How is it that nondeductive arguments can be considered good reasoning even though they do not pass the test of validity?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Nondeductive arguments can be considered good reasoning even though they do not pass the test of validity because they are evaluated based on different criteria than deductive arguments. The key distinction lies in the nature of the support that the premises provide for the conclusion.

In deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. That is, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is a very strict standard, and when an argument meets this standard, it is said to be sound if the premises are actually true.

Nondeductive arguments, on the other hand, include inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and arguments by analogy, among others. These types of arguments are not about certainty but about probability or plausibility. They are considered good reasoning when they provide strong, cogent support for their conclusions, even if that support does not guarantee the conclusion.

Here are some reasons why nondeductive arguments can be considered good reasoning:

1. **Strength of Inductive Generalizations**: Inductive arguments, which generalize from specific instances to broader generalizations, can be strong if they are based on a large and representative sample of data. For example, scientific reasoning often relies on inductive arguments, and while the conclusions can never be known with 100% certainty, they can be highly reliable.

2. **Plausibility in Abductive Reasoning**: Abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, can be considered good reasoning when it provides a plausible and coherent explanation for the evidence at hand. It is often used in everyday decision-making and in scientific discovery.

3. **Relevance and Similarity in Analogical Arguments**: Arguments by analogy can be strong when the similarities between the two things being compared are relevant to the conclusion being drawn. Analogical reasoning is often used in legal reasoning and ethical discussions.

4. **Practicality**: Nondeductive reasoning is often more practical in everyday life, as we rarely have all the information needed for a deductive argument. We make many decisions based on probable outcomes and reasonable assumptions.

5. **Adaptability**: Nondeductive arguments can be adapted and revised in light of new evidence. This flexibility is a strength because it allows our understanding and reasoning to evolve as we gain more information.

6. **Cognitive Heuristics**: Our brains often use shortcuts or heuristics to make quick judgments. While these are not deductively valid, they can still be useful and lead to good reasoning in many contexts.

In summary, nondeductive arguments are considered good reasoning when they provide strong, relevant, and cogent support for their conclusions, even if they do not guarantee certainty. They are essential tools for reasoning in real-world contexts where absolute certainty is rare and where we must often make decisions based on the best available evidence and the most plausible inferences.

How Is It That Nondeductive Arguments Can Be Considered Good