This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
Lecture notes 101110
Here’s an inductive argument:
(T = time
X = place)
At T
1
and X
1
, the observed raven was black
At T
2
and X
2
, the observed raven was black
At T
3
and X
3
, the observed raven was black
…and so on…
Therefore, all ravens are black
This argument is INVALID.
But it can still be a good argument (that is, our
observations can serve as strong evidence for the conclusion) if we observe
a lot
of
ravens.
Inductive arguments are evaluated in terms of strength/weakness, not in terms of
validity/invalidity
To determine the strength of an inductive argument, we must evaluate two things:
(1) Sample size, and (2) bias.
Consider an inductive argument for the law F=MA.
We can draw one of three
conclusions about F=MA:
(1)
It’s a true law of nature
(2)
It’s a coincidence
(3)
There’s some trick (on the part of the person giving us the argument)
To get an idea of which option is best, we need to have a large, nonbiased sample
(say, one million good tests of F=MA).
But even if we perform a million good
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 09/14/2011 for the course PHIL 1200 taught by Professor Davey during the Fall '08 term at Missouri (Mizzou).
 Fall '08
 DAVEY

Click to edit the document details