Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Induction

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:19:35 EDT

"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.