Chapter 11
Inductive Reasoning
Notice…
All the bass Hank caught in the Susquehanna have
been less than 1lb. So, all of the bass in the
Susquehanna are less than 1lb.
..is a pretty weak argument. Even if Hank
fishes often, the Susquehanna is a big river
and his catches are not enough to justify
such a “sweeping conclusion.”
However, if we changed the conclusion to
“most of the bass are…” or, better yet,
“many of the bass are…” the argument
would be much stronger.
4
Practice
5
Evaluating Inductive Generalizations
l 7
Are the premises true?
Premises of an inductive
generalization can provide strong
support for its conclusion
But if the premises are not all true, it
is not a cogent inductive argument.
A cogent argument has all true
premises and supplies strong support
for its conclusions.
8
Are the premises true?
9
Is the sample large enough?
10
Is the sample large enough?
None of the thousands of rabbits Alan has
come across has tried to attack him.
So, most rabbits are not inclined to attack
human beings.
Strong and cogent
Brooke taught 3 students with purple hair
last year, and all of them were A students.
So, all students with purple hair must be
A students.
Weak
11
Is the sample representative?
16
Practice
17
Statistical Arguments
Statistical arguments go “the other way.” They take
generalizations and draw conclusions about smaller
samples of the population (usually individuals).
Example:
1. You’re a college student
2. 90% of college students want no cumulative final.
3. So you probably don’t want a cumulative final.
The more “broad” the conclusion the better.
The higher the original percentage, the better.
Usually, if the percentage is around 50%, we will
call the argument unreliable, even if it is more likely
than not that the conclusion is true.
A “rule of thumb”: if it is would reasonable to bet on
it, then it is reliable.
18
Reference Class
The reference class is the group to which
statistics apply.
As a rule, the more specific the reference
class is, the better the argument is.
A statistical argument can be used to support
a conclusion about a group rather than an
individual.
90% of college students are in favor of not having a
final exam.
So, 90% of Ling 21 students are in favor of not
having a final exam.
19
Reference Class
In a statistical argument, if you find out
more information about the person in
question, you “narrow” the group (class)
the person is in.
Example:
1. You are a college student who likes essays.
2. 85% of college students who like essays want
cumulative fails.
3. Thus you probably want a cumulative final.
This additional information weakened our
justification for believing that you don’t
want a final.
Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill
Higher Education 20
Practice
21
Argument by Analogy
Analogy: comparison of things based on
similarities.
Argument from analogy: an argument
that suggests that the presence of certain
similarities is evidence for further
similarities.
Common Form:
1. A and B have characteristic X
2. A has characteristic Y
3. So B probably has characteristic Y too.
Example:
1. Tiffany and Heather are both tall and play
basketball.
2. Tiffany also plays volleyball.
3. So, Heather probably
Lecture Notes plays
© 2008 McGraw Hill volleyball too.
Higher Education 22
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Most arguments from analogy are
inductive arguments, so they are
neither valid nor invalid.
Unlike deductive arguments, there are
no clear-cut ways to tell if inductive
arguments are strong or weak.
But there are good questions to ask to
help determine if an argument from
analogy is strong or weak.
23
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
24
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
25
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Jason’s German car was a lemon and so was
Fred’s, Joe’s, Roy’s and Bob’s.
So Dirk’s German car is probably a lemon,
too.
If they all owned Volkswagen the argument is
very weak.
If one owned a Volkswagen, one a BMW, one
a Benz and one a Porsche, the argument
would be stronger.
With increased sample size, diversity becomes
a mark of strength.
26
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Finally, consider the specificity of the
conclusion relative to the premises
The broader and less specific the conclusion
is, the stronger the argument is.
Tiffany, Heather, Amber and Krissy are all tall and
play basketball.
Tiffany, Amber and Krissy also play volleyball.
So, Heather may have played a game of volleyball
at some time.
This argument is stronger than the previous
one about Heather.
27
Evaluating Arguments from Analogy
Are the premises true?
Are the similarities relevant?
Since being tall is helpful in volleyball, the fact that both Tiffany and
Heather are tall is relevant to the previous conclusion.
The more relevant similarities there are, the better.
If we also learn that they both get scholarships if they play more than one
sport, our conclusion is more supported.
Are there relevant dis-similarities?
Irrelevant dis-similarities: hair color
Relevant dis-similarity: job status
The more examples which are also similar, the better.
If Amber and Krissy are also tall and play both basketball and volleyball our
conclusion is even further supported.
The more diversity in the examples, the better.
If Tiffany, Amber and Krissy are different in many ways, except for the fact
that they are all tall and play basketball and volleyball, it seems more likely
that their being tall and playing basketball is relevant to their playing
volleyball. Thus, Heather’s being tall and playing basketball is better
evidence that she also plays volleyball.
Is the conclusion too specific?
“Heather probably plays volleyball” is better supported than “Heather must
play volleyball.”
28
Arguing by Analogy
29
Practice
30
I
So far in this Chapter, we have looked
at Inductive Reasoning and …
Opinion polls
Statistical arguments
Reference class
Arguments from analogy
32
Two kinds of causal arguments
Arguments about a single instance:
Example: My car wouldn’t start but I haven’t replaced the
battery in six years. It must have been the battery.
This is just an argument about the cause of one event.
Arguments about a general relationship.
Example: There is a high correlation between smoking
and lung cancer. Smoking must cause lung cancer.
This is suggesting a causal relationship between smoking
and lung cancer (not about a specific person’s lung
cancer).
Notice that it isn’t saying that everyone who smokes
gets lung cancer. The generous interpretation reads it
as: smoking makes one more likely to get lung cancer.
33
Two kinds of causal arguments
34
The dangers of correlation
We can never PROVE (beyond doubt) that there is a
causal relation between two things:
The best we can do is observe correlation.
Correlation is the best we can do when it comes to
arguments for causation.
But BEWARE!
We have a tendency to view things that correlate as
causally related.
E.g., superstitions, belief about bad luck, etc.
But assuming they are connected when trying to prove
they are, begs the question.
To really establish a “link,” we must be careful to
eliminate bias and expectation.
This is why, to eliminate the “placebo effect” medical
scientists do “double blind” studies.
35
Positive, negative & neutral
correlation
Positive Correlation: if A is found together
with B more than 50%of the time B is
found, then A is positively correlated with
B.
The higher the percentage, the more
likely A has a causal connection to B.
Negative Correlation: if A is found together
with B less than 50% of the time, then A is
negatively correlated with B.
The lower the percentage, the more
likely that A prevents B.
Neutral Correlation: If two things are found
together to exactly the same extent that
they are found apart, there is no
correlation.
Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill
Higher Education 36
Correlation and Cause
Even large amounts of correlation are not enough to establish
a causal connection.
Example: big-feet and competence in math (p.318-19)
News reporters have this problem all the time.
When arguing from correlation, you need to make sure that
there aren’t any other factors that might account for the
correlation.
Example: Vitamin C study & proper rest (p.329)
37
Practice
38
Probability
Epistemic Probability expresses how likely we think
something is, given what we believe.
“There is a pretty high probability that I’ll go to the
beach sometime this summer.”
Relative Frequency Probability takes information
about a group as a whole and applies it to individual
cases.
“There is a 90% chance that the operation will be
successful.”
This is derived from the fact that, for 90% of the people
on which the operation was performed, the operation
was successful.
A priori probability are statements that can be
calculated prior to sensory observations.
“There is a 50% chance of getting tails on this coin
toss.”
The nature of the coin determines the “objective”
probability of getting tails. 39
Some Clues:
40
Practice
41
More on a priori probability
How to figure a priori probability
The probably of either A or B is “Pr(A) +
Pr(B)”
Probability of drawing either a King or a 7 is
a standard deck: 1/13+1/13 [i.e, 2/13
(15.4%)]
The probably of getting both A and B is “Pr(A)
x Pr(B)”
Probably of drawing a K and then a 7 (or a
7 and then a K) is 1/13x1/13 [i.e., 1/169
(.59%)]
42
Gambler’s fallacy:
Thinking that previous chance occurrences
affect future ones.
The probably of a roulette wheel coming up
black is always 47.37%, even if it just came
up black 28 times in a row.
Granted, if you haven’t started spinning the
wheel yet, the probably of it hitting black 29
times in a row is low.
But, if you have already hit black 28 times,
the probably of getting 29 in a row now is
the same as the probably of hitting it once
(because one more is all you need for 29):
47.37%.
43
Bet values
Expected Value: The payoff or loss you can expect
from a bet.
How to figure expected value: take the payoff and
multiple it by your odds.
The expected value of a 1/100 chance at $100 is $1.
1/100x$100=$1
If there are multiple payoff, you average them:
1/3rd chance at 0, 1/3 chance at $50, 1/3 chance at
$100. Expected value $50.
(0+50+100)/3=$50
Deal or no deal?:
The “banker” always offers less than expected value
(the average of the amounts left), until the end when
he wants them to take the deal.
44
Relative Value
Of course, there are other reasons to take bets other than
payoffs.
Your own needs, preferences and resources can affect the
“value” of a bet as well.
The value a bet has, given such considerations, is the
“relative value.”
Example: The relative value of betting $100 for a long shot at
a billion is high for a millionaire (he can afford it), but low for
a homeless person (who wouldn’t want to risk money he can
use to eat on a long shot at a billion).
Diminishing marginal value: as quantity of bets increase,
the relative value of the bets tends to decrease.
If you are really hungry, you are willing to buy a piece of pizza
for $10 (if that is all that is available). It’s relative value is
really high. But after you eat it, and your hunger subsides
somewhat, its relative value drops and you are less willing to
pay so much. Buy enough pizza, and you won’t be willing to
pay much at all. Buy too much (and eat it) and you won’t take
it for free.
45
Practice
46