Question

...
robert temple

fallacy of denying induction as logical method without good reason.

Not sure if my first post transferred, so here it is again.

"INDUCTION MAY BE A NECESSARY THOUGHT PROCESS AND NO DOUBT IT PLAYS A ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF SOME GENERALIZATIONS.  BUT IT IS NOT A LOGICAL PROCESS. THERE IS NO NECESSITY THAT THE NEXT OBSERVATION WILL YIELD THE SAME RESULT AS THE PREVIOUS ONES, NO MATTER HOW CONSISTENT AND NUMEROUS THEY HAVE BEEN."

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE  

 BY MIRAN EPSTEIN

definist fallacy

The level of intellectual power measured less than Brand Blanchard, but the above fallacy shocked me as it was so obvious.

generalizations come from induction (or found in retroduction); it is a process; the process is logical; and observations support a strong or weak conclusion;  whether other observations are consistent need not be relevant. So I call this Definition Retreat fallacy, equivalent to the one one above.  I had little hope to find one this bold -- yet, there it is!

Rob Temple
asked on Thursday, Dec 02, 2021 01:14:21 AM by robert temple

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

I don't see a question anywhere in there, but I assume you are looking for confirmation.

I do have a problem with the idea that induction is "not a logical process." As you point out, it depends on what definition of "logical" is being used. Often, people use "logic" and "reason" interchangeably in casual dialog, which is fine. Induction may not have anything to do with the laws of logic, but it is an extremely important part of the reasoning process. As for the rest of the quote, I don't have a problem with it. The author is stating what most of us here might see as the obvious— with induction, there are no guarantees .

Overall, I really don't have an issue with the quote. "Not logical" is not the same as "illogical," so if the author meant "not a strict logical process in that it doesn't comport with any of the rules of logic," then I am okay with it. Perhaps the text before or after the quote would offer some clarity to the author's intention.

answered on Thursday, Dec 02, 2021 05:30:26 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
robert temple writes:

Fellow Man,

Thank you for the thoughtful response.  It might be the case that I appeared too greedy for a subject and less circumspect as to intentional use of terms.  Every analysis, of course, should include an attitude of 'best intentions' which keeps nit-picking at a minimum. In another writing, I said much the same as you. 

Perhaps the reason I found it difficult to decide which fallacy applied had to do with this grey line -- the conflation of logic and reason.  Again, I appreciate your comments and may make use of your principal points.  I I felt a sense of excitement as it was my first post.  Sorry there was not an explicit question; it took some reworking to make it concise.

All in all, the general aim is to learn to use apply logic more often.

Be well.

RT

posted on Thursday, Dec 02, 2021 06:22:56 AM