Inductive Arguements

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:8ef89b9da3="JohnV"]CT:
What do you mean by "fallacious"?
[/quote:8ef89b9da3]

Logically fallacious. Cannot justify conclusion.

[quote:8ef89b9da3]
If you take what Paul M says above, [quote:8ef89b9da3]"Inductive arguments are only strong or weak depending on the evidence. They are not meant to give the certainty the deduction does." [/quote:8ef89b9da3]
how do you relate this to what you said above, [quote:8ef89b9da3]But how can one do induction without falling into this trap? Everytime a person does induction, one has to put up some way of determining something's truth/correctness. However there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else. [/quote:8ef89b9da3]
[/quote:8ef89b9da3]

I am not sure if Paul M. believes that induction is always a formal falacy. If he does not, then I disagree.

[quote:8ef89b9da3]
How do you determine the "truth/correctness" of something? Your statement, "there is no way of showing that something occurs only if X is true. It could always be something else" is an inducted proposition,
[/quote:8ef89b9da3]

No it is not, I do not have to look at many inductive statements to come to that conclusion. It is just the logical fallacy of affirm the consequent. If A then B. B Therefore A.

[quote:8ef89b9da3]
and if it is true then you cannot know that it is true. So how do you come by that?
[/quote:8ef89b9da3]

Huh?

[quote:8ef89b9da3]
It can always be something else. So how do you come by generalizations like that without induction, and how do you determine their truth? How do you understand the term, "fallacious" as it relates to logic?[/quote:8ef89b9da3]

Actually one could just say that one can never know the truth of propositions outside of the Bible. All one can do is attempt to find things that are useful.

CT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top