|
|||||
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence". Examples: (i) Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones will probably vote Tory. (The information left out is that Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton vote Liberal or N.D.P.) (ii) The Athletics will probably win this game because they've won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Athletics wins came over last place teams, and today they are playing the first place team.) (iii) The theory of evolution, as generally presented, relies
on selected instances AND suppressed evidence. A large body of
evidence undermines the theory,
yet this is rarely presented. Only that evidence which puts the
theory in a good light is presented. The picture below is commonly
shown in textbooks and in museums. Unfortunately, every supposed "link" has
been shown to be either faked or a monkey of some sort, or a modern
man of some sort. While some of these have been shown not to be
links decades ago, this information is not presented.
Proof: Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the outcome of the inductive argument.
|
