mavii

Inductively strong arguments and reasons can take many different forms; in this module, we will focus on those that involve probability. We can also speak of inductively strong reasons.

In inductive arguments, the arguer intends the argument to satisfy another standard, that the conclusion follow with high probability but not certainty from the basic premises. If it does, the argument is said to be inductively strong. Inductive strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductively validity.

The argument is inductively strong and gives you good grounds for accepting the conclusion. It won't guarantee the truth of the conclusion the way valid arguments will, but it does give good inductive, probabilistic justification for accepting the conclusion.

A cogent argument is a strong argument with true premises. All arguments are made better by having true premises, of course, but the differences between deductive and inductive arguments concern structure, independent of whether the premises of an argument are true, which concerns semantics.

The logic employs conditional probability functions to represent the degree to which an argument’s premises support its conclusion. This approach is often called a Bayesian inductive logic, because a theorem of probability theory called Bayes’ Theorem plays a central role in articulating how evidence claims inductively support hypotheses.

An argument may be inductively strong according to one way of assigning probabilities to the rows of its truth table, but not inductively strong according to a different way of assigning probabilities to the rows of its truth table.

Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong Argument Begin by taking a look at the companion document “How to Construct a Valid Main Argument.” Many of the steps in that document are important here as well, especially steps 1-3:

A strong argument is an inductive argument that succeeds in having its conclusion be probably true, given the truth of the premises. A weak argument is an inductive argument that fails in having its conclusion be probably true, even given the truth of the premises. With this in mind, let’s next see how we can identify inductive arguments.

One inductive argument is stronger than another when its conclusion is more probable than the other, given their respective premises. One consequence of this difference in evaluative standards for inductive and deductive arguments is that for the former, unlike the latter, our evaluations are subject to revision in light of new evidence.

Discover what is inductive argument with our clear, concise explanation. Learn how inductive reasoning works, its key characteristics, and real-world applications. Explore examples, strengths, and limitations of inductive arguments to enhance your critical thinking and logical analysis skills. Perfect for students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding inductive reasoning.

Inductive arguments Arguments where the goal (to achieve strong and reliable beliefs) is to provide the best available evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is unlikely that the premises are true and the conclusion false. Strong inductive arguments achieve this goal - providing the best available evidence.

By contrast, in an inductively strong argument, the conclusion contains new information. A deductively valid argument with all true premises must have a true conclusion.

Inductive Arguments Inductive arguments aim to provide premises that make the conclusion more probable than it otherwise would be. The inductive arguments aim to support the conclusion without making it unavoidable. The inductive arguments thus make their conclusions merely probable but not guaranteed. Example Most men eat meat. John is a man. Therefore, John eats meat. In this case, there is ...

Corresponding to the notion of deductive soundness, an inductive argument that is both strong and has true premises is called a cogent inductive argument. Unlike the case if deductively sound arguments, it is possible for an inductively cogent argument to have true premises and a false conclusion.

With an inductively strong argument, although the premises do not logically entail the conclusion, they provide strong inductive support for it. There are at least three main differences between an inductively strong argument and a valid argument :

Inductive arguments—whose premises give us a strong, even if defeasible, reason for accepting the conclusion— are called, unsurprisingly, strong inductive arguments. In contrast, an inductive argument that does not provide a strong reason for accepting the conclusion are called weak inductive arguments.

The notion corresponding to soundness in inductive logic is cogency: An cogent (inductive) argument is one that is both strong and has true premises. And corresponding to unsoundness: An uncogent (inductive) argument is either a weak argument or a strong argument with a false premise. Further Points of Contrast b/t Deductive and Inductive Arguments

This page explores inductive reasoning, contrasting it with deductive reasoning. It defines inductively strong arguments as those where true premises lead to probable conclusions, unlike deductive …

Inductive arguments are arguments intended to be judged by the inductive standard of, “Do the premises make the conclusion probable?” So, the strengths of inductive arguments range from very weak to very strong.

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.