Informal Logic 22 (1) (2002)
AbstractIn this paper I argue that the debate over the purported distinction between deductive and inductive arguments can be bypassed because making the distinction is unnecessary for successfully evaluating arguments. I provide a foundation for doing logic that makes no appeal to the distinction and still performs all the relevant tasks required of an analysis of arguments. I also reply to objections to the view that we can dispense with the distinction. Finally, I conclude that the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments is not one of the most important and fundamental ideas in logic, but rather is unnecessary
Similar books and articles
Logical Form, Probability Interpretations, and the Inductive/Deductive Distinction.James B. Freeman - 1983 - Informal Logic 5 (2).
Deductive and inductive conditional inferences: Two modes of reasoning.Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer - 2011 - Thinking and Reasoning 17 (3):247 - 281.
On the Distinction between Convergent and Linked Arguments.David A. Conway - 1991 - Informal Logic 13 (3).
Consciousness and the state/transitive/creature distinction.R. McBride - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (2):181-196.
Induction and reasoning to the best explanation.Richard A. Fumerton - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (4):589-600.
The teleological/deontological distinction.Peter Vallentyne - 1987 - Journal of Value Inquiry 21 (1):21-32.
The logic of the medical research article.Vic Velanovich - 1993 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (3).
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Advice on Abductive Logic.Dov Gabbay & John Woods - 2006 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 14 (2):189-219.
No more charity, please! Enthymematic parsimony and the pitfall of benevolence.Fabio Paglieri - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa. pp. 1--26.