Talk:Inference/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reverting proposal

Personally, I don't agree with the broad deleting recentely made upon this article. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it explained a lot more things than it does now, it was more complete and I can't see any improvement in this new version. If nobody has some reason against it I would revert to the previous version. Chiara 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Symbols are not readeable

The universal quantifier symbol and the therefore symbol are not readeable. They are presented as a ∀ character... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.123.174.199 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

as they should be nowadays.

TeX'ization of formulae

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

${\frac {All\ men\ are\ mortal\quad Socrates\ is\ a\ man}{Therefore\ Socrates\ is\ mortal.}}$

All A is B
All C is A
----------
All C is B

${\frac {All\ A\ is\ B\quad All\ C\ is\ A}{All\ C\ is\ B}}$

∀ X, man(X) → mortal(X)
man(Socrates)
-------------------------------
∴mortal(Socrates)

${\frac {\forall X,\;man(X)\rightarrow mortal(X)}{\therefore man(Socrates)}}$

Or in its general form:

∀ X, A(X) → B(X)
A(x)
------------------------
∴B(x)

${\frac {\forall X,\;A(X)\rightarrow B(x)\quad A(x)}{\therefore B(x)}}$

∀, the universal quantifier, is pronounced "for all". It allows us to state a general property. Here it is used to say that "if any X is a man, X is also mortal".

∴ is the therefore symbol which denotes the conclusion.

Consider the following:

All fat people are musicians
John Lennon was fat
-------------------
Therefore John Lennon was a musician

${\frac {All\ fat\ people\ are\ musicians\quad John\ Lennon\ was\ fat}{Therefore\ John\ Lennon\ was\ a\ musician}}$

I much prefer the boxed versions. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deduction

This article has a lot on the subject of Deduction and very little on any of the other forms of inference. I propose moving a lot of the material on deduction to the article of that title, and expanding the material on other forms of inference. I'll begin this on May 30, 2008 if I hear no objection before then. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the other form of inference you have in mind? --Philogo 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See the introductory paragraph to the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I also find the introduction and much of the material in this article to be at odds with my understanding of the word "inference". I would have said that inference is the process of drawing conclusions from observations and previous understanding. The notion of inference acknowledges that these observations and the previous understanding might be kind of sloppy, with errors and, even, incomplete. Still, an inference is made. This is very different, in my mind, from strictly logical deduction. I would also assert that inference is most of what scientists actually do, while deduction is pretty limited in its powers, since very few situations lend themselves to such a strict formalism. I would be in favor of moving material about deduction to the page on deduction. Anyway, I'm sure there are other opinions on this. LadyLeodia (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Error

"But false premises may, by accident, lead to a true conclusion."

Is this a reference to logical accident or simply a very poor choice of words? It seems to me this connection is not there. In this sentence "by chance" would be more appropriate! --84.250.188.136 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor meeant to say not "But false premises may, by accident, lead to a true conclusion" but rather "It is possible to have a valid argument with false premises and a true conclusion, eg All Men are machines, all mechimes are mortal therefore all men are mortal.

The example given is strange too, unless John Lennon actually was a fish. --Philogo 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, logical accident is something else entirely. I agree, however, that "by chance" is better than "by accident". Piilogo's formulation and example are also good. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

inference

The following is very dubious, a gross simplification at best:

Inductive inference is the method of science

(see scientific method for a better acount). On this definition Newton and Einstein did little science.--Philogo 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) This sort of statement appears in many places in Wiki: can anybody cite a source for it?--Philogo 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Of the two major modes of reasoning, deductive and inductive, the former tends to be mathematical and the latter scientific. Thus Newton is a mathematician, though he did do some scientific experiments, especially in optics (and with apples?). And while Einstein considered himself a physicist, he really did not do any experiments, though his ideas were confirmed by the experiments of others. Many mistake him for a mathematician. Maybe the sentence should read "observation and reason are the methods of science"? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Tends to" is a bit weasle wordy isn't it? How would you decide whether As tend to be Bs? >50%, % is increasing?) In any case

Do you mean "Mathematics "tends to be" deductive rather thean vice versa? Do you mean (a) "Science 'tend to be" inductive or (b) "Induction 'tends to be' scientific? I doubt (a) and (b) but am prepared to learn: any sources? Einstein was a theoretical physicist and (as far as I know) made little claim to be a mathematician. As I said above if "Inductive inference is the method of science" then Newton and Einstein did little science. If you suggest we re-define science as "Experimental Science" so that Theoretical Science is no longer science, you are free to do so, but I see no advantage in changing the use of the word and I doubt if it will catch on.--Philogo 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

overlap with another page being discussed

It has been suggested here that this article may have substantial overlap with Reason and/or Reasoning. My own initial impression is that Reasoning as it currently stands should probably be deleted with anything worth keeping moved to other articles, like perhaps Reason, inference and maybe some others. But it would be good to get more opinions on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency on article

quote1: Inference is the act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. quote2: Accuracy of inductive inferences: The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. Philogo (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article opens with “Inference is the act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts.” NO! Inference is the act of drawing a conclusion by in-ductive reasoning from given facts. The difference is crucial, because the concepts are opposite to one another. Deduction is from general to particular, while induction is from particular to general. In statistical inference, for example, we observe a certain amount of data (e.g. interview people) and try to draw conclusions on the entire population, trying also to establish the amount of error determined. In deductive reasoning, besides a fallacy, a logical error, there is no error whatsoever cause by lack of information.

Example: humans are mortal, and I am human, so I am mortal. Deduction.

Example: I am mortal, and I am human, so humans are mortal. Induction. Matteo 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.32.169 (talk)

Suggestion. Would this be a case of a word with a strict sense and a looser sense which also needs to be mentioned? Is that the way to handle it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In everyday speech people often use inference to mean any sort of rational process or conclusion. But in the strict sense it is inductive only. This article needs to be radically changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transfire (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There are different kinds of inferences. I cannot speak about usage specific to fields studying inductive reasoning; however, in logic generally, and more specifically in mathematical logic, "inference" is the more general term covering both deduction and induction. There also is another (less popular/well-known) kind of inference called abduction, developed by Peirce. I don't know a source off the top of my head that could demonstrate this -- it would need to have surveyed the literature itself -- but I might be able to dig up something, perhaps a couple standard introductions to logic. The intro and definition sections could be changed to reflect this division of inferences into deductive, inductive, and abductive types. Also, I think it would be helpful to add an example more modern than syllogistic logic in order to reflect the (deductive) logical advances of the last two centuries. Actually, it's not clear why this article shouldn't be merged with or redirected to another, such as reasoning or logical reasoning. Cheers, Honestrosewater (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Honestrosewater: the article should classify the kinds of inference (deductive, inductive, abductive, statistical, ...). However, I feel unable to do that (I guess, "deductive" and "inductive" inference are disjoint notions, but e.g. "inductive" and "statistical" are not, and "inductive" may be a subset of "abductive", etc. - rather confusing). I have added a list of references to section "Further reading" that should demonstrate the extension of the notion of "inference" in a broader sense, and help potential authors to write about particular kinds of inference. Although the list has grown to an ugly size, it is far from being complete - it should therefor probably be organized in another (nicer) way; maybe it should be distributed into the corresponding sections. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

"...meaning of word meanings are not tested but meaningful relationships are articulated."

Can't make sense of this in the third paragraph. Can anyone help? --174.7.56.10 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Applications

Under Semantic Web add the following information:

(Redacted)

Hectorlopez17 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hectorlopez17. Unfortunately, I cannot add those sentences since some were copied word-for-word from the journal article. The journal article is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 2.5, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license – the journal does not permit commercial reuse but Wikipedia does. You'll have to paraphrase that sentence if it is to be incorporated into the article. Best, Altamel (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Inference is not necessarily a reasoning

Strictly speaking, an inference is not necessarily a reasoning since it can be immediate.

Indeed, an immediate inference can refer to a sensation. This "is given first and it is from her that the object is inferred". Example: The observation of a cat infers the object of a cat, the immediate inference: this is a cat.

Immediate inference can also be reasoning. It is then composed of "two propositions: a premise and a conclusion". The immediate Aristotelian inferences are in the form of a logical square.

In french, inference is no defines of a reasoning, but a movement of movement of thought. --Philogik (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines inference as "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning", which agrees with you that inference and reasoning differ, and has inference being the term that covers evidence, but which holds that reasoning rather than inference is the process. The definition talks of the conclusion reached, while the articale talks of the mentak act that reaches the step, which is common in logic. I don't think the article's lead needs to be changed, although I am open to suggested changes that clarify the relationship between inference and reasoning. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)