What is an Inductive Argument?

In this video we introduce the concept of an "inductive argument" as this term is commonly used in logic and philosophy (see my other video on "Induction and Science" for a discussion of how scientists commonly use the term, and it compares with the usage given here).

[janovesakkestad]

The problem is that you use a the word "therefore" you should have used the word "probably"

[TheWarfare]

From what im understanding based on the reading in the book ive done, premise is more like a FACT than phrases or indicator words. if an argument has a premise phrase, then you're good but if you dont see one, gotta look at the argument and see if its premise sounds like a fact.

[TheKingdomofErnor]

An inductive argument with a strong conclusion is not a good argument. A good inductive argument would be this one:
-100% of biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.
-Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.
The argument itself acknowledges that it is not a certainty. The conclusion itself is not faulty.

[fsfcvvy]

This is not inductive Logic but abductive. Induction with this example would be 1 Julie is chinese, 2 Julie have Dark hair, 3 chinese people have Dark hair. This is virtually the same as the famous Black swan example.

[Velzen]

I would tent to call the argument that julie is chinese a fallacy anyway. In no way do the premises support the conclusion. Of course it can be fixed by supposing an extra premise (the chinese form 1/6 of the words population), after wich it is just a week argument. Without that extra premise "invalid" seems - to me - a better way of describing it. I suppose you will understand why when you change "chinese" for "aboriginal Tasmanians". Then there is no way to fix the argument.