INDUCTION

1. INDUCTION

2. ANALYTIC DEF’N GENUS: General principle DIFFERENTIA: which states that events in nature are REGULAR, not RANDOM // The past, while not a carbon copy of the future, nevertheless resembles it. //

3. ANALYTIC DEF’N DENOTATA: The sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Flipping that switch will turn the lights off.

4. DEF’N by MILL & HUME

5. John Stuart Mill: - assumption that there are such things in nature that are parallel - under a sufficient degree of similarity, these events happen as often as the same circumstances recur "This universal fact, which is our warrant for all inferences from experience, is that the course of nature is uniform"

6. John Stuart Mill: Example: “The next piece of snow that I will examine will be cold.”

7. David Hume • the foundation of induction (according to Mill) is that the future will resemble the past • any suspicion that the course of nature may change = experiences are useless = no inference/conclusion “It is impossible, therefore, that any argument from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance”

8. David Hume Example: “The next piece of snow that I will examine will be cold. “ All beliefs about unobserved matters of fact are derived from experience by induction.

9. Other Philosophers • No need to justify the principle because it works. - To justify the principle by saying that it works is tantamount to using the principle to justify itself.

10. NATURE of INDUCTION • Fountainhead of all empirical arguments • Connects one particular event with another, preventing isolation of events • PREMISES: observed CONCLUSION: unobserved

11. NATURE of INDUCTION • Using as evidence what you observed to be true in some instances to a conclusion that the same observation will obtain in most cases, yet unobserved (induction to justify your conclusion) • What is claimed in the conclusion GOES BEYOND the evidence found in the premises. • The conclusion is made probable on the basis of the truth of the premises //(in most cases) Inductive arguments must content themselves with mere probability. //

12. INDUCTION vs.DEDUCTION

13. INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION * General to Specific * Uses general truths/facts * Used to test or confirm a hypothesis * Reason/Logic-based - false premise = false result - inconclusive premises = inconclusive conclusion * Specific to General * Uses observations * Conclusion is regarded as a hypothesis (premises support the conclusion but do not ensure it)

14. INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION * Adding more evidence will not/cannot improve your argument * Strengthen your argument or hypothesis by adding another piece of information

15. INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION Example All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore, Socrates was mortal. Example Socrates was Greek. Most Greeks eat fish. Therefore, Socrates ate fish.

16. INDUCTION vs. DEDUCTION Example All even numbers are divisible by 2. 2 is divisible by 2. Therefore, 2 is an even number. Example 2 is divisible by 2. 2 is an even number. Therefore, all even numbers are divisible by 2.

17. INDUCTION Inductive arguments can include: -> PART-TO-WHOLE: where the whole is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger). -> EXTRAPOLATIONS: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area (same logic) -> PREDICTIONS: where the future is assumed to be like the past. -> ANALOGIES, HUNCHES, and so forth.

18. Part-to-Whole All chocolates I’ve tasted are sweet. Most chocolates are sweet.

19. Extrapolations A ball is observed to move one meter in one second. //The ball will move 10 meters in 10 seconds.

20. Predictions The Azkals have won in all of their previous matches. Therefore, the Azklas will win in their next game.

21. MORE EXAMPLES "Every time you eat shrimp, you get cramps. Therefore you get cramps because you eat shrimp." "Mikhail hails from Russia and Russians are tall, therefore Mikhail is tall." "When chimpanzees are exposed to rage, they tend to become violent. Humans are similar to chimpanzees, and therefore they tend to get violent when exposed to rage." "The women in the neighboring apartment has a shrill voice. I can hear a shrill voice from outside, therefore the women in the neighboring apartment areshouting."

22. RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE Marble experiment: *100 marbles ; same SIZE, WEIGHT & BRIGHTNESS; -> but unsure of the COLORS *Random selection of marbles

23. RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE GET 1 MARBLE.

24. RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE GET ANOTHER 9.

25. RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE GET ANOTHER 41.

26. RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE GET ANOTHER 48.

27. RELIABILITY OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE When you have complete evidence to confirm your generalization, you have NOT made an inductive inference. REMEMBER: known to the unknown; observed to the unobserved

28. Sources http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/ http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ded_ind.html http://www.buzzle.com/articles/inductive-reasoning-examples.html http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/induction.htm http://www.criticalthinking.com/company/articles/inductive-deductive-reasoning.jsp http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#Ind

29. -end-