INFERENCE PATH

The Wall Street Journal has an article that makes an argument relying on the implicit supporting assumption that different levels of feelings of hate toward different people are only dependent on the degree to which one person is worse than another.

The Wall Street Journal has an article supporting the conclusion that liberals are more politically intolerant than conservatives. The argument presented illustrates the importance of making transparent the supporting assumptions.

The Wall Street Journal reports that in 1922 “a New York alderman…proposed a city ordinance that would prohibit women from smoking in hotels, restaurants or other public places.” The following ADEPT argument diagram depicts his reasoning. The unstated implicit premise is indicated with a dotted border.

[A notice of new posts by email subscription option is available at the bottom of this page.]

Professor David Hitchcock presents an interesting case for the proposition that “[e]very inference is general;” namely, that every argument assumes a general warrant. [The only exception I can imagine is a simple transitive argument such as the following: A is taller than B. B is taller than C. So A is taller than C.] This conclusion of every inference as general fits with an ADEPT mode of inference.

This principle can be illustrated with the following examples.

Bob possessed one of the keys to the safe at the time of the burglary. Someone who possessed one of the keys to the safe at the time of the burglary committed the crime. [The safe was opened with a key.] Therefore, Bob committed the crime.

This pattern does not fit the ADEPT mode of inference. The problem is that the subject of the second premise does not represent the category “possessed one of the keys to the safe at the time of the burglary.” Rather, the word “someone” indicates only a member of that category. ADEPT requires, as a categorical mode of inference in which the category consists of the verb-predicate, that each linking premise be a generalization from the previous complete predicate category.

By changing the “Someone” of membership to the “One” of category, the ADEPT structure is achieved and a valid inference results.

Evaluating the probative strength of an argument depends, in part, on whether or not the premises “hold.” And whether the premises “hold” depends, in part, on the amount of acceptability they can support.

The following argument defeasible essential predication transitivity map illustrates a kinesthetic metaphoric graphic convention to depict premises that support different amounts of acceptability.