Inductive arguments establish objective facts, so how can they be considered subjective?

Let’s accept for the moment the idea that there are objective facts about the world, things that are right or wrong, true or false independent of any observer. If so, those cannot be “established” by arguments. All that can be established by arguments is the grounds for believing that certain claims (statements we hold as true) are factual (objectively true).

An argument is always a conditional. In a deductive argument, the only question is whether or not the premises are true. If they are, then the conclusion must also be. But in an inductive argument, there is an additional amount of indeterminacy added by the inability of the premises to absolutely guarantee the condition.

Where a deductive argument can be absolutely and objectively classified as either valid or invalid, the judgment of whether an inductive argument is strong or weak is a matter of opinion, and thus inherently subjective. The facts themselves are not what is being judged –only the sufficiency of our grounds for believing claims about them.

Related content:

  1. I would take a standard textbook on math, where all the propositions are correct. Write down 99 correct mathematical statements. And then add “Zeus exists”, and compile a text. Then I would argue, that if we have a box, from which we sample randomly 99 balls and they are have the property of being black, we can think with good reason that the next one will be black. And therefore, since 99 of the math propositions in the texts are have the property of being correct, there is good reason to think that “Zeus exists” is also correct. It seems wrong somewhere. But where?
  2. Just recently saw the following argument in a logic book: all lions are herbivores all zebras are lions ————– therefore all zebras are herbivores this seems to be logically valid syllogism, but it is disturbing.
  3. 1) The claim “There is extraterrestrial life in the universe, because my father said so” is an example of an appeal to authority. But it can be viewed as an enthymeme, where the hidden assumption is that “my father is always right”. In such a case, there is no logical problem with the argument. Do you agree? 2) Do you think that to say that : “Person A is biased , therefore\what he says is wrong” is fallacious? It can be interpreted as “person A is biased, therefore his information cannot be trusted. Therefore what he says is wrong”. 3) Are errors of logic errors of psychology as well? Or perhaps, only errors of psychology? Appeal to authority besides being a logical fallacy, has a whole psychology and sociology besides it.
  4. A circular argument is technically a valid argument. For every case in which the premises are true, the conclusion will be true. So what makes it a bad one?
  5. On one hand, arguments are supposed to be objective – something which is true is always true, for everyone. On the other hand, if person says “P exists because X,Y,Z”, while he personally has seen the evidence (x,y,z) for P, and another person says “P exists because X,Y,Z” and he has only read about X,Y,Z from second sources – their knowledge is actually very different. Where is that difference (crucial one) reflected in logic?
Better Related Posts Plugin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *