Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Affirming the consequent-inductive reasoning?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:54:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So um, this might sound stupid, but...

Can we affirm the consequent if it's inductive reasoning?

For example...

If P, then Q
Q
Therefore, possibly P.

Now if it's....

If P, then Q R S T U V, etc.
Q R S T U V
Therefore, probably P.

Does this work?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:44:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:54:11 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
So um, this might sound stupid, but...

Can we affirm the consequent if it's inductive reasoning?

For example...

If P, then Q
Q
Therefore, possibly P.

Now if it's....

If P, then Q R S T U V, etc.
Q R S T U V
Therefore, probably P.

Does this work?

If Q R S T U V are unique predictions of P, then P becomes more likely.

Also maybe:

If P, then not Q
Not Q/Q
Maybe P/Not P

- The importance of falsifiability of a premise hence. Otherwise you could easily have something like

If P, then anything
Q
P
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:00:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Doesn't seem like it.

1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, he would be rich
2. Bill Gates is rich
3. Therefore he probably owns Fort Knox.

This is still false. I guess with induction, you would need to demonstrate that the conclusion has a higher probability than any other possibility.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:21:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:54:11 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
So um, this might sound stupid, but...

Can we affirm the consequent if it's inductive reasoning?

For example...

If P, then Q
Q
Therefore, possibly P.

Now if it's....

If P, then Q R S T U V, etc.
Q R S T U V
Therefore, probably P.

Does this work?

I don't remember a whole lot about sentencial logic, but I do know that if P implies Q, then Q certainly doesn't imply P. As far as "probably," well, logic and probability are two different languages.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.