************
CS Club Meets 5:00 Mondays - Library - 3rd floor - Humboldt Scholars Lab 
*    (make two rights from the staircase and it should be on your left) 
*    come anytime!

*   Contact att162@humboldt.edu (Andy Thorsen) with any questions about
    the club

*   Watch for events!

*   Join the CS Club Discord! -> email att162@humboldt.edu with your request
************

***********
*   NEXT READING ASSIGNMENT -
    *   CHAPTER 9 - CATEGORICAL LOGIC
    *   probably starting to discuss on Monday
**********

*=========
* continuing our discussion of
*     some classic patterns for inductive arguments

    *   inductive generalization
    *   predictive argument
    *   argument from authority
    *   causal argument
    *   statistical argument
    *   argument by analogy

*   review: inductive generalization -
    attributing some characteristic to most or all members of
    a given class

*   continuing with:
   *   predictive argument - says something about the future
       based on based on patterns seen in the past

       *   It has rained over 2 inches a month in January for the last
           10 Januaries. So, it will PROBABLY rain over 2 inches
           again this January.

    *   argument from authority - cites some expert, authority,
        or eyewitness

	*   Dentists say sugary gum causes more cavities. I chew a lot
	    of sugary gum. So I will likely have more cavities.

    *   statistical argument - uses some numerical evidence to support
        its conclusion

        *   85% of HSU students are from California. Ana is an HSU
	    student. So Ana is probably from California.

    *   argument by analogy -
        *   analogy - a comparison of 2 or more things that are
	    claimed to be alike in some RELEVANT aspect

        *   argument by analogy - uses an analogy to support its
	    conclusion

            *   Newspapers are like weather reports. We don't blame
	        weather reports when the weather is bad. Therefore,
		we shouldn't blame newspapers for bad news.

************
*   so, how can we talk about the "goodness" or "badness"
    of a deductive or inductive argument?

    *   there ARE some specific logical terms for some of
        this;

    *   for a DEDUCTIVE argument,
        we can judge its [logical] VALIDITY
	   can judge its [logical] SOUNDNESS

    *   for an INDUCTIVE argument,
        we can judge its [logical] STRENGTH
           can judge its [logical] COGENCY

*   deductive VALIDITY -
    *   is ONLY about the logical STRUCTURE of the argument
    
    *   2 questions to ask:
        *   Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
            IF not, it is NOT a VALID argument

        *   Is it possible that the conclusion could be false,
	    even if its permise(s) are true?
	    If not, it is not a VALID argument

*   deductive SOUNDNESS
    *   for a VALID deductive argument,
        (after determining that a deductive argument is VALID),
	then and ONLY then can we ask whether it is SOUND

        *   A SOUND deductive argument is a valid deductive argument
	    that ALSO has TRUE premise(s) AND a logical,
	    relevant connection to its TRUE conclusions

        *   NOTE: a true conclusion is NOT enough to determine
	    soundness --

	    for example, this is an argument with valid logic
	    and a true conclusion, BUT it is not SOUND:

	    All fruits are vegetables. Spinach is a fruit.
            Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.

    *   Note -- if a deductive argument is invalid,
        it cannot be sound;

        AND, all sound arguments are valid,
        BUT not all valid arguments are sound...