I 

se 

lub-

~he 
:-

inforn.al logic 
newsletter newsletter newsletter newsletter 

vol. ii, no. 1 eds., J. Anthony Blair' Ralph H. Johnson November, 1979 

from the editors 

In this first number of Volume II of the 
nN, we are pleased to introduce two new 
feitures: short articles and discussion notes. 
~e first article is a timely analysis of the 
~uctive-deductive dichotomy by Perry Weddle. 
~is doctrine still captivates the minds of 
NftY loqicians--a fact evident at the carneqie-
*llon Conference on "Loqic and Liberal Learn-
~q •• a report on which is included in this 
is.ue. The second article is another install-
Mnt in their continuinq series of studies on 
the fallacies by John Woods and Douqlas 
Wilton. This time they·ve trained their 
liqhts on the arC]umentum ad verecundiam. The 
discussion note l.S an intrl.guing attempted 
IOlution to the "Surprise-exam puzzle" by 
llarry Nielsen. 

In publishing these articles and the dis-
~ •• ion note, we hope to stimulate not only 
~ught, but written reactions. One of the 
~re attractive features of this newsletter is 
it. flexibility. Our format is adju~table, 
~ lead time is not that qreat. Thl.s means 
tut we can, and we will, print interestinq 
re.ponses to either article or to the dis-
~ •• ion note, toqether with responses from 
the authors, if that is appropriate, in the 
next number of !,g!. 

Another innovation in this volume will be 
critical reviews of bocks on, or related to, 
~tormal loqic--includinq textbooks. 

Nov if we may look back for a moment, to 
the supplementary number of Volume I, which 
=nsisted of a collection of examples of arqu-
Mmts from various sources, that issue ~s 
9feeted with much enthusiasm. we are ml.nded 
to do it aqain this year. ~ whether we ~ 
do so depends on whether we receive enough 
~s.ions from you, our readers. If each 
IlUbscriber were to send us one good example 
1uinq the course of the year, we would have 
m abundant supply to share. 

We remind our readers that ILN is planned 
primarily as a.clearinq.hous.,-ror which we 
editors collect and dispense the material sent 
to us by our readers. Please a submit to us 
articles, discussion notes, critical reviews, 
reports of conferences (past and upcominq), 
announcements, comments, and queries. tofe are 
in this venture to provide a service, but we 
depend on your support. 

articles 

"Inductive, Deductive" 
Perry Weddle (California State Univp-rsity, 

Sacramento} 

In introducing Prof. Trudy Grovier's 
comments (ILN i, no. 2, p. 4, "Alternative 
to the Inductive-Deductive Paradigm") ILN's 
editors mention ·some doubts," which some of 
us who teach informal logiC have, "about the 
adequacy of the inductive-deductive paradigm 
and the idea that all arguments fit one or 
the other of these two paradigms." Grovier 
mentions a possible third paradigm, Carl 
Wellman'S "conductive.· As welcome as 
controversy pver the question of paradigms 
beyond the traditional pair would be, there 
exists a prior claim on our energies. For 
until we become clear that deduction and 
induction merit classification at all as 
paradigms of the reasoning we encounter in 
daily life, we cannot very well debate 
whether they constitute the only ones, or 
merely the ones which happen to have been 
discovered first. 

Tradition decrees deduction and induction 
to be not just two arguJDllnt paradigms--as 
silk screen and lithography might be said to 
be two color print paradigma--but rather to 
be opposites which bisect all ar9uments by