Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Informal Logic
- 1 Argument as reasoned dialogue
- 2 Questions and answers in dialogue
- 3 Criticisms of irrelevance
- 4 Appeals to emotion
- 5 Valid arguments
- 6 Personal attack in argumentation
- 7 Appeals to authority
- 8 Inductive errors, bias, and fallacies
- 9 Natural language argumentation
- Bibliography
- Index
8 - Inductive errors, bias, and fallacies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Informal Logic
- 1 Argument as reasoned dialogue
- 2 Questions and answers in dialogue
- 3 Criticisms of irrelevance
- 4 Appeals to emotion
- 5 Valid arguments
- 6 Personal attack in argumentation
- 7 Appeals to authority
- 8 Inductive errors, bias, and fallacies
- 9 Natural language argumentation
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
In a deductively valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Deductive validity is a very strict standard of argument. If an argument is deductively valid, it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. In an inductively strong argument, if the premises are true, it is probable or likely that the conclusion is true. If an argument is inductively strong and the premises are true, it is logically possible that the conclusion could be false. So inductive strength is a less strict standard of argument than deductive validity. Inductive strength is a matter of probability.
Probability and statistics have an acknowledged place in scientific reasoning and experimental methods, but even outside these specialized contexts, the use of inductive argument is an important part of most reasonable dialogue. For example, the use of statistical arguments seems to play an increasingly significant role in political decision making on virtually any subject of discussion.
Of the many different kinds of inductive arguments, we will single out three for discussion in this chapter. An inductive generalization is an argument from premises about a specific group or collection of individual persons or things to a more general conclusion, about a larger group or collection. Traditional logic textbooks have often stressed the perils of hasty generalizations, for it has been rightly perceived that inductive generalization is associated with significant and common fallacies.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Informal LogicA Pragmatic Approach, pp. 246 - 288Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008