5 Responses to Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1

1. abbeboulah says:

   March 9, 2017 at 9:20 pm

   Isn’t it time to include the argument pattern that is used in design, planning, and policy-making discussions?  (Most arguments about what we ought to do (arguably as many as about what is the case …) can be reduced to variations of that pattern.  As far as I know, it has not been acknowledged in the vast literature of logic and rhetoric, probably because it is not ‘valid’ or ‘conclusive’ from a formal logic perspective and because its ‘conclusion’ (the plan proposal) and at least one of its premisses are ‘deontic’ claims to which the logic criteria ‘true’ / ‘false’ (not even ‘probability’) do not properly apply?  Also, planning decisions are not fully determined by one single ‘clinching’ argument, but must be reached by deliberation (weighing) all arguments for and against the proposed plan, as the colloquial expression ‘weighing the pros and cons’ indicates.  More recently, it has been receiving some attention and called ‘abductive’ (incorrectly, in my opinion) and ‘conductive’ by a few authors.  I have written about its structure and evaluation e.g. in INFORMAL LOGIC (Dec. 2011:  “The structure and evaluation of planning arguments”.)

   Reply
   • Jon Awbrey says:

     April 7, 2017 at 2:56 pm

     I had trouble finding that. Is this the paper you meant?

     http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2927/2438

     https://www.academia.edu/4264640/The_Structure_and_Evaluation_of_Planning_Arguments

     Reply

2. Pingback: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 28 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

3. Pingback: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 29 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

4. Pingback: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 30 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.