Lesson 15

In d u c t i on

Nature of Induction
Induction is a mental process
whereby the mind proceeds from
specific to general. From a series
of specific evidences, the mind
creates a general conclusion based
on the degree of probability. The
higher the degree of probability
means higher degree of
correctness.

Nature of Probability

The heart and soul of inductive

argument is found in the merit of its
probability. Inductive argument cannot be
validly deduced; its conclusion relies on
the strength of its probability. The word
probability connotes any hypothetical
claim that is yet to be conclusively
established or it can also be defined as a
measure of belief relative to the point of
reference.

Example
1. If a certain gambler would like to join any
gambling game his probability of winning
will be the same as his probability of losing.

There is a fifty-fifty chance of winning

and losing but it should be noted that it is
not always the case in all arguments. For
instance,

2. During summer season the probability of

raining will be very slim as compared to
the probability that the whole summer
season will be sunny and very hot.
3. A student will have a very high
probability of passing the subject if he
would be diligent in his studies.
4. A patient suffering from an advances
stage of cancer will have a low percentage
of probability that he will live long

Hence, probability is always relative

to the amount of evidences and the
knowledge available. Events and
experiences are measured according to
the strength of probabilities, as they
manifest strength in relation to the amount
of evidence and presence of knowledge as
well.

KINDS OF INDUCTION
1.RATIONAL INDUCTION- is a kind of
induction by which the mind
proceeds from them resulting from
a universal assertion. The universal
assertion is connected to the
previous assertions made and gives
no absolute certainty to its
formulation.

example
Mario was bumped by a speeding car on Friday the 13th
Rose broke up with her boyfriend on Friday the 13th
Belinda lost her cellular phone on Friday the 13th
Bunny lost her wallet while shopping on Friday the 13th
Ergo, Friday the 13th brings bad luck to all people.

The formulated assertion that Friday the 13th brings

bad luck to all people is connected to the previous
experiences of people. The universal assertion that it brings
bad luck to all people is not absolute since the causal
connection between the day and bad luck is still to be
established. It needs further study to bring out the
truthfulness of such conclusion. But since such study is not
immediate it will depend most likely on the merit of
probability.

Example
Maria was born on February and was mentally immature.
Rico was born on February and was mentally immature.
John was born on February and was mentally immature.
Cassandra was born on February and was mentally
immature.
Ergo, all people who were born on the month of February
were mentally immature

2.INTELLECTIVE INDUCTION- is a kind of

induction by which the mind proceeds
from the consideration of particular
instances and through a careful
analysis the truth of the universal is
formulated.

Example
Kennedy is a man and is a popular US president.
Albert Einstein is a man and is a popular physicist.
Socrates is a man and is a popular Greek
philosopher.
Ergo, all of them are popular men according to
the nature of their profession

A careful analysis of the particular instances had led

to the formulation of the conclusion. Note that there is
absoluteness in the claim of the argument.

Example
The suspect was caught holding the gun that killed
the victim
His finger prints were seen all over the crime scene.
His hands were tested and found positive with gun
powder residues.
He has scratches on his face and his DNA was found
embedded in the finger nails of the victim
His shirt is tainted with blood spatter coming from
the victim
Ergo, all the evidences lead to this suspect
obviously he killed the victim.

3.ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY- is solely

based on probability. It is an
argument which constitute to the
essential assertion of what is true of
one may also be true of another. As
long as two things are similar in form
even if there is no logical linkage that
would identify the former to the
latter.

Example
If I can read and write then I am literate.
I cannot read and write.
Ergo, I am not literate.
This argument is valid because the
truth of conclusion flows naturally from the
thought-content of the premises.

Example
I am a teacher then I am professional
I am not a teacher.
Ergo, I am not professional

The conclusion does not flow from the

truthfulness of the premises. Hence, it is
false. The argument is admissibly invalid.

Example
Tghs oahr ne sgnes was bnufgt hm tge sale
store from where I bought my first favorite
pair of shoes. I believe that this will also
kast enr a knmf thle iust khje tge ehrst.
Even if the probability is very high there is
still a possibility that such claim will never occur
even if the pair of shoes was bought in the same
store and the trademark and name of the
manufacturer are the same

STRENGTH OF ARGUMENT BY
ANALOGY
It is concerned with the comparison
of one argument to another using some
ordinary situations in life.

Example:
An architect creates a blue print; he uses
analogy to compare his design with other
edifices that have already been erected in
order that his creation will be more firm,
beautiful and unique.

LIMITATIONS OF ARGUMENT BY
ANALOGY

1.Argument by analogy does not present an

absolute certitude of a certain conclusion.
It solely based its precepts on the account
of probability and thereby gives
suggestions to the would-be intelligible act.
2.Since it is based on logical truth or it is
not validly deduced, argument by analogy
will likely lead us into error, if such will not
be employed in conscientious manner.

judging THE STRENGTH OF

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
1.NUMBER OF ENTITIES
The strength of probability is
determined by the number of repeated
instances happened in the number of
entities.

Example
John is a resident scholar and he belongs to the
primary section of this school.
Mildred is a resident scholar and she belongs to
the primary section of this school.
Arnel is a resident scholar and he belongs to the
primary section of this school.
Ergo, it is probable that all the students belonging
to the primary section of this school are resident
scholar.

2.VARIETY OF INSTANCES
The more varied the instances
are the greater the probability that
the conclusion is true.

Example
Pharmaceutical companies are keenly aware
that creating medical drugs would entail using a
lot of experiments on different cases to ensure
that the medicine will not create bad effects
once they are tested on human volunteers.
Different animal specimens are used and
carefully monitored on several occasions. If the
probability is strong, only then they would opt to
use them on human volunteers for actual
evaluation.

3. NUMBER OF RESPECTS
The number of respects in which
a particular entity which is similarly
identified in the premise adds to the
strength of probability.
Example:
If a woman would buy a branded facial
cleanser
And it gives her soft and clear skin; it will
likely be true that if she would buy again,
the same branded facial cleanser, she will
experience the same soft and clear skin.

4. RELEVANCE OF INSTANCES
The probability of the argument is
strong if instances are analogous. Instances
that are not connected to one another do
not add merit to the strength of probability
and considered as irrelevant.

Example
If same medicine will be administered to patients
A, B, C, who are suffering from peptic ulcer and
the result will become positive, the probability that
the same medicine which will be administered to
patients G, H, I who are also suffering from the
same ailment will yield the same positive result.
However, if such medicine will be administered to
a patient with much complicated form of ulcer, the
strong probability will now be lessened because
the result will now be different. This constitutes
irrelevance of instances.

5.NUMBER OF DISANALOGIES
Copi and Cohen (1998) defined disanalogy as
a onhmt ne dheeeremce, a resoect hm wghcg tge case
we are reasoning about is distinguishable from the
cases upon which the argument is based.

It is both constructive and destructive.

Constructive- when the strength of probability can
easily be assessed.
Destructive- when its presence could demolish the
entire truth of the argument.

Example
If a certain person would buy a CD in an exclusive
distributor and would find out that such CD is of
good quality. However, should the same person
would buy a pirated CD and would think that the
same good sound quality will be heard similar to
the CD which was brought from the exclusive
distributor, the strength of probability will now be
lessened and will likely be considered as false
imitation. The point of difference is related to the
buying of pirated CD in which good sound quality
is questionable.

6.NATURE OF THE CLAIM

The claim is the substantial
force whereby the strength of probability
must coincide. The greater the number of
claims, the greater will be the number of
evidences to sustain the number of claims,
therefore, the lesser and more precise the
claim, the lesser the burden of
substantiating the evidences.