|
|
Types of Argumentation |
| Induction | ||||||||
| Inductive arguments are those in which a conclusion
is drawn about a class of objects, based upon the characteristics observed in a sample of
that class. Such arguments are persuasive to the extent that the sample was connected causally
to the larger class in such a way that the characteristics of the larger class will be
reflected in the sample. For example, "Most of the jellybeans in my hand are red.
They were taken from this jar, and I mixed them up well before I took them out. So most of
the jellybeans in this jar are red." Because inductive arguments turn upon the causal
connection between a sample and a larger class, they allow us to draw conclusions that
extend beyond what is said in the premisses. Induction indicates facts about the world
beyond what we actually observe; but this also makes induction open to the possibility of
error. Given the truth of the premisses, the conclusion is probably true, but
even true premisses cannot guarantee a true conclusion.
|
||||||||
| In induction the minor premiss is a CASE, as it is in
deduction - a class subsumed under a rule that we propose to test. However, the major
premiss is the RESULT of observations made on that class. The observations, then, tend to
confirm the RULE. An induction moves from CASE and RESULT to RULE:
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| In addition to the identification of fallacies, it is possible to critique the strength or weakness of inductive arguments. Click here for an explanation of the critique of Inductive arguments. | ||||||||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX