Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not interchangeable. Read the derivation of truth tables for abduction and induction from the semantics of NAL to learn that different ordering of premises results in different truth values. Thus while both orderings are applicable, one will usually give more confident result which will dominate the other.
On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But I don't understand the rules for induction and abduction which are as > following: > > ABDUCTION INFERENCE RULE: > Given S --> M and P --> M, this implies S --> P to some degree > > INDUCTION INFERENCE RULE: > Given M --> S and M --> P, this implies S --> P to some degree > > The problem I have is that in both the abduction and induction rule -- > unlike in the deduction rule -- the roles of S and P appear to be > semantically identical, i.e., they could be switched in the two premises > with no apparent change in meaning, and yet in the conclusion switching S > and P would change in meaning. Thus, it appears that from premises which > appear to make no distinctions between S and P a conclusion is drawn that > does make such a distinction. At least to me, with my current limited > knowledge of the subject, this seems illogical. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50749379-2a7926
