CRITICAL &

ETHICAL
THINKING
Lecture Eight: Inductive Reasoning

1
In this lecture, we will learn about:

■ Good and bad Inductive Arguments

■ Different types of inductive arguments

2
STRENGTH & COGENT-
NESS
強度與真强性

3
Strong Argument ( 強論證 )

A Strong ( 强 ) argument is an For example,

argument in which, if all the premises
are true, the conclusion is more
probably true than false.
The premises of a strong argument
therefore do not prove the claim of
the conclusion with certainty.
Most HKCC students own a mobile
phone.
Andy is a HKCC student.
---------------------------------------------
--
So, Andy owns a mobile phone.

4
Weak Argument ( 弱論證 )
A Weak ( 弱 ) argument is an
argument in which, (even) if all
the premises are true, the
conclusion is not more probably
true than false.
For example,
10% of HKCC students own a
smartwatch.
Andy is a HKCC student.
---------------------------------------------
--
So, Andy owns a smartwatch.
5
Strength vs. Validity

The strong/weak distinction is a continuum ( 連續體 ), i.e. it is a matter of

degree ( 有程度之分 ). We can say that one argument is stronger/weaker
than another argument.

But validity is an all-or-nothing ( 全有或全無 ) matter, i.e. arguments are

either valid or invalid. All valid arguments are the same valid and all invalid
arguments are the same invalid; no comparison of degree can be made.

6
Cogent argument ( 真强論證 )

Cogent ( 真强 ) Uncogent ( 不真强 )

= Strong + all premises true = either weak
or some premises false
(Note that the conclusion of a or both
cogent argument is just more
probably true than false.)

7
Types of Inductive Argument

1. Inductive Generalization ( 歸納推廣 )

2. Analogical Arguments/ Arguments from Analogy ( 類比論證 )
3. Causal Arguments ( 因果論證 )
4. Abductive Arguments ( 反繹論證 )

8
 INDUCTIVE
GENERALIZATION
歸納推廣論證

9
Inductive Generalizations

■ We are making a generalization if we conclude a claim about a

group, the population, from a claim about some part of it, the
sample. (Epstein, p.280)

■ 由一個羣體 (population) 中的樣本 (sample) 具有某種性

質，而推論出整個羣體的某個百分比也具有該性質。

10
Examples of Generalization

For example,

所有被觀察過的烏鴉都是黑色的。
--------------------------------------------
所以，所有烏鴉都是黑色的。

樣本：被觀察過的烏鴉
羣體：所有烏鴉

11
Examples of Generalization

在被觀察過的烏鴉之中，有 95%/87%/50% 是黑色的。

---------------------------------------------------------
所以， 95%/87%/50% 的烏鴉是黑色的。

形式：
在被觀察過的 Xs 之中，有 n% 是 p 。
----------------------------------------------------------
所以， n% 的 Xs 是 p
12
Examples of Generalization

1. 我幾次早上都見到理大的海底隧道附近十分塞
車，我看海隧每日早上都是十分塞車的了。

2. Peter, George 和 Louis 都是主修哲學的 , 而他們

都是無神論者 . 所以 , 所有主修哲學的學生都會
是無神論者。

13
What is a Strong Inductive Generalization?

當一個歸納推廣沒有犯以偏蓋全 (hasty generalization) 的謬誤，該論證就是

強的。

當所取的樣本
1. 取樣不足 (the sample size is too small)
2. 有結構性偏差 (there is a structural bias in the sample)
3. 有已知失漏 (there are unfavorable, contradicting findings against the
conclusion supposed to be drawn)

則該歸納推廣便犯了以偏蓋全的謬誤。
14
取樣不足

“Do most students of HKCC believe in God?

To find out, we asked 10 students. 8 of them believe in
God. The conclusion is obvious: Most students － about
80% － of HKCC believe in God.”

判斷某個歸納推廣是否取樣不足須依個別情況考慮。

15
有結構性偏差

In a survey on the topic “How many people are

using email services?”, an email with the question
“Do you have an email account?” is sent to each
email account registered on the web. It turns out
that 100% respondents give the answer “yes”. So
the survey concludes that all people use email
services.
16
有已知失漏

某支持藏獨團體作了一次調查，訪問了八千名
香港大學學生，大部分被訪者都表示不支持西
藏獨立。由於結果不大理想，於是該團體決定
另外再找三百名港大學生作了第二次調查。這
次調查中，有 90% 被訪者表示大力支持藏獨。
於是該團體向外公佈「有 90% 港大學生支持藏
獨。」
17
What is a Good Generalization?

Good inductive generalization ：

Cogent inductive generalization = strong inductive

generalization with true premises.

18
What is a Good Generalization?

1. Representative Sample （具有代表性的樣本） : A representative sample

is like the population as a whole in all relevant ways. It should be a
miniversion of the population as a whole. (Bassham 2002, p. 311)

2. Sample Size: If the size of the sample increases relative to the population,
the strength of the induction will increase too. (Rudinow and Barry, p.
232)

3. Random Sampling （隨機樣本） : A sample is chosen randomly if at

every choice there is an equal chance for any one of the remaining
members of the population to be picked. (Epstein p. 284)
19
A Note on Inductive Generalizations

■ There is no standard test available for testing the

strength of inductive generalization; there is neither a
discrete cut-off point to differentiate strong from weak
conclusions.

■ Therefore, it relies on our common sense to reason and

decide the strength of an inductive generalization.

20
ARGUMENTS FROM
ANALOGY
類比論證

21
Arguments from analogy

類比論證 (analogical arguments) 的基本原理是：事物在某些方面相似也應在另些方

面相似。

Examples:
1. Too much sun will make your face all wrinkly; I suppose it would have that effect on
your hands, too.

2. 蘋果生產的 iPhone 那麼流行 , 我相信他們的 Apple TV 也會掀起新的熱潮。

3. 既然法例容許人們吸煙和喝酒，它沒理由不容許人們吸食大麻。
22
The Form of an Argument from Analogy

Premise 1: X has properties a, b, and c.

Premise 2: Y has properties a, b, and c.
Premise 3: Y has further property p.
-------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: X also has property p.

a) 事物 X 是主要項 (primary subject) 。

b) 拿來與主要項比較的事物（事物 Y ）是類比項 (analogue) 。
c) 主要項與類比項的兩者共有的性質（性質 a, b, c …) 是相似點 (similarities) 。
d) 在結論中提及的性質（性質 p ）是目標性質 (target property) 。
23
Evaluating Analogical Arguments

Case One: Lives on Other Planets

我們所居住的地球與好些其他的行星（金星﹑木星﹑水星﹑
火星和土星）有甚多相似之處：它們像地球一樣都是圍繞太
陽轉動的，它們也像地球一樣都需要使用太陽的光源，它們
全部都像地球一樣受引力的影響．所以，我們有理由相信在
這些行星裡面都有有機的生命存在的。

24
Features of Analogical Arguments

1. PRIMARY SUBJECT ( 主要項 ): 金星﹑木星﹑水星﹑火星和土星

2. ANALOGUE ( 類比項 ): 地球

3. SIMILARITIES ( 相似點 ): 圍繞太陽轉動 / 需要使用太陽的光源 /

受引力的影響

4. TARGET PROPERTY ( 目標性質 ): ( 在行星中 ) 有有機的生命存在

25
The Standard Form of Case One

金星﹑木星﹑水星﹑火星和土星具有圍繞太陽轉動 / 需要使
用太陽的光源 / 受引力的影響這些性質。
地球具有圍繞太陽轉動 / 需要使用太陽的光源 / 受引力的影
響這些性質。
地球有有機的生命存在。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------- 所以，金星﹑木星﹑水星﹑火星和土星
也有有機的生命存在。

26
Aspects of Evaluation for Analogical
Arguments
1. The truth of the premises
2. The relevance of the similarities (to the target property)
3. The number of relevant similarities
4. The relevance of dissimilarities (to the target property)
5. The number of relevant dissimilarities

27
相干性 (Relevance)

■ 若性質 P 的出現將增加性質 Q 出現的概率，那麼 P 與 Q

正相干 [Positively relevant]

■ 若性質 P 的出現將減少性質 Q 出現的概率，那麼 P 與 Q

負相干 [Negatively relevant]

■ 若性質 P 的出現既不增加也不減少 Q 出現的概率，那麼 P

與 Q 不相干 [Irrelevant]
28
相干性 (Relevance)

How would additional premises affect the probability of the claim?

1. 假如我們發現這些行星的大氣壓力最少比地球大 50 倍 …

2. 假如在這些行星上很多都有水份 (H2O) 存在…

3. 假如古埃及人給這些行星起的名字與現代社會所沿用的名
字差不多…
29
Analysis of Analogical Arguments

試評價以下論證。並列出各論證的主要項，類比項。
相似點，及目標性質。

Case Two: 計算機與 ( 正常 ) 人也懂計算乘數。既然

正常人有喜怒哀樂，那由此我們可推論計算機也有喜
怒哀樂。

30
標準的類比論證形式

主要項： 計算機
類比項： 人
相似點： 懂得計算乘數
目標性質： 有喜怒哀樂

[ 前提 1] 計算機具有懂得計算乘數這性質。
[ 前提 2] 人具有懂得計算乘數這性質。
[ 前提 3] 人有喜怒哀樂。
[ 結論 ] 因此，計算機也有喜怒哀樂。
31
有關例二的分析

1. 計算機與人的確也懂乘數運算。因此 [ 前提 1] 為真。
2. 相似點與目標性質並不相干，計算能力與情緒感覺雖同屬
心智性質或過程，但兩者卻分屬兩個獨立的範疇：前者屬
智力範疇；後者屬情緒感覺範疇。
3. 人與計算機的不相似點甚多，例如，計算機可在商店出售
而人卻不可；計算機有按鈕而人卻明顯沒有等等。然而，
這些不相似的性質與評價論證的合理性並無影響。
4. 與結論相干的不類似點：計算機沒有感官，沒有複雜的神
經系統。
32
與道德有關的類比論證

類比論證經常在倫理、法律和政治討論中被使用 。

[ 前提 1] 行為 X1 在道德上是錯誤的 / 正確的 / 等等 ..
[ 前提 2] 行為 X 和行為 Y 是類似的。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
[ 結論 ] 行為 Y 在道德上是錯誤的 / 正確的 / 等等 ..  

1
一般來說，行為 X 並不會引起道德爭議。
33
支持婦女有權墮胎的類比論證

設想有一天你醒來時，發覺你躺狂醫院裡，身邊躺著一位著
名的小提琴家。小提琴家患了一種很怪的腎病，必須和你共
用你的腎臟九個月。所以小提琴家的支持者偷偷地擄劫你，
把你和小提琴家的腎臟接駁起來。如果你現在把接駁的喉管
拔掉，小提琴家就會死掉。 Thomson 認為在這情況下，你依
然有權利把喉管拔掉。同理，雖然胎兒的生命有賴母親的身
體來維持，如果母親不願意，母親依然有權切斷胎兒和自己
身體的連繫。
■ J. J. Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion", Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1971)

34
標準的類比論證形式

主要項 : 母親與胎兒
類比項 : 你與小提琴家
相似點： 有賴兩者連繫維持生命，切斷連繫（胎兒和小提琴家）
就會死。
目標性質： 母親有權切斷與胎兒的連繫

[ 前提 1] 母親與胎兒切斷連繫胎兒就會死。
[ 前提 2] 你與小提琴家切斷連繫小提琴家就會死。
[ 前提 3] 你有權切斷與小提琴家的連繫。
[ 結論 ] 因此，母親也權切斷與胎兒的連繫。
35
對 Thomson 小提琴家例子的兩點批評

小提琴家例子有兩個非常重要（相干）的不相似點：

1. 小提琴家例子中你是被擄劫的，是人身自由被侵犯的結
果，這例子只可支持因姦成孕的墮胎，與出於自願性行為
的成孕情況非常不同。
2. 小提琴家例子中你必須躺在床上九個月，自由被完全剝
奪，但婦女懷孕期間仍然享有很大部份的自由。

36
 CAUSAL
ARGUMENTS
因果論證

37
Causal Argument

A causal claim ( 因果陳述句 ) states the presence (or absence) of causation.

(Moore & Parker, p. 395)

E.g.
老李用氣功治好了李太的肺炎。
Vitamin C does not cure colds.
Smoking causes cancer.
瑪麗之所以嫁給彼得，並不是因為彼得有錢。

38
Causal Argument

We call any argument in which the conclusion is a causal

claim a causal argument ( 因果論證 ). The form of the
argument can be inductive generalizations or analogical
arguments. (Salmon, p. 168)

39
Causal Argument

Causal argument by inductive generalization

[ 前提 ] 很多時我晚上遲睡覺，第二天早上我都會頭痛。
[ 結論 ] 晚上遲睡覺導致頭痛。

Causal argument by analogical argument

[ 前提 ] 每逢下雨，我都會風濕痛。
[ 前提 ] 風濕痛和頭痛都是痛症。
[ 結論 ] 每逢下雨，我都會頭痛。

40
Identifying Causal Relationships

When there is a causal relationship ( 因果關係 ) between two things

or events, we may usually identify the following conditions:

1. Temporal sequence ( 時序 ): Event A comes before the Event B.

2. Correlations ( 相連性 ): Event A regularly (frequently or
constantly) occurs together with Event B.
3. Possibility of Manipulation ( 操縱的可能 ): Changes Event A
changes Event B.

41
Types of Correlation

Positive Correlation: A occurs together with B.

Negative Correlation: A occurs together with the absence of B.

(A prevents B.)

Concomitant Correlation: The variation of B is in direct or

inverse proportion to the variation of A.

42
The Scientific Drinker – Problem of a
Bad Hypothesis (Copi, p. 504)
1. In the first week, Tom drank Pepsi and Scotch in the pub. He had
headache the other day.
2. In the second week, Tom drank Pepsi and Vodka in the pub. He had
headache the other day.
3. In the third week, Tom drank Pepsi and brandy in the pub. He had
headache the other day.
4. In the fourth week, Tom drank Pepsi and gin. He had headache the other
day.
5. Tom swears never to touch Pepsi again!!

43
Case Study - Observation and Confusions

1. Some people think that cold weather causes the leaves to turn
yellow in the fall. In fact, the cold weather and the yellowing
leaves are both caused by the waning sunlight. (Moore &
Parker, 2007: p. 378)

2. Population from lower classes usually have a higher rate of

addicted gamblers. Does gambling cause these people to
become poor? Or is it poverty (and social pressure) which
causes people to gamble?
44
Common Causal Relations

1. A and B are not causally related

2. A is the cause of B
3. B is the cause of A
4. A and B form a causal loop
5. A is a minor cause of B
6. A and B have a common cause
7. B is a side effect of A

45
吸煙青少年離家出走高 14 倍

為了解青少年吸煙與其他離軌行為的關係，防止青少年吸煙委員會針對中
一至中三學生進行調查，發現最近 30 日有吸煙行為的青少年，比無吸煙
青少年的離家出走機會，高 14 倍；而青少年吸煙與接觸黑社會、濫藥及
性交，亦息息相關。

防止青少年吸煙委員會認為，調查結果反映，識別及防止青少年吸煙，有
助防止青少年沾有其他離軌行為，故呼籲政府增撥資源，加強學校的防吸
煙工作。
– 2010-07-09 am730 

討論 : 青少年吸煙和離家之間是什麼關係 ?
46
Fallacies about causation

Fallacy of the single cause ( 單一起因謬誤 ) - Wrongly

presupposing that an event has a single cause when there
are many causally relevant factors involved.

例子 : 昨天一名學生考試前自殺，反映香港學生考試
壓力很大。

47
 ABDUCTIVE
ARGUMENTS
反繹推理

48
Abductive Arguments

Abduction is also called inference to the best

explanation ( 最佳解釋推論 )

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever

remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
– Sherlock Holmes

49
Abductive Arguments

Evidence allows us to infer the likely truth of H when:

■ we have considered all the possible hypotheses
■ we have sufficient evidence
■ H is clearly a much better explanation of the evidence
than its rivals and competitors

50
What makes an explanation better?

Proposals include:
■ Coherence ( 連貫 )
■ Simplicity ( 簡單明瞭 )
■ Integrability with other explanations ( 與其他解釋的融合性 )
■ Detail ( 詳細 )
■ Predictive power ( 預測能力 )
■ Error reducing ( 減少錯誤 )

51
Occam’s Razor
奧坎剃刀
■ If there are multiple competing hypotheses that can explain the same
phenomenon equally well, the simplest hypothesis usually is favored.
■ Occam’s razor is not an absolute rule in logic nor for scientists, but it is a
preference for simplicity in scientific method.

■ 如果有多個假設可以同樣地解釋一個現象，那麼通常應該支持最簡
單的那個假設。
■ 奧坎剃刀不是邏輯上或科學家必須遵守的絕對規則，它只是在科學
方法中對簡單性的偏好

52
Abductive Arguments

A few days ago, John told you he will attend the freshmen seminar on
Wednesday.
John did not attend the freshmen seminar.
You did not see John at all on Wednesday.
John posted a photograph of prescribed medication on Instagram.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, John is sick.

53
參考資料

1. 李天命：《哲道行者》，香港：明報出版社， 2005 。
2. 方子華等：《批判思考》， Singapore: McGraw Hill (Asia), 2005 。
3. 貝剛毅：《思方導航——批判思考導論》〈香港：匯智出版 , 2011 〉 .
4. Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2012). Critical thinking: A
student’s introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
5. Hurley, P. J., & Watson, L. (2018). A concise introduction to logic (13th ed.). Boston,
MA: Cengage Learning.
6. Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2014). Critical thinking (12th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

54