Re: ...or overgeneralizing?

Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 0:24:00 [reposted on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50 | original URL]

In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing? » badhaircut, posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2005, at 13:08:02

> Most people here think they smarter than pdoc
> I know thats true because Im one of them.
Hmm...
There is an indeterminacy between translating between english (or any natural language) and logic, but lets have a go...
(p1) I am a person here and I think I am smarter than pdoc
________________________________________________
(c) Most people here think they are smarter than pdoc
It isn't a valid argument.
(because it is possible for (p1) to be true, while (c) is false WITHOUT CONTRADICTION).
But then...
I think it is uncharitable to interpret it as an attempt as a deductively valid argument
(where the intention is that (p1) guarantees the truth of (c) )
I think it is more charitable to attempt to interpret it as an inductive argument
(inductive arguments aren't supposed to guarantee the truth of (c) - but if (p1) is true then they are supposed to make (c) more probably true than false)
It is generalising from one case
To all babblers.
One can only be so charitable without distorting reality (the intentions of the arguer) a little tooooo much...
With respect to the formal fallacy...
I think the fallacy people were thinking of was...
IF p THEN q
q
____________
therefore p
But I don't think that interpretation is lisenced because... There aren't any 'IF___THEN' statements either explicit or implied...
If it had been the other way around, it would have been a better inductive argument:
(p1) Most people here think they are smarter than pdoc
________________________________________________
(c) I am a person here and I think I am smarter than pdoc
that... would be a fairly good inductive argument...
(or, in terminology it would be reasonably forceful, one would have fairly good grounds for accepting the truth of the conclusion GIVEN the truth of the premiss...
But...
Is the premiss true?
I think there may be better arguments out there...
;-)

Thread

Re: ...or overgeneralizing? » badhaircut Larry Hoover 12/3/05
if pdoc then q » willyee » Larry_Hoover pseudoname 12/3/05
Re: if pdoc then q linkadge 12/3/05
Re: ...larry hoover willyee 12/3/05
Re: ...Correction willyee 12/3/05
Re: if pdoc then q jamestheyonger 12/3/05
Re: ...Correction » willyee Glydin 12/3/05
Re: if pdoc then q » pseudoname Larry Hoover 12/3/05
Re: ...larry hoover » willyee Larry Hoover 12/3/05
Re: ...or overgeneralizing? alexandra_k 12/3/05
Re: ...or overgeneralizing? alexandra_k 12/3/05
Re: if pdoc then q alexandra_k 12/3/05
Re: if pdoc then q alexandra_k 12/3/05
Re: ...addendum Larry Hoover 12/3/05
Re: ...addendum alexandra_k 12/3/05
We have some ppl with a lot of time here UgottaHaveHope 12/3/05
Re: if pdoc then q » alexandra_k Larry Hoover 12/3/05
Re: ...addendum » alexandra_k Larry Hoover 12/3/05
Re: ...or overgeneralizing? linkadge 12/3/05
Re: ...addendum linkadge 12/3/05
Re: ...addendum » linkadge Larry Hoover 12/3/05
Re: ...addendum linkadge 12/3/05
...
Re: existential doubts, existential quantifier » alexandra_k2 zeugma 12/15/05

Post a new follow-up

Notify the administrators

Start a new thread

poster:alexandra_k thread:585017
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20051203/msgs/585026.html