Chap wrote:'All of this'? We are talking in a context where the appropriate criteria of judgement are not those of strict formal logic, nor of proof in a criminal or even civil court. This is a discussion board, where I suggest that most people will find it reasonable to apply the criteria of practical judgement.
first -
discussion board vs
find it reasonable - these two ideas have proven to not co-exist
second - you specifically admit "reasonable" as being possible after dismissing that a judgment is formed by a logical process - such a contradiction affirms the note above following "first". In effect you said - "logic does not apply here because most people are logical"....or did you have another magical recipe by which people conjure up "reasonable" conclusions?
Chap wrote:Example.
Ahh, the old reliable metaphor/simile/anecdote tactic...seems like a logical next step for your argument....or is it?
Chap wrote: You buy milk. You put it in the refrigerator. You come back a few hours later and the bottle is nearly empty. You have a room-mate. Practical judgement says 'Very likely my room-mate drank the milk'. There is however no strict logical deduction, and a good defence attorney could almost certainly avoid a criminal conviction.
You left out reasonable details...like a milk mustache on the roommate, or if the roommate actually admitted/denied drinking the milk.
Nevertheless there is a strict logical deduction to be made....it does not necessarily mean it is a correct deduction, but it exists nonetheless.....and most of the shortcomings are devised and created by the rather clumsy construction of your metaphor.
Chap wrote:However, if anybody said to you 'Your are just speculating about your room-mate drinking the milk', you would at least raise an eyebrow. I think that applies to the attitude you are taking to the present situation.
This might be true and is likely the first response to your own suspicion..."for example":
milk
hours
gone
roommate
one's first inclination is to reasonably deduce that one forgot they drank milk
after being assured that memory had not failed
the next reasonable deduction is that someone else drank the milk without one's knowledge (see memory assurance mentioned previously)
having deduced rather successfully thus far, one deduces that a person with access to the milk drank the milk
upon further inspection and dismissing the possibility of an interloper, there is only one person with such access
the roommate
at this point the deduction has been reasonably reached but
most "reasonable" people do not take to the streets hysterically proclaiming their roommate's guilt
they simply ask the roommate and share their carefully deduced suspicion...which ironically is just a speculation at this point
Reasoning is nothing but the faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles already known.
* Sir Walter Scott