Ashford University - Ed Tech | Inductive_Arguments_2
SPEAKER: So let's continue with inductive arguments. And let's talk about ways that we can make our argument stronger.
So how can we make inductive arguments stronger? Well, if we're using an inductive argument and supporting it with evidence, such as statistical evidence or percentages, then if we find more evidence that supports our position, then obviously the argument is stronger.
If 50% of students-- or 51% of students are happy with this university. Sorry, let's just say we find that 51% of students are happy with the university. And then we make the claim that a majority of students-- or most students are happy. That's not a very strong inductive inference.
But if we go and we do our research, and we find out that 71% of students are happy, then what we've done here is we've created a stronger argument. So one way is to go find evidence.
But it's important that when we make our argument stronger or when we evaluate evidence that we use the best types of evidence. Billy Bob's racist blog from-- he's typing from the basement-- is not the best source to use to support your claims that perhaps different people have different capabilities or something. I don't believe that. But there's a selection bias often that occurs when people go to find evidence.
Ultimately, in a perfect world, you present a hypothesis, which is just a statement of what you attempt to prove or what you think is the case. And you kind of present it in your head. You say something like, well, you know, I do believe that men and women should be equal. And then I would go into the world, and I would attempt to find evidence that supports my claim that men and women should be equal. But when I do that, I can't just negate the side that says that men and women should not be equal.
So when we evaluate evidence we need to find as many possible sides as possible-
1

- as many sides as possible. So we need to find the strongest evidence from the people who claim that men and women should be equal or the position the claims that, or societies in which men and women are created equal.
You know John Stuart Mill, the famous philosopher in the 1800s, made an argument in the book, The Subjection of Women , where he was arguing against the fact that men consider themselves higher than women. You know, when you live in a society where you exclude women from education, where you exclude women from politics, where you exclude women from social relationships, you're ultimately taking 50% of the people that could contribute to your society and you're cutting them off.
Now, I don't tend to like these economic arguments, but I would say it's a very strong argument. A society suffers when you arbitrarily cut out people who could contribute, whether it's through a job, whether it's through creating good policy, whether it's through leading others. So basically, in society is that still exists in the world-- and our society, of course, is not equal-- women are paid less for the same jobs as men. They have fewer opportunities. They're treated differently. They're not as respected. I've seen it.
Have you ever been in a meeting where a woman says something, and people are like, oh, OK? And then three minutes later, a man says the same thing. And they'd be like, you know, Justin, that's an excellent point.
You've probably been there. And many of you female students have probably been there and felt that. And those things happen all the time. And people don't recognize things like that.
But in societies where there is this strict subjugation of women, it's no wonder that those societies struggle often with production of goods or development of technology or ideas or literature or whatever it might be. They're automatically taking 50% of the people and saying like, you just can't participate, we're sorry. And that's what John Stuart Mill says.
But anyway, if we're going to evaluate the evidence-- so again, our hypothesis is
2

that men and women should be equal-- then what I need to do is not just go find
John Stuart Mill, not just go to philosophers like Virginia Held and Martha
Nussbaum, Judith Butler. I need to go and find religious exponents who claim that a woman's duty is to do this and that. And no matter how much I disagree with it, it's important that I evaluate those sources and that I attempt to remain objective, so that I can respond to the strongest arguments the other side.
So when you're using inductive reasoning to make your argument stronger, it's often best to go and consider all the sides of an argument. And of course, that might even include consulting Billy Bob's racist blogs. Now, of course, that would be an extreme side. It's probably not based in any logical reasoning. It's probably best to hang out in the realm of-- oh, the second thing.
When you're trying to evaluate evidence, you should use peer reviewed journal articles and books that come from academic publishers. I'm not sure why-- I think I know why. Many students tend to just go out on the internet, find whatever they can, go to Wikipedia and things of that nature, and then kind of bring everything together.
But really the best evidence occurs in these peer reviewed journal articles. And that's because when somebody does say something crazy or their methods of analysis are not valid-- and I'm using validity there in a different sense-- but there are other experts that review their work. And then they say, hey, Justin, that idea you had about this is crazy, and here let me tell you why, because Bergson actually says in Creative Evolution the opposite of what you said here. Go read that and let me know what you think. And then you respond to their critiques.
And then their like, OK, I can agree with what you said, even though I totally disagree with it. And therefore, we can move it through, and you can be reviewed.
But it goes to this process where content experts review it that websites that are just general websites often don't go through and especially things like blogs where people can just post their opinions or whatever they might be.
3

And then books that come from academic publishers go through, in general and for the most part, rigorous editorial remarks, as well as analysis by content experts as well. And so these are the best sources to gather information from.
Of course, it's easier just to look on Wikipedia. But even Wikipedia-- I'm not a hater of Wikipedia-- often you'll find at the bottom of the Wikipedia page numerous resources. They come from peer reviewed journals and also books. And you should go there.
So, you know, familiarize yourself with the topic or whatever. But then go to those resources. And you might find those resources aren't very good or that some are better than others. Now, just because somebody works at Princeton doesn't of necessity mean that their article is more trustworthy than someone who works at a local community college. Now, we tend to think that, and of course, if you make it into Princeton as a researcher, you've definitely proven yourself.
So those are things to take into account as well. But again, these sources are best.
You know, me saying to you why I believe this, why I believe men and women are not equal, because my parents said so. That should never be sufficient reason for you to believe what I'm saying. And also it shouldn't be a sufficient reason-- of course, we should respect our parents. Or I believe we should.
But if our parents are racists, then we should disagree with what they believe. If our parents our sexist, I personally believe we should disagree with what they believe.
And I would take it so far as to even say, if they're sexist based on ideas that they orient their lives around, still we ought to disagree with those ideas, or at least take them to task and ask for logical reasons why people are sexist.
So we ought not believe everything that people say. And that's part of critical thinking and part of argumentation and things of that nature.
And then in relation to-- this goes along nicely and I'll just end with this-- when you're evaluating sources, you need to evaluate the authority of the author. And the examples I like to use here are all these celebrities that tell us what to do and about
4

issues in Sudan and all this. And they're not necessarily wrong that there are issues in Sudan or in Vietnam or whatever it might be. And of course, our country has our own issues.
But why in the world should I believe what Oprah tells me about politics? Or what
Brad Pitt tells me about Cambodia? Or anyone basically on TV that's not involved in some sort of academic programming? Why should I believe what they tell me to believe?
They're not authorities on the topics. If you want to learn about the situation in
Cambodia, then you should consult Cambodian news sources. You should consult economists and thinkers from that country itself. Or perhaps you should consult leading authorities.
For example, there are numerous faculty members across the country that study very specific issues. So you might find a professor of political science somewhere at a university who only studies even northern Vietnam and that region and how markets influence each other. And of course, that person would be well versed in the literature and probably have connections to people and the country that know what's going on.
But what happens right? What happens in our society? You know LeBron James is probably actually an authority on the shoes that he sells. When he is wearing those shoes, he's probably-- I mean, he plays basketball. He knows, like, make this shoe better. I need to be able to perform at this level.
But if LeBron James tells you to buy a car or if LeBron James tells you to vote
Democrat or vote Republican, it's probably best to go and consult an expert on a different issue. Now, of course, LeBron James probably becomes an interested party when he's selling his shoes. And we talked about interested parties. So every shoe that's LeBron James gets paid by Nike-- or is he endorsed by some other--
Reebok or something.
Does Reebok still exist? Remember the pumps? Oh, man, the pumps were
5

awesome. I don't know. They didn't really do anything, except pump up really tighter around your foot. But man, they had like the basketball pump. That was so cool.
But so remember if somebody's getting paid to sell you something, then more than likely-- even if LeBron puts on the shoe and he's like these are horrible. And Nike's like, OK, LeBron, we have your shoe that we put you to go play basketball, but we've got to like tone it down a little bit, because it's too expensive.
And LeBron's like, OK, it looks cool. People will like it. And here's $20 million,
LeBron. We love you. And he's like, I love you. You just gave me $20 million. So again, we need to be aware of interested parties.
But anyway, inductive arguments, we talked a little bit about the types of inductive arguments, the ways to strengthen inductive arguments. And remember, inductive arguments occur when you present reasons that probabilistically support your conclusion or attempt to support that conclusion as being true, rather than necessarily prove it to be true.
6