Module 8B

Question 1

Understanding Consistency analogies

Answer 1

Argues that because an analogue subject deserves a certain conclusion, a similar primary subject also deserves that conclusion.

Question 2

Refutation by Logical Analogy:

Answer 2

Type of consistency analogy where subjects are arguments, concluding that the primary subject argument is bad.

Question 3

Structure of Consistency Analogies: 4

Answer 3

(1) Analogue subject has features a, b, c.

(2) Because the analogous subject has features a, b, c, it is properly judged to be W.

(3) The primary subject has features a, b, c (or similar features).

(C) The primary subject is properly judged to be W.

Question 4

Critiquing Consistency Analogies: 6

Answer 4

(I) Irrelevant Features:
Features of analogue subject not relevant to its judgment.

(II) Faulty Analogy:
Features of primary subject not similar to features of analogue subject.

(III) Missing Features:
Primary subject lacking features it is claimed to have.

(IV) Important Differences:
Primary subject has other features making it different from analogue subject.

(V) Inconsistent Conclusions:
Conclusion about primary subject doesn’t correspond to conclusion about analogue subject.

(VI) Counter-Analogy:
A counter-analogy exists, showing weakness in the original analogy.

Question 5

understanding Inductive Analogies:

Answer 5

Argues that because something happened to analogue case/s, the same/similar thing will happen in a primary case.

A type of consistency analogy where the conclusion is about something happening to the primary subject.

Question 6

Structure of Inductive Analogies: 3

Answer 6

(1) Analogue subject/s A with features F has been observed to have J happen.

(2) Primary subject P with feature F (or similar feature F) will also have J (or J) happen.

(C) Conclusion: Primary subject P will have J (or J*) happen.

Question 7

Evaluating Inductive Analogies:

Answer 7

(I)-(VI) Similar to Critiquing Consistency Analogies.

***(VII) Actuality of Analogue Subjects:
Analogue subjects in inductive analogies need to be actual or easily realized.

***(VIII) Number and Variety of Analogue Subjects:
The number and variety of analogue subjects are important for confidence in predicting the same outcome in the primary subject.

Question 8

Analogical Fallacies: 4

Answer 8

1. Faulty/Superficial Analogies:
   Similarities not related to the conclusion.
2. Two Wrongs Make a Right:
   Accepting something wrong because a similar wrong was unpunished.
3. Slippery Assimilation:
   Assuming all cases can be assimilated because they can be arranged in a series with small differences.
4. Slippery Precedent:
   Acting in a way legitimate in one context can set a precedent for illegitimate actions in other contexts.

Question 9

Inductive Arguments:

Answer 9

1. Arguing from experienced to a conclusion about what hasn’t been experienced.
2. Includes inductive analogies, singular inductions, inductive generalizations, explanatory inductions.

Question 10

Singular Inductions:

Answer 10

1.Arguing from experience of similar situations to a conclusion about a different single occasion.

2. Differs from inductive analogies as it doesn’t refer to shared features between observed and unobserved cases.

Question 11

Inductive Generalizations:

Answer 11

Drawing conclusions about a whole class based on a sample.

Question 12

Explanatory Inductions:

Answer 12

Arguing from observations to the best explanation, often involving causal explanations.

A type of inductive argument.

General form: (1) Range of facts (a), (b), (c)…; (2) A good explanation of these facts is…; (3) No rival hypothesis provides as good an explanation; (C) Our explanation is correct.

Question 13

Perfectly Representative Sample:

• essential definition
• operational/criterial definition

Answer 13

Essential definition: The percentage of items in the sample with a certain characteristic is the same as the percentage in the total population.

Criterial/Operational Definition: When all members of the sample are randomly selected or selected using a suitable sampling procedure.

Question 14

Correlations and Causation:

Answer 14

1. Positive Correlation: Higher proportion of A’s than non-A’s are B’s.
2. Negative Correlation: Smaller proportion of A’s than non-A’s are B’s.
3. No Correlation: Same proportion of A’s as non-A’s are B’s.
4. Inferring from correlation to causation requires excluding other possibilities.

Question 15

Fallacies in Correlations: 3

Answer 15

1. Hasty Generalizations:
   Drawing conclusions based on too little inductive evidence.
2. Post Hoc Fallacy:
   Concluding A causes B simply because A occurred before B.
3. Objectionable Cause:
   Drawing causal conclusions from correlation without ruling out other possibilities.

Question 16

Conducive Arguments:

Answer 16

Arguments with multiple inferences providing independent, often weak, support for the conclusion.

Convergent support contributes to cogency.

Question 17

When are Inductive analogies used?

Answer 17

1. Commonly used in scientific and technological contexts.
2. Crucial in ordinary contexts like sailing, firefighting, woodworking, poker, nursing, gardening, farming, warfare, etc.

Question 18

Structure of Inductive Arguments from Experience: 3

Answer 18

1. I have experienced objects A1, A2, A3… with feature F to also have feature J.
2. P has feature F (or similar feature F*).
3. P also has feature J (or J*).

Question 19

General Structure of Inductive Analogies: 3

Answer 19

1. Analogue Subject:
   - Objects A1, A2, A3… with feature F (G, H…) observed to have feature J.
2. Primary Subject:
   - P has feature F (or similar feature F*).
3. Primary Subject P also has feature J (or J*).

Question 20

Factors Influencing Strength of Inductive Analogies:
2

Answer 20

(i) Number of analogue objects experienced.

(ii) Variety of situations in which analogue situations were experienced.

Question 21

IMPORTANCE OF Factors Influencing Strength of Inductive Analogies:

Answer 21

1. Feature F must be causally relevant, usually a sign or indicator of other causal properties.
2. Greater number and variety increase the likelihood of identifying a reliable sign or indicator

Question 22

Causal Relevance in Practical Experience:

Answer 22

• Causal relevance in practical experience involves the feature being a sign or indicator of other causal properties.

– Example: A sailor recognizing signs of storm and calm in the sky and sunsets.

Question 23

Importance of Analogue Situation Being Actual:
2

Answer 23

1. For INDUCTIVE analogies, the analogue situation must be an ACTUAL ONE, NOT HYPOTHETICAL

2.CONNECTED TO THE REQUIREMENT OF CASUAL RELEVANCE IN THIS CONTEXT

Question 24

Summary of First Premise: IN INDUCTIVE ANALOGIES

Answer 24

Inductive analogies rely on actual situations, emphasizing causal relevance.

Question 25

More Complex Inductive Analogies:

Answer 25

Some inductive analogies involve more complex comparisons. Example: Politicians and generals in the U.S. considering involvement in Bosnia drawing analogies between that situation and previous wars (Vietnam, Gulf War, World War II).

Question 26

Structure of Complex Inductive Analogies: 4

Answer 26

(1A) War A has features F, G, H... (1B) with consequence J. (2) War P has features F*, G*, H*... (3) War P will have consequence J.

Question 27

Differences from Previous Inductive Analogies:

Answer 27

*********Analogue is a one-off situation. The value depends on the number of relevant similarities, their relative weights, and relevant dissimilarities against the new war having consequence J.

Question 28

Applications of Complex Inductive Analogies:

Answer 28

Used by politicians, generals, and others in contexts like political campaigns, sporting contests, business, and industrial projects.

Question 29

Importance of Form: in complex analogies

Answer 29

Invites counter-analogies due to its specific structure.VITE COUNTER-ANALOGIES DUE TO ITS SPECIFIC STRUCTURE

Question 30

Evaluating Inductive Analogies:

Answer 30

Few hard and fast rules; assessment depends on background knowledge and type of inductive analogy presented

Question 31

Evaluating Inductive Analogies: Important Considerations: 5

Answer 31

1. Actuality of Analogue Situations: - Must be actual, not hypothetical, unlike consistency analogies. - Exception: Some cases may involve hypothetical analogues. 2. Causal Relevance of Analogues: - Analogue subject(s) must have features causally relevant to property J. - Criteria for causal relevance: (a) Number of analogue situations; (b) Variety of circumstances in which analogue situations were experienced. 3. Relevant Similarities and Dissimilarities: - Primary subject must have enough relevant similarities and few relevant dissimilarities. - Balance depends on the weight of these factors, crucial in complex one-off comparisons and scientific analogies. 4. Challenge to Assumption of Relevance: - It might be appropriate to challenge the assumption that the features are relevant to the particular conclusion. - Example: Biological similarities between rats and humans may not be relevant to certain psychological claims. 5. Possibility of Counter-Analogies: - Counter-analogies might be devised.

Question 32

Exception to Actuality of Analogue:

Answer 32

-- Normally, analogues should refer to actual situations, but exceptions exist. -- In inductive arguments, extrapolating from what is known to something unknown. -- Example: Constructing an inductive analogy based on a hypothetical situation of a man falling from a building.

Question 33

Example of Exception:

Answer 33

A man falling from a high building saying, "So far so good." Despite being a hypothetical situation, it's used for inductive analogy based on known principles.

Question 34

Purpose of Constructing Hypothetical Analogy:

Answer 34

- In inductive arguments, the goal is to extrapolate from known evidence to something currently unknown. - Exceptions involve constructing situations that could easily be realised.

Question 35

Illustrative Analogy:

Answer 35

A man falling from a high building, saying "So far so good." The man will have a nasty ending.

Question 36

Importance of Background Knowledge in Evaluating Inductive Analogies:

Answer 36

Difficulty in formulating strict rules; evaluation heavily relies on background knowledge.

Question 37

Role of Background Knowledge in Analogy Assessment:

Answer 37

The notion that a greater number of analogue situations is better can be modified by background knowledge. Example: In a South American jungle, a fiery sting from a strange insect in a single encounter may be enough to avoid similar insects.

Question 38

Contextual Example: South American Jungle Scenario:

Answer 38

Background knowledge influences the evaluation of the argument. Single encounter with a strange insect leads to the reasonable conclusion to avoid similar insects.

Question 39

Emphasizing Natural Kinds: Emu Egg Size Example:

Answer 39

Background knowledge influences the evaluation of the argument. Examining very few emu eggs provides good reason to expect the next emu egg to be of a certain size. Knowledge that insects come in natural kinds with shared characteristics makes the argument reasonable.

Question 40

“The strength of an inductive analogy is not affected, in general, by the number of items examined in the analogue subject.”

Answer 40

False

Question 41

“The kind of relevance involved in inductive analogies is causal relevance.”

Answer 41

true

Question 42

“For an inductive analogy, the analogue subject must be actual.”

Answer 42

true

Question 43

“Counter-analogies can never weaken an inductive analogy.”

Answer 43

false

Question 44

“Background knowledge can mean that a good inductive analogy can depend on only a single instance.”

Answer 44

true

Question 45

“An inductive analogy will be stronger if the conclusion is framed in terms of what the primary subjects have a tendency to do, rather than in terms of what they will do.”

Answer 45

true

Question 46

“An argument that is a fallacy to slippery precedent may have some merit as a causal slippery slope argument.”

Answer 46

true