PHIL 210 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: John Stuart Mill, Inductive Reasoning, Logical Reasoning
12 Oct 2017
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Ampliative argument: a type of argument in which the conclusions go beyond what is expressed in the premises. This type of argument may be cogent even if it is unsound. Analogy: finding relevant similarities between a familiar, undisputed case and another case that is being argued, drawing useful parallels between the two cases. Cogency: a quality of arguments that is less technical than validity and soundness, but which entails that the reasoning put forward makes sense and seems to support the conclusion. Defeasibility: the quality of ampliative reasoning that leaves it open to adjustment. Even if inductive arguments are solid, they are still defeasible, meaning that they might have to be revised or rejected if new information that does not support the conclusion arises. Inductive argument: drawing upon what is known about observed cases to make conjectures about unobserved cases, when similar premises seem to apply, taking what is known about specific cases to come up with general conclusions.
