{"id":5053,"date":"2021-10-21T11:06:41","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T09:06:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5053"},"modified":"2025-06-19T15:24:33","modified_gmt":"2025-06-19T13:24:33","slug":"5053-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/5053-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Inference"},"content":{"rendered":"

INFERENCE<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1. A Primitive Concept<\/span><\/h2>\n

The concept of inference is primitive<\/strong>, meaning it can only be defined based on equally complex concepts or through an example of inference from the field of logic.<\/span> For instance, Brody (1967, pp. 66\u201367) defines inference as \u00ab\u00a0the derivation of a proposition (the conclusion) from a set of other propositions (the premises).\u00a0\u00bb Inference establishes new truths based on known truths.
\nIn an extended sense, the term \u00ab\u00a0inference<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb refers to any derivation of an accepted proposition based on the prior acceptance of other propositions.<\/p>\n

There are two types of inference, inference <\/em>strictly speaking and immediate<\/em> inference.
\n\u2013 In immediate<\/em> inference, the conclusion is derived from a single proposition, see proposition, \u00a74.<\/a>
\n\u2013 Strict, or direct i<\/em>nference<\/em> is based on two propositions, its premises, see syllogism.<\/a><\/p>\n

2. Deductive and Inductive Inferences in Traditional Logic<\/span><\/h1>\n

Traditional logic distinguishes between deductive<\/em> inferences<\/strong> (deduction) and inductive<\/em> inferences<\/strong> (induction). The valid conclusion from true premises in a syllogistic deduction\u00a0 is necessarily true (\u00ab\u00a0apodictic\u00a0\u00bb), \u00a0while an inductive conclusion is only probable.
\nAnalogical inference<\/strong> is accepted only as a heuristic tool, with no evidential value, see analogy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Generalization \/ Restriction \u2013 <\/strong>Deduction and induction are considered two complementary processes.
\n\u2013 Induction goes from the particular to the general, or from the general to the most general, \u00ab\u00a0This Syldavian is redheaded, therefore, Syldavians are redheaded.\u00a0\u00bb
\n<\/em>\u2013 Deduction, on the other hand, goes from the most general to the least general, \u00ab\u00a0All men are mortal, therefore Athenians are mortal,<\/em>\u201d and then to the individual, \u00ab\u00a0Socrates is mortal.<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb
\nHowever, syllogistic deduction can also generalize:
\n\u00ab\u00a0All horses are mammals, all mammals are vertebrates, therefore all horses are vertebrates.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>
\n
\nOther forms of reasoning \u2013 <\/strong>According to Aristotle’s view of rhetoric<\/strong>, the enthymeme<\/a><\/strong> is the argumentative counterpart of deductive<\/em> inference, and the example<\/a><\/strong> is the counterpart of inductive<\/em> inference.
\nWellman (1971) considers conduction<\/strong><\/a> to be a special kind of inference on a par with deduction and induction.
\nSince Toulmin (1958), the study of everyday reasoning<\/strong> has developed on the basis of an open number of reasoning schemes<\/strong><\/a><\/span> (argument schemes).<\/p>\n

3. Direct Inference and Analytic Statements<\/span><\/h1>\n

An analytic proposition is a proposition that is true \u201cby definition\u201d, i.e., by virtue of its meaning. Good definitions are analytically true, \u201ca single person is an adult unmarried adult.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Direct logical<\/em> inference<\/strong> is based on quantifiers or \u201cempty words.\u201d
\nImmediate analytical <\/em>inference operates on the meaning of the \u201cfull words\u201d of the basic proposition, \u00ab\u00a0He is single, so he is not married<\/em>.\u00a0\u00bb<\/span><\/p>\n

In arguments such as, \u201cThis is our duty, therefore we must do it,<\/em>\u201d the proposition \u201cwe must do it,<\/em>\u201d introduced by therefore,<\/em>\u00a0 is semantically contained in the argument \u201cit is our duty.<\/em>\u201d By definition a duty is something that people must do. This conclusion, if it is a conclusion at all, is direct<\/em><\/strong>.
\nMore generally, an analytic inference<\/strong> is one in which the conclusion is embedded in the argument, and the conclusion merely develops the argument’s semantic content. For example, If I\u2019m told that my colleague recently \u201cquit<\/em> smoking<\/em>\u201d I can analytically infer that he or she smoked in the past, see. presupposition<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Consider the following example:<\/p>\n

Talking about the birth of the gods implies that at one time the gods did not exist. Talking about the death of the gods is just as impious as talking about their birth. For this, your colleague was recently sentenced to death.<\/span><\/p>\n

Birth<\/em> is defined as the \u201cbeginning of life.\u201d However, this definition does not directly imply the threatening conclusion; an additional step is required to explicitly define \u201cbeginning\u201d, which establishes an equivalence between the time after death<\/em> and the time before birth<\/em>. For this reason, the conclusion does not seem as obvious as in the previous cases.<\/p>\n

3. Pragmatic Inference<\/span><\/h1>\n

This concept explains how utterances are interpreted in discourse. In the dialogue:<\/p>\n

S1 \u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Did you see anyone I know at the party?
\n?<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u2014 Oh yes,<\/em> Peter<\/em>, Paul, and Mary.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

From S2<\/strong>\u2019s answer, S1<\/strong> will infer<\/strong> that S2<\/strong> did not meet anyone else whom they both know<\/em><\/span>. This inference is based on the maxim of quantity: \u201cWhen asked a question, provide the most accurate information possible, both quantitatively and qualitatively<\/em>\u201d.
\nTherefore, if S2<\/strong> met Bruno at the party\u2013a person known to S1<\/strong>\u2013then S2 <\/strong>can be said to have lied to S1<\/strong> by omission, see cooperation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INFERENCE 1. A Primitive Concept The concept of inference is primitive, meaning it can only be defined based on equally complex concepts or through an example of inference from the field of logic. For instance, Brody (1967, pp. 66\u201367) defines inference as \u00ab\u00a0the derivation of a proposition (the conclusion) from a set of other propositions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5053","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5053"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5053\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14403,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5053\/revisions\/14403"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}