Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Deduction can be useful if a new legal rule is being tested to discover whether it is going to clash with any existing legal rule. It can also be useful when precedent is being teased out for the first time and logical consequences need to be tracked. Logic distinguishes between deductive and inductive. An inductive argument can for example have as an inference a generalisation (eg, innocent people do not run away). Figure 7.9: generalisations A generalisation can be quite easily attacked as it is usually constructed on flimsy arguments. But it is also worth remembering that no argument can ever be 100% sound. Remember our system requires less than perfect proof: balance of probabilities in the civil area and beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal law. So, accusing someone of not having a perfect 100% argument is not a good argument! No one has a 100% case. 7.8.2 Induction There is another form of arguing which involves arguments that put forward some general proposition (the conclusion) from fact or facts that seem to provide some evidence for the general given proposition or group of propositions (the premises). This is perhaps the closest to the everyday legal argument when decisions are made concerning which side of a dispute is accorded the privileging of their story in terms of the law’s authority to provide an declaration of right followed by sanction and/or compensation. Inductive reasoning is similar to deductive reasoning in so far as the conclusions are based on premises. However, in inductive reasoning, the conclusion reached extends beyond the facts in the premise. The premise supports the conclusion, it makes it probable. Therefore, there is less certainty and it is possible that another conclusion exists. A sub-division of inductive reasoning is reasoning by analogy or analogous reasoning, this being the method best known to English legal method. The difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning is a closed system of reasoning, from the general to the general or the particular, and includes cases where the conclusion is drawn out; it is, therefore, analytical, whereas inductive reasoning is an open system of reasoning. It involves finding a
DOI link for Deduction can be useful if a new legal rule is being tested to discover whether it is going to clash with any existing legal rule. It can also be useful when precedent is being teased out for the first time and logical consequences need to be tracked. Logic distinguishes between deductive and inductive. An inductive argument can for example have as an inference a generalisation (eg, innocent people do not run away). Figure 7.9: generalisations A generalisation can be quite easily attacked as it is usually constructed on flimsy arguments. But it is also worth remembering that no argument can ever be 100% sound. Remember our system requires less than perfect proof: balance of probabilities in the civil area and beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal law. So, accusing someone of not having a perfect 100% argument is not a good argument! No one has a 100% case. 7.8.2 Induction There is another form of arguing which involves arguments that put forward some general proposition (the conclusion) from fact or facts that seem to provide some evidence for the general given proposition or group of propositions (the premises). This is perhaps the closest to the everyday legal argument when decisions are made concerning which side of a dispute is accorded the privileging of their story in terms of the law’s authority to provide an declaration of right followed by sanction and/or compensation. Inductive reasoning is similar to deductive reasoning in so far as the conclusions are based on premises. However, in inductive reasoning, the conclusion reached extends beyond the facts in the premise. The premise supports the conclusion, it makes it probable. Therefore, there is less certainty and it is possible that another conclusion exists. A sub-division of inductive reasoning is reasoning by analogy or analogous reasoning, this being the method best known to English legal method. The difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning is a closed system of reasoning, from the general to the general or the particular, and includes cases where the conclusion is drawn out; it is, therefore, analytical, whereas inductive reasoning is an open system of reasoning. It involves finding a
Deduction can be useful if a new legal rule is being tested to discover whether it is going to clash with any existing legal rule. It can also be useful when precedent is being teased out for the first time and logical consequences need to be tracked. Logic distinguishes between deductive and inductive. An inductive argument can for example have as an inference a generalisation (eg, innocent people do not run away). Figure 7.9: generalisations A generalisation can be quite easily attacked as it is usually constructed on flimsy arguments. But it is also worth remembering that no argument can ever be 100% sound. Remember our system requires less than perfect proof: balance of probabilities in the civil area and beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal law. So, accusing someone of not having a perfect 100% argument is not a good argument! No one has a 100% case. 7.8.2 Induction There is another form of arguing which involves arguments that put forward some general proposition (the conclusion) from fact or facts that seem to provide some evidence for the general given proposition or group of propositions (the premises). This is perhaps the closest to the everyday legal argument when decisions are made concerning which side of a dispute is accorded the privileging of their story in terms of the law’s authority to provide an declaration of right followed by sanction and/or compensation. Inductive reasoning is similar to deductive reasoning in so far as the conclusions are based on premises. However, in inductive reasoning, the conclusion reached extends beyond the facts in the premise. The premise supports the conclusion, it makes it probable. Therefore, there is less certainty and it is possible that another conclusion exists. A sub-division of inductive reasoning is reasoning by analogy or analogous reasoning, this being the method best known to English legal method. The difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning is a closed system of reasoning, from the general to the general or the particular, and includes cases where the conclusion is drawn out; it is, therefore, analytical, whereas inductive reasoning is an open system of reasoning. It involves finding a
ABSTRACT
Logic distinguishes between deductive and inductive. An inductive argument can for example have as an inference a generalisation (eg, innocent people do not run away).
A generalisation can be quite easily attacked as it is usually constructed on flimsy arguments. But it is also worth remembering that no argument can ever be 100% sound. Remember our system requires less than perfect proof: balance of probabilities in the civil area and beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal law. So, accusing someone of not having a perfect 100% argument is not a good argument! No one has a 100% case.
