Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: On the issue of evidence

Expand Messages
  • mwgrondin <mwgrondin@comcast.net>
    In continuing to mull over the remarks of Prof. Davis and myself with respect to inductive/deductive logic, I ve come to the realization that there is in fact
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In continuing to mull over the remarks of Prof. Davis and myself
      with respect to inductive/deductive logic, I've come to the
      realization that there is in fact a meaning for the term 'invalid
      conclusion', to whit: a conclusion not supported by the evidence
      (or premises). As can be seen, this meaning is related to the notion
      of an invalid argument, wherein the premises do not support the
      conclusion. I still cannot, however, imagine a meaning for 'invalid
      premise'.

      As an example of deductive logic that might be useful as a case
      study for further discussion, consider the following argument that
      I myself have employed:

      1) All "Nazarites from birth" were first-born sons.
      2) Jacob the Just was a "Nazarite from birth".
      3) Therefore, Jacob the Just was a first-born son.

      As can be seen, (3) is a conclusion of some import for which (1)
      and (2) - if true - provide powerful support perhaps not otherwise
      available. Prof. Davis' claim, I take it, is that (1) and (2) are
      inductively-derived. Even if so, however, it's clear from this
      example that we do at least occasionally reason deductively from
      such premises (even if the deductive argument is - as is often the
      case - only implicit), and that thus the pointing out of logical
      fallacies (which Prof. Davis decries) does not represent a basic
      misunderstanding of the type of reasoning in which we engage.

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.