Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If a reasoner has grounds to believe the sampling procedu... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If a reasoner has grounds to believe the sampling procedure preferentially draws certain individuals, the proportional syllogism should not be applied

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Knowing one is in a location where a certain type is over-represented gives reason to believe the sample is not representative
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The proportional syllogism assumes no systematic bias in how individuals are selected
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Biased sampling conditions can themselves be probabilistically characterized and incorporated into revised reference classes rather than suspending inference entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reichenbach's frequency interpretation allows nested reference classes to be weighted, so bias adjusts the probability rather than invalidating the syllogism's application.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Suspending proportional reasoning under bias conflates imprecision in reference class selection with a logical defect in the inferential form itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Keynes and Carnap's logical probability frameworks hold that all available evidence, including bias conditions, should be conjoined into a single posterior probability rather than triggering inference suspension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Refusing to apply probabilistic reasoning when sampling imperfections are known leads to epistemic paralysis, since no real-world sampling procedure is perfectly unbiased.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Biased sampling conditions can themselves be probabilistically characterized and...Keynes and Carnap's logical probability frameworks hold that all available evide...Knowing one is in a location where a certain type is over-represented gives reas...Refusing to apply probabilistic reasoning when sampling imperfections are known ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Reichenbach's frequency interpretation allows nested reference classes to be wei...Suspending proportional reasoning under bias conflates imprecision in reference ...The proportional syllogism assumes no systematic bias in how individuals are sel...

    Similar

    In the absence of reasons to believe the sampling procedure favors cer...93%The proportional syllogism assumes no systematic bias in how individua...82%It is not necessary to know that a sample is randomly drawn in order t...80%The conclusion of the proportional syllogism is only probable, not cer...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    A number of authors have expressed the view that the Williams-Stove argument is only valid if the sample S is drawn randomly from the population of possible samples—i.e., that any sample is as likely to be drawn as any other (Brown 1987; Will 1948; Giaquinto 1987). Sometimes this is presented as an objection to the application of the proportional syllogism. The claim is that the proportional syllogism is only valid if a is drawn randomly from the population of Ms. However, the response has been
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit