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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is not necessary to know that a sample is randomly dra... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is not necessary to know that a sample is randomly drawn in order to apply the proportional syllogism

    Skepticism
    ?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.In the absence of reasons to believe the sampling procedure favors certain individuals over others, it is rational to apply the proportional syllogism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The conclusion of the proportional syllogism is only probable, not certain, which accounts for the possibility of drawing an unrepresentative sample
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Without knowledge that sampling is random, we cannot distinguish genuine probability from mere ignorance of systematic bias.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reichenbach's frequency theory requires that reference classes be defined by causally homogeneous selection processes, not mere absence of known bias.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying proportional syllogism under unknown selection mechanisms conflates epistemic and objective probability, undermining the inference's justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Keynes argued in A Treatise on Probability that rational credence requires positive warrant for equiprobability assumptions, not merely the absence of disconfirming evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The principle of indifference, which grounds inference from ignorance of bias to equal weighting, generates contradictions when applied across different descriptions of the same situation.
      ?

      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

    Applying proportional syllogism under unknown selection mechanisms conflates epi...In the absence of reasons to believe the sampling procedure favors certain indiv...Keynes argued in A Treatise on Probability that rational credence requires posit...Reichenbach's frequency theory requires that reference classes be defined by cau...
    +3 moreShow less
    The conclusion of the proportional syllogism is only probable, not certain, whic...The principle of indifference, which grounds inference from ignorance of bias to...Without knowledge that sampling is random, we cannot distinguish genuine probabi...

    Similar

    The conclusion of the proportional syllogism is only probable, not cer...84%If a reasoner has grounds to believe the sampling procedure preferenti...80%The proportional syllogism assumes no systematic bias in how individua...79%In the absence of reasons to believe the sampling procedure favors cer...78%

    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