# Part I: Mill’s Methods redux

## Presentation on theme: "Part I: Mill’s Methods redux"— Presentation transcript:

Part I: Mill’s Methods redux
Part II: Analogical Reasoning

Homework Informal Fallacies pp. 103-105, §4.1 “Fallacies in General”
pp , §4.3 “Fallacies of Weak Induction” Review: Induction Analogical Reasoning, e.g., ex. 8.4 Causal Argumentation, e.g., 8.3b Inductive Generalization, e.g., 8.2b

Mill’s Methods Agreement Difference (Agreement & Difference)
A causal conclusion is strong to the degree that it is supported by premises with evidence of one or more of Mill’s methods (p. 79) Mill’s Methods Agreement Difference (Agreement & Difference) Concomitant Variation Residue Typically establishes sufficient conditions Establishes variable relations Establishes partial causation

Mill's Method: Concomitant Variation
A first discovery: the volume knob If variations in phenomenon E coincide with variations in phenomenon P, then it is probable that E and P are causally related. (p. 75)

Mill’s Methods: Residue
Characteristic features Deals with complex phenomena Established knowledge of some causal factors in measured quantities Subtract from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue (i.e., remaining parts) of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents

Mill’s Method: Residue
After realizing a loss of \$100,000 a department store’s chief accountant could suggest only three causes: an excessive number of clerks, increases in utility rates, and damage to merchandise caused by a flood. These expenses were estimated at \$25,000, \$30,000 and \$10,000 respectively. Since no other ordinary sources could be found, the accountant attributed the remaining \$35,000 to shoplifting.

Mill's Method: Residue After realizing a loss of \$100,000 a department store’s chief accountant could suggest only three causes: an excessive number of clerks, increases in utility rates, and damage to merchandise caused by a flood. These expenses were estimated at \$25,000, \$30,000 and \$10,000 respectively. Since no other ordinary sources could be found, the accountant attributed the remaining \$35,000 to shoplifting. Is there sufficient evidence for this attribution? Fallacious: weak induction

Induction – Final Unit Analogical Reasoning

Analogical Reasoning Reasoning that depends on a comparison
Typically two things, i.e., events, states of affairs, practices, etc. Point of Comparison Common Properties Inferred Property

Analogical Reasoning

Factors Affecting Strength
Analogical Reasoning Factors Affecting Strength Common features relevantly similar to inferred feature Number (extent) of these similarities Diversity among common features No relevant dissimilarities (disanalogy)

Factors Affecting Strength
Analogical Reasoning Factors Affecting Strength Relevance of similarities to inferred feature Causal connection: I’m allergic to hornet stings. Their venom causes me to swell up and sometimes I come close to losing consciousness. Yellow jackets aren’t as aggressive as hornets, but they’re both stinging bees and have a similar venom. I’ve not been stung by a yellow jacket. Nevertheless, I’ll keep away from it. I’m probably allergic to its sting as well. Subject: Yellow Jacket stings Analogue: Hornet stings Common features: stinging bee, wasp family, venom Inferred feature: allergic reaction to venom

Factors Affecting Strength
Analogical Reasoning Factors Affecting Strength Relevance of similarities to inferred feature Statistical connection: Large classrooms like Memorial Hall traditionally have attendance rates at less than 50% of total. This is, in fact, especially true of the freshman/sophomore classes, and classes that meet early in the morning. Logic 120, a class typically taken by lower classmen, is also held in a large classroom in the student center early in the morning. I suspect that this class also has a low average attendance as well, likely below 50%. Subject: classroom in Student Center (attendance) Analogue: Memorial Hall (attendance) Common features: frosh/soph class, meeting time Inferred feature: low attendance

Factors Affecting Strength
Analogical Reasoning Factors Affecting Strength Relevance of similarities to inferred feature Aesthetic similarity: I enjoy Stephen King’s novels. They are quick, easy reads but really gripping horror stories. He’s coming out with a new book, and I think it will be good too. Subject: Stephen King’s new book Analogue: his previous novels (horror stories) Common features: authorship, genre “quick and easy,” “gripping” Inferred feature: quality of the work (enjoyment)

Factors Affecting Strength
Analogical Reasoning Factors Affecting Strength Disanalogies A dissimilarity between subject and analogue is relevant to the inference Differences of kind Feature possessed by analogue but not subject Though Jones tends to struggle with his class work, he is a good student in art class. His random-abstract learning style seems suited the subject. You know, I just noticed that he has logic right after art class. So I think he’ll do well in logic also.

Comparable Entities? Dog? My dog

Argument Both my dog and my neighbor's dog are well-loved members of the family. Each one is well fed, house broken, walked on a regular basis. My dog has a very calm temperament. So I infer that my neighbor's dog also has a calm temperament.

Homework Informal Fallacies pp. 103-105, §4.1 “Fallacies in General”
pp , §4.3 “Fallacies of Weak Induction” Review: Induction Analogical Reasoning, e.g., ex. 8.4 Causal Argumentation, e.g., 8.3b Inductive Generalization, e.g., 8.2b