|
Definition:
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the
"principle of total evidence".
Examples:
(i) Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones will probably vote Tory.
(The information left out is that Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton vote Liberal or N.D.P.)
(ii) The Leafs will probably win this game because they've won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came over last place teams, and today they are playing the first
place team.)
Proof:
Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the outcome of the inductive argument. Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence will change the conclusion.
References
Davis: 115
<< Return
|
