What I found useful in the cause and effect website is that inductive reasoning is based on observation or experience. It gives us an example that would make sense. The argument that the lawyers could make to help there clients besides the truck driver would be as stated in the website “Normally the bicyclist would have continued in the bike lane, but in this instance h swerved into the lane of traffic. The only significant difference between normally and in this case is the presence of the illegally parked truck. Therefore, the truck caused the bicyclist to swerve. “ This is a inductive reasoning because it shows observations that were made during the accident. Then the website gives us two rules that are useful when dealing with causation. As stated in the website:
1.The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation.
2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original “cause” and its purported effect.
Your post had a few typos so it made your blog a little confusing to read, but other than that, your post was good. I understood most of it since you stated the examples on the website and analyzed how it explains "inductive reasoning." I found this useful as well because inductive reasoning relates to evaluating arguments into a more logic way. Keep in mind that Inductive reasoning may have a true or false conclusion too, and it must have at least one significant difference. The website included several explanations and different experiences to explain inductive causal arguments. There are may ways to determine inductive arguments and evaluate on the cause and effects of different situations.
ReplyDeleteI find "inductive reasoning" useful as well because it shows how to evaluate inductive arguments. The premises for this type of argument indicate some probability based on the observation from the situation that had happened or whatever it is for the conclusion but do not impose it. They suggest truth but do not ensure it. Just like Amapelle said, "Inductive reasoning may have a true or false conclusion" that's why people suggest different probabilities to try and support their arguments. The examples and different probabilities really helped explain what inductive reasoning is and what is going on and helped me understand what inductive reasoning is about.
ReplyDeleteI too found that the inductive reasoning connection to observation and/or experience was very helpful in the explanation as well. I also liked how the website included an article that was not hard to comprehend and totally made sense. Those two rules that you mention at the end of your post are definitely helpful guidelines to follow when dealing with causation. In the second rule it states that a strong correlation can include coincidence which was definitely helpful and evident in the the practice exercises that the website presented to us. Coincidence is primarily what I based my answers off of when responding to the exercise scenario and questions.
ReplyDelete