Travis Tameirao Philosophy of Knowledge Vance Morgan September 12, 2011 Intellectual Notebook: Charles S.

Pierce The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we already know, something else which we do not know. Consequently, reasoning is good if it be such as to give a true conclusion from true premises, and not otherwise. Thus, the question of its validity is purely one of fact and not of thinking. A being the premises and B the conclusion, the question is, whether these facts are really so related that if A is B is. If so, the inference is valid; if not, not. It is not in the least the question whether, when the premises are accepted by the mind, we feel an impulse to accept the conclusion also. It is true that we do generally reason correctly by nature. But that is an accident; the true conclusion would remain true if we had no impulse to accept it; and the false one would remain false, though we could not resist the tendency to believe in it. (cp5.365) This quote primarily stood out in its stances between deductive and inductive reasoning. In which general relational ideas can be sorted out to particular circumstances. For example, all bachelors are unmarried is the same as Derek the bachelor is unmarried, which in itself, is a particular circumstance. Induction reasons from particular instances to general conclusions. For example, Derek, Jacob, Michael, and Sam are all bachelors and unmarried, which leads to the general conclusion that all bachelors are unmarried. In deductive reasoning, the conclusions were either true or false and had to be that way. However where this poses as a problem is in its structured design. In a case where A are the premises and B being any conclusion you give your structured argument, then you could structure any conclusion

given you have an argument with true premises and no fallacies. This leads to people believing that the conclusion MUST be true. In inductive reasoning, there in uncertainty if the argument being presented by its premise leads to a conclusion that always remains true or false. There are various degrees of probability ranging from virtual certainty to virtual impossibility, but you can never know any proposition to with absolute certainty based on inductive logic. Those that receive and give court to said arguments are always inclined to believe arguments are true based on their premises, while the relation between the premises and the conclusion may not always be clear. Thus, people can essentially formulate arguments based on premises and conclusions that arent contingent with one another. Lastly, there is the major problem with distortion. By changing the validity of premises, truths or fallacies, can be distorted to the point where there is simply no relation to A and B and the argument in itself can be dismissed. Lawyers will often time do this to the opposing argument; distorting the facts to an extent where the jury cant tell where the truth lies, whether it be its conclusion or premises. The problem with structured arguments does not lay in whats to be known, rather, it lies in what is already known. As conclusions cant be determined as fact or fictitious claims unless the premises are stated truths that are already known an accepted as truths by the person(s) receiving the argument. In which case, the validity of an argument is largely determined by the opinions of the individuals granting court.