Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Induction

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:06:44 EDT

In a message dated 8/31/2001 6:37:09 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> la nitcion cusku di'e
> 
> >You can "jinvi" based on all sorts of things. Isn't 'conclude' a sort of
> >{jalge jinvi}? And 'deduce' and 'abduce' a {javni jinvi}?
> 
> I don't know, could you expand the tanru? Give a couple of
> examples?
> 
> mi jivbi'o le du'u do se xajmi kei fo le nu do cmila
> I conclude from your laughter that you were amused.
> 
> How does {jalge} enter into it?
> 

As I said, "induction" is about worst word to mess with ("abduction" and 
"conduction" are actually worse but almost no one uses them). There are, of 
course, rules fro all kinds of reasoning and all reasoning leads from 
premises to conclusion (antecedent information to resulting new information). 
Some rules guarantee that the conclusion is at least as certain as the 
premises, others don't, a few pretty much guarantee the opposite. Some are 
mathematically precise, some are fairly precise, some are sloppy below the 
"rule of thumb" level. My advice is to have a good word for deductively 
valid arguments and after that just go with reasoning. If it really matter, 
talk about the paradigm that you are working off of; that probably counts for 
more than the actual rules most of the time.