:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 45473 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 15:19:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Aug 2001 15:19:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 15:19:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.72.ef87388 (17085) for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <72.ef87388.28bbbf07@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:19:35 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Induction To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_72.ef87388.28bbbf07_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10158 --part1_72.ef87388.28bbbf07_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Induction" is one of the worst terms in Logic. Even the relatively safe "An inductive inference is not deductively valid" has exceptions (inference from sample to population in a well-conducted test with all the margins written in). In a general logic book, the section on Induction is almost sure to include: inferences from samples to populations, inferences to causes, both specific and general, and inferences about the acceptability of hypotheses (of which Nick's abduction is an enthymematic version of one actually pretty good one). It may also include practical reasoning -- to what should be done in given circumstances and (casuistry) to good reasons for doing what you do, legal reasoning (if different from the above), historical reasoning, interpretive reasoning, and anything else that strikes the author's fancy. It is also the usual place for fallacy theory if that gets a place. Nick's specification of deductive and inductive is crude but in the right direction (there are cases of each that don't fit at all, e.g., "Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal Therefore Some man is mortal" is deductively valid; "Most redheds are hot-tempered, Maggie is a redhead, So Maggie is probably hot-tempered" is inductive by most standards, even those that take a fairly narrow view of things. --part1_72.ef87388.28bbbf07_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Induction" is one of the worst terms in Logic.  Even the relatively safe "An
inductive inference is not deductively valid" has exceptions (inference from
sample to population in a well-conducted test with all the margins written
in).  In a general logic book, the section on Induction is almost sure to
include: inferences from samples to populations, inferences to causes, both
specific and general, and inferences about the acceptability of hypotheses
(of which Nick's abduction is an enthymematic version of one actually pretty
good one).  It may also include practical reasoning -- to what should be done
in given circumstances and (casuistry) to good reasons for doing what you do,
legal reasoning (if different from the above), historical reasoning,
interpretive reasoning, and anything else that strikes the author's fancy.  
It is also the usual place for fallacy theory if that gets a place.  Nick's
specification of deductive and inductive is crude but in the right direction
(there are cases of each that don't fit at all, e.g., "Socrates is a man,
Socrates is mortal Therefore Some man is mortal" is deductively valid;  "Most
redheds are hot-tempered, Maggie is a redhead, So Maggie is probably
hot-tempered" is inductive by most standards, even those that take a fairly
narrow view of things. --part1_72.ef87388.28bbbf07_boundary--