BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Yes, you are nitpicking. I agree with your comments about
terminology but they divert from the issue.
And no- I disagree with your 'retroductively valid' point, for the
empirical fact - i.e. 'it is true that it did NOT rain' - precludes
any validity. We aren't talking about plausibility but about facts.
Edwina
On Thu 05/10/17 5:36 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: 2] If it rains, my car will get wet. My car is wet: Therefore,
it rained.ET: The premises are valid. But the conclusion is invalid
- I left the sprinkler on.
Admittedly nitpicking here, but premisses are not "valid," they are
either true or false; only arguments are valid or invalid. Also, in
this case the argument is deductively invalid, but retroductively
valid--i.e., the hypothesis that it rained is a plausible explanation
of the surprising fact that my car is wet, given my knowledge of the
rule that a wet car would be an outcome of it raining.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut, list - but, can't an inference be illogical in its format?
For example:
1] All cats are animals/ All dogs are animals: Therefore, all cats
are dogs.
The premises of the above syllogism are valid; but, the reasoning or
conclusion is invalid. [Undistributed middle].
2] If it rains, my car will get wet. My car is wet: Therefore, it
rained.
The premises are valid. But the conclusion is invalid - I left the
sprinkler on.
Your outline of the three methods of reasoning is a different topic
than a discussion on ''inference' or 'conclusions'.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
