Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 1:05:25 [reposted on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51 | original URL]
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by Larry Hoover on December 2, 2005, at 0:35:11
> What I was trying to argue is this, in regular language. We happen to find one characteristic p, in company with another characteristic q (that's the 'if p and q' part). Then is it reasonable to assume that we will find p, if we have found q? (that's the 'q therefore p' part).
AAAAAAAAAAAAAh.
that looks like this:A1 has properties P1, P2,...
A2 has properties P1, P2,...
______________________________
It is probable that
A3 will have properties P1, P2,...The more properties (P1, P2...) they have in common...
AND
The more A1, A2, (objects / instances) we observe...
The more reason we have to believe that the conclusion is true...I don't think I've seen this interpreted / translated into IF___THEN form...
But it is possible that there might be an interpretation of it in IF__THEN form out there...
I just can't think of how it might go...> The proposition, as a whole, is not proven.
He hasn't given us good (plausible) reason to believe that the conclusion is more likely to be true than false. Even if the premiss is true... It's relation to the conclusion is too weak...
> In practical terms, we might conclude that it is false,
Arguments aren't true or false...
(they are valid / invalid / sound / unsound / inductively forceful / inductively weak)
But the conclusions can be true or false...
In this case... We would need to conduct a survey of what 'most' babblers believe.With respect to the argument...
It is not inductively forceful
It is inductively weakThat is what we would say...
nightie night ;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:585017
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20051203/msgs/585031.html