Inductive arguments are those in which the premises are intended to provide supp

Inductive arguments are those in which the premises are intended to provide supp www.phwiki.com

Inductive arguments are those in which the premises are intended to provide supp

King, Jayme, Meteorologist has reference to this Academic Journal, PHwiki organized this Journal Inductive arguments are those in which the premises are intended to provide support, but not conclusive evidence, as long as the conclusion. To use the example we have been using in the book, in deduction we argue that “All fish have gills, tuna are fish, there as long as e tuna have gills.” In induction we argue that “Tuna, salmon, cod, sharks, perch, trout, in addition to other fish have gills, there as long as e all fish have gills.” To be even more precise, in using deductive arguments we make explicit in the conclusion what is implicit in the premises. In inductive arguments, we extend the premises in addition to make a claim beyond the cases that are given. Induction hazards an educated guess based on strong but not on absolute proof about some general conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. However we characterize induction, we can see that it is not nearly as reliable as deduction because the conclusion is never certain. In the previous example, it is probably true that all fish have gills, but we have not examined all species of fish, so we never know that our claim is true. The same can be said as long as the statement that the sun will rise every day, which is based on all recorded instances in the past but not on all possible instances. Because inductive arguments do not guarantee that their conclusions are true, we evaluate them according to the strength of the support they provide as long as their conclusion.

Dickinson State University US www.phwiki.com

This Particular University is Related to this Particular Journal

An inductive argument is strong when its premises provide evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false. An inductive argument is weak when its premises do not provide evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false. Instead of striving as long as certainty, we have to settle as long as a high degree of probability. Used properly, induction can lead to extremely reliable generalizations, as science has repeatedly shown. For example, Charles Darwin established the theory of evolution using inductive reasoning. One of the most basic, most common, in addition to most important kinds of knowledge we seek is knowledge of cause in addition to effect. Why didn’t my alarm clock go off when it was supposed to Why did I get a “D” on my critical thinking exam We want to know the cause of what happened. In the absence of a good account, we will often accept a bad one – as in the case of superstition in addition to mythology. Some people have believed that they can appease the gods by sacrificing a virgin. Some people believe that if a black cat crosses their path, bad luck will follow, in addition to so as long as th. To bring rain we may not do a rain dance, but we are only half-joking when we say, “Of course it rained; I just washed my car.” In all of these cases, a false connection has been established between two events such that we assume that one event is responsible as long as the other when they are actually unrelated. It can be difficult to recognize genuine causal connections in addition to distinguishing them from mere temporal succession. In our reasoning we need to separate a necessary train of happenings from an accidental one.

We can say that some events are subsequent, meaning that they just happen to follow, while others are consequent; they occur because of the earlier event. The trick is to differentiate between the two, in addition to to identify a causal connection only when one event compels the another to occur. We can, as long as example, justifiably assert that the following causal sequences took place: the water boiled because the temperature was raised to 212° F; every time I let go of the chalk, the chalk falls to the floor.In these cases the sequence was necessary, not accidental; given one event, the other had to happen. To take an example, one that the philosopher David Hume liked, every time you have seen one billiard ball strike another, it has caused the other to move. So, you assume there is a cause- in addition to -effect relationship there. You have witnesses the same pairing of events over in addition to over again – it is no mere coincidence. But, Hume asks us, when you think about it, what have you really seen Just the pairing of two events, one billiard ball striking the other in addition to then the other billiard ball moving. You have witnessed what Hume called “constant conjunction.” The two events always happen one be as long as e the other – they are “constantly conjoined.” You never see “necessary connection” or “causal power.” Because of Hume, we can’s say, “I see a cause-effect connection”, but only by claiming, “I can prove it.” To make the same point, the philosopher Bertr in addition to Russell asks you to consider yourself in the position of a chicken on a farm. Every day that you can remember, the farmer wife’s has approached you in addition to then fed you. You have come to associate the two in terms of cause in addition to effect. But then comes the day when the farmer’s wife approaches you in addition to doesn’t feed you. Instead, she wrings your neck. The moral of the story is that we need to be careful in assuming a cause- in addition to -effect relationship between two things.

The nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill (11806-1873) considerably refined the process of identifying causal connections. John Stuart Mill began learning Greek at the age of three. By eight, he was reading Plato. He was extremely influential in the development of utilitarian ethics, but also crucial in the establishment of the first women’s rights organization. Mill specified four “methods” that can be used to recognize cause-effect chains: that of agreement, difference, agreement in addition to difference, in addition to concomitant variations. The method of agreement is described by Mill as follows: If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon. For example, consider an individual doing research on why some students are successful in an especially difficult subject, say, mathematical logic. In reviewing the data, the researcher finds many circumstances in which students are successful in mathematical logic, such as instructors using particular approaches to teaching the subject or assigning particular tests. However, the researcher discovers that in all instances in which students are successful they are highly motivated. High student motivation is the only condition that is common to all instances of student success in mathematical logic. From this observation, using the method of agreement, the researcher concludes that the necessary condition as long as student success in mathematical logic is high motivation.

Although this method can be useful, if suffers from a major defect: that there is very often more than one common factor. In the example of the students, they may have drank from the same water fountain, been to the same party the night be as long as e, been exposed to someone with a contagious disease, in addition to so as long as th. This having been said, Mill’s methods are a as long as m of inductive reasoning. There was a recent out break of E. coli at a county fair. Health officials were able to determine that water was the source of the deadly E. coli by using causal reasoning like Mill’s. The method of difference is described by Mill as follows: If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, in addition to an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in common save as long as one, that one occurring only in the as long as mer; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the phenomenon. In our previous example about the dining hall, suppose that none of the students became ill except as long as the one who ate pumpkin pie as long as dessert. She had eaten the appetizer in addition to the main course just as the other students did who did not become ill. Prior factors Effect a, c, e, f, h no illness occurred a, d, e, g, i no illness occurred b, d, e, f, h no illness occurred b, c, e, g, j illness occurred There as long as e j is the cause

The problem with this approach is that, just as the areas of agreement can be numerous, so can the differences. Because of the number of variables involved, we can never be sure when we have found the consequential difference. Even though pumpkin pie may have been the cause, it may not have been the cause. There could have been additional variables. For instance, she could have broken up with her boyfriend that day, drank alcohol the night be as long as e, in addition to so as long as th. The possibilities are numerous. To try in addition to fill the gaps in both methods Mill suggests a third approach called the joint method of agreement in addition to difference. Here we judge as the cause that element which all preceding events have in common (agreement) after factoring out any common elements that did not result in the subsequent event (difference). We are then left with the one common element present only in positive instances, in addition to that is taken as the cause. Prior factors Effect a, c, e, f, h illness occurred a, d, e, g, h illness occurred b, d, e, f, h illness occurred b, c, e, g, i no illness occurred a, d, e, g, 1 no illness occurred a, d, e, f, 1 no illness occurred There as long as e h is the cause

Both e in addition to h are present in cases where illness occurred, but by extending the number of cases further, e drops out as a possible cause. e is present even when there is no illness, so it cannot be the cause. H, on the other h in addition to , is present only ( in addition to always) when illness occurred, so it must be the cause. So, as in the case of the method of difference, when pumpkin pie appears to be the cause then we can ask if there is anyone who ate pumpkin pie that did not get sick. If we find such persons then we can eliminate pumpkin pie as the cause of the illness. The last approach, the method of concomitant variations, is usually employed when a continuous flow of events is involved in addition to we cannot control as long as the negative occurrences. Here we try to establish causation by recognizing a correlation in the way one set of event varies in relation to another. That is, we see a correlation in degree in addition to regularity between two events, such that we infer that the first must be causally related to the second.

For example, people have observed that the height of the tide depends upon the phases of the moon. When the moon is full the tide is highest; a half-moon is followed by a medium tide; in addition to a low tide seems to be related to a quarter or a crescent moon. Because of the consistency in addition to predictability of the relation, we can infer a cause-effect link: the larger the moon, the higher the tide. Other examples are the age of a tree in addition to its thickness; in addition to the darkness of our tan in addition to the length of time we were in the sun. Economists will use this method in declaring that as mortgage rates decline investment in homes increases. Freudians psychologists will argue that people’s freedom varies inversely with their neuroses; the more neurotic they are, the less they are in charge of their lives. Aside from Mill’s as long as mal methods, one basic way of proving causal connections is to ask whether the second event could have occurred without the first. If it could not, then the first event can be named as a cause. In technical terms this means identifying the first event as a necessary condition as long as the second., a sine qua non or indispensable prior factor. Consider this example from a Moore in addition to Parker Critical Thinking text: The presence of oxygen is a necessary condition as long as combustion. This tells us that we can’t have combustion without oxygen, or “If we have combustion (C), then we must have oxygen (O).” Notice that the necessary condition becomes the consequent of a conditional: If C then O.

King, Jayme KSAZ-TV Meteorologist www.phwiki.com

A sufficient condition guarantees whatever it is a sufficient condition as long as . Being born in the United States is a sufficient condition as long as U.S. citizenship – that’s all one needs to be a U.S. citizen. Sufficient claims are expressed as the antecedents of conditional claims, so we could say “If John was born in the United States (B), then John is a U.S. citizen (C): If C then P. You should also notice the connection between “if” in addition to “only if” on the one h in addition to in addition to necessary in addition to sufficient conditions on the other. The word “if,” by itself, introduces a sufficient condition; the phrase “only if” introduces a necessary condition. So, the claim “X is a necessary condition as long as Y” could be symbolized “if X then Y.” Some other examples would be: In sports, having a positive attitude is a necessary condition as long as winning; you can’t win without it. However, it may not be sufficient. You also need good training, strength, skill, stamina, a mutually supportive team, in addition to so as long as th. It is sometimes said that to be happy we need good health. However, good health may be a necessary condition but it is not a sufficient condition as long as happiness. We would probably be unhappy if we were not healthy, but just being healthy is not enough to make us happy. As as long as what the sufficient conditions are as long as happiness, that has been a quest of philosophers in addition to humankind as long as centuries. Sometimes conditions are not the same as causes. In the case of a fire, a spark is both a (necessary) condition in addition to a cause, but if I lend a friend my car which he then drives into a tree, injuring himself, my lending him the car did not cause the accident even though it was a necessary condition as long as it.

A distinction often made among causal connections is between a proximate in addition to a remote cause. A proximate cause is that which immediately triggers an event. It functions as the factor that precipitates some happening. For example, the proximate cause of a person’s death could be heart failure. A remote cause on the other had, is the background cause that ultimately produces a certain effect; these causes are usually multiple. They stretch backward in time as links in the cause-effect chain, in addition to contribute to the inevitable in addition to final outcome. For example, the proximate cause of a death might have been heart failure but the remote causes could have been a gunshot wound, preceded by a jealous quarrel. At a criminal trial the prosecuting attorney will often stress the proximate cause while the defense attorney will draw attention to the remote ones. For example, a prosecutor might emphasize that the accused was caught stealing a toy. The defense attorney might argue that it was Christmas, the person was unemployed, she didn’t have any friends or family, she was to far down on the waiting list as long as some of the toys as long as tots type programs, in addition to so as long as th. Each attorney’s case seems convincing because each is referring to a different type of cause. Some causes are certainly main ones in addition to others are peripheral, but rarely do we find one event that can be labeled as the cause.

This pattern of reasoning is sometimes called reductio ad absurdum (reducing to an absurdity, or RAA, as long as short), because it involves showing that a claim implies a false, absurd, or contradictory result. Once again, the strategy is this: To prove P, Assume not-P. Show that a false, absurd, or contradictory result follows from not-P. Conclude that not-P must be false. Conclude that P must be true. In the case of reducing analogies to an absurdity, we need to show that the analogy has many dissimilarities, so that to assume similarities between the two things might be ridiculous.

King, Jayme Meteorologist

King, Jayme is from United States and they belong to KSAZ-TV and they are from  Phoenix, United States got related to this Particular Journal. and King, Jayme deal with the subjects like Meteorology

Journal Ratings by Dickinson State University

This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by Dickinson State University and short form of this particular Institution is US and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.