THE NATURE OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT CONTINUED

1978 ◽  
pp. 269-278
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Argument

Methodological Naturalism and Reflexivity Requirement

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-330
Author(s):  
Hamed Bikaraan-Behesht ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Vicious Circle ◽  
Methodological Naturalism ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Methodological Rule

Methodological naturalists regard scientific method as the only effective way of acquiring knowledge. Quite the contrary, traditional analytic philosophers reject employing scientific method in philosophy as illegitimate unless it is justified by the traditional methods. One of their attacks on methodological naturalism is the objection that it is either incoherent or viciously circular: any argument that may be offered for methodological naturalism either employs a priori methods or involves a vicious circle that ensues from employing the very method that the argument is aimed to show its credentials. The charge of circularity has also been brought against the naturalistic arguments for specific scientific methods; like the inductive argument for induction and the abductive argument for the inference to the best explanation. In this paper, I respond to the charge of circularity using a meta-methodological rule that I call ‘reflexivity requirement.’ Giving two examples of philosophical works, I illustrate how the requirement has already been considered to be necessary for self-referential theories. At the end, I put forward a meta-philosophical explanation of the naturalism-traditionalism debate over the legitimate method of philosophy.

The Inductive Argument for Subjectivism

The Monist ◽  
1934 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-107
Author(s):  
Donald C. Williams ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Argument

The basic issue surrounds whether the law has been broken. We have been told Mary has been charged with theft under s 1 of the Theft Act. We are to assume that the three statements provided containing all of the information in this scenario have been produced just for us to read and work on. For the purposes of this exercise we will assume that these statements were produced in ways not calling into doubt their admissibility or credibility. This means therefore that we only have to concentrate on their probative value. (What do they prove?) The seven point approach of Twining and Miers will be used. 1 Standpoint: the standpoint of the Chart is that of the author of this book demonstrating the Wigmore Chart Method for the purposes of demonstrating the method and argument construction. 2 Stages 2, 3 and 4: relate to setting up the propositions and then key listing and charting. The impossibility of approaching each task in an isolated way is immediately perceived as we are going to work from statements. We have to find out the facts before we can draft the UP, PP, and interim probanda. Task: so that you can appreciate the levels of analysis go back to the statements and highlight the key words and phrases that begin to allow you to break into them and locate the story, and the law. Then try to give answers to the following questions: (1) What are the relevant facts? (2) What key phrases in the statements give you clues as to the application of the law? (3) Can you construct the deductive argument for the prosecution? (4) Can you construct the inductive argument for the prosecution? (5) Can you construct the opposing inductive argument for the defence? (6) Are there any conditions of doubt in your mind surrounding the wording of s1(1) of the Theft Act which may apply? (For example questions surrounding the presence of both mens rea and actus reus.) DO NOT PROCEED UNTIL YOU HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS (1)–(6).

2012 ◽  
pp. 253-254
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Key Words And Phrases ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Law ◽  
Key Phrases

Principles and Contraries

2019 ◽  
pp. 156-189
Author(s):  
Sylvain Delcomminette
Keyword(s):  
Main Section ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Main Thesis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

Contrary to readings that consider Physics I 5 as doxographical, this chapter argues that it is the first step of a constructive inquiry whose conclusions, paradoxical as they may seem, are never dismissed later. Its main thesis is that the contraries are principles of coming-to-be and passing-away, but it also endorses the stronger thesis that the principles are contraries. Although it appeals to doxographical considerations, its main section is an inductive argument which heralds the concept of privation, without mentioning it explicitly. This chapter studies the relationship between the opposition of contraries and that of possession and privation, as well as the way Aristotle reduces the intermediates to the contraries. Finally, it shows how the device of sustoikhia (‘series’) allows Aristotle to identify the opposition between possession and privation as the first pair of contraries and to organize the positions of his forerunners in respect of their proximity to the truth.

Building an Inductive Argument

2010 ◽  
pp. 45-57
Author(s):  
Carolyn A. Maher ◽  
Manjit K. Sran ◽  
Dina Yankelewitz
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Argument

Proof Frames of Preservice Elementary Teachers

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Gary Martin ◽  
Guershon Harel
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Teachers ◽  
Mathematical Proof ◽  
Preservice Elementary Teachers ◽  
Deductive Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Mathematics Course

This study asked 101 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a sophomore-level mathematics course to judge the mathematical correctness of inductive and deductive verifications of either a familiar or an unfamiliar statement. For each statement, more than half the students accepted an inductive argument as a valid mathematical proof. More than 60% accepted a correct deductive argument as a valid mathematical proof; 38% and 52% accepted an incorrect deductive argument as being mathematically correct for the familiar and unfamiliar statements, respectively. Over a third of the students simultaneously accepted an inductive and a correct deductive argument as being mathematically valid.

scholarly journals Assessing Papal Probabilities: A Reply to Joseph E. Blado

Perichoresis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 105-116
Author(s):  
Jerry L. Walls
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Argument

AbstractJoseph Blado critiqued my probabilistic arguments against Roman papal doctrines by deploying probability arguments, particularly Bayesian arguments, in favor of the papacy. He contends that there are good C-inductive arguments for papal doctrine that, taken together, add up to a good P-inductive argument. I argue that his inductive arguments fail, and moreover that there are three good C-inductive arguments against papal doctrine in the neighborhood of his failed arguments. I conclude by critiquing his retreat to what he calls ‘skeptical papalism’ as a last ditch sort of move to defend papal doctrine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document