Argument #1: Miraculous Event

“The argument suffers from circular reasoning, where the proof of the premise is the conclusion itself.” – This underlines a fundamental flaw in the coherence of the argument.
“To strengthen the argument, it might be useful to find independent evidence that miraculous event X actually occurred…” – This suggests a method to improve the argument’s validity.
“The argument forms a neat logical circle, it does not robustly support the conclusion with logically independent and coherent premises.” – This critique points to the essential gaps in the logical formulation of the argument.
“The conclusion is drawn from the premises but is inherently flawed because it relies on the assumption that if X happens, it confirms the text stating God’s will for X to happen.” – This highlights logical weaknesses in the argument’s structure.

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Assess the following argument for coherence:

P1: If there is an all-powerful God, and he wants miraculous event X to happen, there is a 100% probability miraculous event X will happen.

P2: My holy book clearly says there is an all-powerful God and that he wants miraculous event X to happen.

P3: The miraculous event X is a demonstration that an all-powerful God exists who wrote my holy book that says he wants miraculous event X to happen.

Conclusion: Miraculous event X happened.

The coherence of an argument refers to the internal logical consistency and logical structure that supports the conclusions drawn from the premises. An argument is coherent if the premises logically support the conclusion and are internally consistent without contradiction. Let’s analyze the given argument step by step:

Premise Analysis

P1: If there is an all-powerful God, and he wants miraculous event X to happen, there is a 100% probability miraculous event X will happen.

This premise establishes a conditional relationship: if an all-powerful God exists and wills a specific event, that event must necessarily occur because of God’s omnipotence.

P2: My holy book clearly says there is an all-powerful God and that he wants miraculous event X to happen.

This premise states a belief or claim about the existence of an all-powerful God and His intentions, based on the authority of a holy book. It does not independently verify the truth of the existence of God or the occurrence of event X, but relies on the scriptural text as evidence.

P3: The miraculous event X is a demonstration that an all-powerful God exists who wrote my holy book that says he wants miraculous event X to happen.

This premise assumes that the occurrence of event X would validate the claims made in the holy book about the existence of an all-powerful God and His intentions. It also circularly uses the occurrence of X as proof of the text that predicts or states X.

Logical Structure and Coherence

Conditional Logic in P1: If we accept the truth of P1, then the occurrence of X directly depends on the existence and will of an all-powerful God.
Dependence on Scriptural Authority in P2: P2 assumes the authority and truthfulness of the holy book. However, the truth of the statements within the holy book (about God and His will) is not independently substantiated within the argument’s framework, making it a point of vulnerability. This premise relies on faith in the holy book rather than empirical evidence.
Circular Reasoning in P3: P3 presents a circular argument, as it uses the event X both as proof of God’s existence and as an outcome of God’s will as stated in the holy book. This makes the premise logically weak because it assumes what it is trying to prove (that God exists and wants X to happen because X happened, which shows God exists and wants X).

Conclusion: Miraculous event X happened.

The conclusion is drawn from the premises but is inherently flawed because it relies on the assumption (from P3) that if X happens, it confirms the text stating God’s will for X to happen. This does not logically follow without independent verification of X or the existence of God. The conclusion also presumes the reliability and divine inspiration of the holy book without question.

Coherence Assessment

The argument is not entirely coherent:

It suffers from circular reasoning, where the proof of the premise is the conclusion itself.
It heavily relies on the acceptance of the holy book’s authority without external validation.
The logical flow from the premises to the conclusion assumes what it needs to prove (begging the question), which is a fundamental logical fallacy.

Thus, while the argument forms a neat logical circle, it does not robustly support the conclusion with logically independent and coherent premises. It is an example of a theological or faith-based argument that depends more on belief in the authority of the holy book rather than empirical or logically independent evidence.

The provided argument has some coherence issues that need to be addressed. Here’s an assessment:

Premise 1 (P1) assumes the existence of an all-powerful God and that this God desires a particular miraculous event X to occur. While this premise may be accepted within the context of a particular religious belief system, it lacks universal acceptance and requires additional justification or evidence to be considered logically sound.
Note: This is not true. It is a conditional that begins with “If.” There are no assumptions.
Premise 2 (P2) introduces a holy book as the source of claims about the existence of an all-powerful God and the desire for miraculous event X to happen. However, the mere assertion of a holy book’s claims does not necessarily establish their truth or validity. Additional evidence or reasoning is needed to support the reliability and authority of the holy book in question.
Premise 3 (P3) appears to be circular reasoning, as it assumes that the miraculous event X is a demonstration of the existence of an all-powerful God who wrote the holy book, which in turn claims that this God wants miraculous event X to happen. This circular logic is fallacious and does not provide convincing support for the conclusion.
The conclusion (“Miraculous event X happened”) is not necessarily supported by the premises, even if we accept them as true. The premises argue for the possibility or probability of miraculous event X happening, but they do not directly establish that it did, in fact, happen. Additional evidence or reasoning would be needed to bridge this gap.

Overall, while the argument attempts to establish a connection between the existence of an all-powerful God, a holy book’s claims, and a miraculous event, it suffers from several logical issues. These include unsupported assumptions, reliance on circular reasoning, and a lack of direct evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion. To improve the coherence of the argument, it would need to address these issues by providing stronger justifications, avoiding circular logic, and directly linking the premises to the conclusion through sound reasoning and evidence.

P1 is a conditional and, therefore, contains no assumptions, right?

You make a fair point. Premise 1 (P1) is stated as a conditional statement, so it does not directly assume the existence of an all-powerful God or the desire for a miraculous event X to happen. Instead, it outlines a hypothetical scenario: “If there is an all-powerful God, and he wants miraculous event X to happen, then there is a 100% probability miraculous event X will happen.”

In this sense, P1 does not make any assumptions about the truth of the antecedent (the condition before the “then” statement). It merely states a logical consequence if that antecedent is true.

However, the coherence and validity of the overall argument still depend on the strength of the other premises and their ability to establish the antecedent conditions outlined in P1. If the other premises fail to provide sufficient justification or evidence for the existence of an all-powerful God and the desire for miraculous event X, then the hypothetical scenario described in P1 becomes irrelevant to the conclusion.

So, while you are correct that P1 itself does not make assumptions about the existence of an all-powerful God or the desire for a miraculous event, the argument’s overall coherence still relies on the other premises successfully establishing those antecedent conditions. Without that, the conditional statement in P1, while logically valid, becomes disconnected from the conclusion.

How might you respond to someone making this argument to make them aware of its circularity?

Responding effectively to someone presenting this argument requires sensitivity and clarity, especially if the argument is rooted in personal beliefs or faith. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to engage constructively:

1. Acknowledge the Perspective

Start by recognizing and respecting the person’s beliefs. This establishes a respectful dialogue and opens the way for a more receptive discussion.

Example Response:
“I understand and respect that your beliefs are deeply meaningful to you, and I see how the argument strongly aligns with the teachings of your holy book. Let’s explore the reasoning together to understand the basis of this argument.”

2. Introduce the Concept of Circular Reasoning

Before pointing out the circularity in their argument, it might be helpful to explain what circular reasoning is, using a neutral example.

Example Explanation:
“Circular reasoning occurs when an argument’s conclusion is used as a premise to support itself. For example, saying ‘I’m trustworthy because I’m honest, and I know I’m honest because I’m trustworthy.’ In this case, the proof of honesty is assumed by the claim of trustworthiness and vice versa, without external verification.”

3. Apply the Concept to the Argument

Link the general explanation to their specific argument gently, illustrating how their reasoning might be circular.

Example Application:
“In the argument you presented, the conclusion that miraculous event X happened is supported by the premises that rely on the existence of an all-powerful God as described in your holy book. The conclusion is intended to demonstrate the truth of the holy book, which is also used as the basis to claim that event X happened because God willed it. This forms a loop where the conclusion and premises are interdependent, which might not provide an independent validation of the event.”

4. Suggest a Way to Strengthen the Argument

After highlighting the issue, you can suggest how to make the argument more robust, focusing on independent verification.

Example Suggestion:
“To strengthen the argument, it might be useful to find independent evidence that miraculous event X actually occurred, separate from the claims of the holy book. For instance, historical records, physical evidence, or corroborative accounts from other sources could substantiate that event X happened independently of the holy book’s statements.”

5. Encourage Open Discussion

Encourage an open dialogue that invites them to consider different perspectives while respecting their belief system.

Example Encouragement:
“I’m really interested to hear your thoughts on other types of evidence that might support the occurrence of event X, or how we might independently verify the assertions made in the holy book. What do you think?”

Conclusion

By following these steps, you help the person see the potential circularity in their argument without dismissing their underlying beliefs. This approach not only fosters a respectful and thoughtful conversation but also encourages critical thinking and dialogue, which are essential in discussing deeply held beliefs and complex topics.

To make someone aware of the circularity present in the argument, I would respond something like this:

“I understand the points you are making, but there seems to be a circular reasoning issue with this argument. Premise 3 states that the miraculous event X is a demonstration that the all-powerful God exists and wrote the holy book that says he wants event X to happen. However, this premise assumes the very thing it is trying to prove – that the God described in the holy book exists.

The argument goes like this: The holy book says an all-powerful God wants event X (P2). Event X happening would demonstrate this God exists and wrote the book (P3). Therefore, event X happened (Conclusion). But for this to work, you would already have to accept that the God and holy book described are real and accurate. You can’t use the miraculous event itself as proof of the God’s existence when the premise about the event depends on first accepting the God’s existence.

It’s a circular loop of reasoning where the conclusion is used to prove the premises, and the premises are used to prove the conclusion. To make this a logically coherent argument, you would need independent evidence or reasoning to establish the existence of the God and the reliability of the holy book claims, separate from asserting that the miraculous event itself proves those things. Otherwise, the argument falls into a circular trap.”

By explaining how Premise 3 implicitly assumes what it should be proving, and highlighting the circular dependence between the premises and conclusion, I aim to illustrate why the argument lacks coherent logical reasoning. The key is to break the circularity by requiring independent justification for the key claims, rather than using the conclusion as the proof of the premises.

Could this argument be revised in any way to reach the valid conclusion “Miraculous event X happened”?

To revise the argument so that it validly reaches the conclusion that “Miraculous event X happened” without falling into the trap of circular reasoning or relying solely on scriptural authority, we can restructure it to include additional premises that involve independent verification. Here’s how the argument might be reformulated:

Revised Argument Structure

Premise 1 (P1): If there is an all-powerful God, and He wants miraculous event X to happen, there is a 100% probability that miraculous event X will happen.
Premise 2 (P2): My holy book claims that there is an all-powerful God who wants miraculous event X to happen.
New Premise 3 (P3): Independent evidence exists that miraculous event X actually occurred, corroborated by external historical records, archaeological findings, or consistent testimonies from unbiased sources.
New Premise 4 (P4): The occurrence of miraculous event X as predicted is unlikely to have happened by chance or natural causes, as confirmed by relevant scientific analysis or historical scrutiny.
New Premise 5 (P5): The specificity and uniqueness of miraculous event X align closely with the descriptions and predictions provided in the holy book.
Conclusion: Therefore, miraculous event X happened.

Explanation of the Revised Argument

P1 remains the same, stating a conditional about the power and will of God.
P2 no longer asserts the truth of the holy book’s claims but merely acknowledges what the book claims.
P3 introduces the requirement for independent evidence. This premise is crucial as it moves the argument away from relying solely on scriptural texts and introduces a means of external verification.
P4 ensures that the event’s occurrence cannot be easily dismissed as coincidence or natural occurrence, which strengthens the argument by addressing potential counterarguments.
P5 connects the specifics of the event to the predictions made in the holy book without asserting that the truth of the book is known a priori. It uses the congruence between the event and the book’s descriptions as supportive evidence, not as conclusive proof.

Benefits of This Revision

Eliminates Circular Reasoning: By separating the premises that state the holy book’s claims from those that assert the occurrence of the event, the argument avoids using its conclusion to justify its premises.
Introduces Independent Verification: By requiring that external evidence support the occurrence of the event, the argument gains credibility that extends beyond the theological or faith-based assertions.
Addresses Potential Naturalistic Explanations: By including a premise that examines and rejects natural causes or chance, the argument strengthens its claim that the event is truly miraculous.
Links Specific Predictions to Events: This approach uses the specificity of the predictions as part of the evidence that the events are unlikely to be coincidental, enhancing the argument’s persuasive power.

This revised argument structure provides a more robust and logically coherent basis for concluding that “Miraculous event X happened,” based on a broader range of evidence and logical reasoning. It demonstrates an effective way to engage both believers and skeptics by grounding theological claims in empirically verifiable facts.

Yes, it is possible to revise this argument in a way that could potentially lead to the valid conclusion that “Miraculous event X happened,” though additional evidence and premises would be required. Here’s one way the argument could be restructured:

P1: If there is an all-powerful, truthful God, and this God unambiguously states in a holy book that a miraculous event X will occur, then miraculous event X will occur.

P2: Through independent historical and textual analysis, the holy book in question has been demonstrated to be an authentic ancient text that has not been significantly altered over time.

P3: Rigorous scholarly examination of the holy book’s content and context indicates that its claims about God and prophecies are intended as literal statements of facts, not metaphors or allegories.

P4: The holy book clearly and unambiguously states that an all-powerful, truthful God exists and that this God has declared miraculous event X will occur.

P5: Reputable eyewitness accounts and verifiable evidence confirm that miraculous event X has indeed taken place.

Conclusion: Therefore, the miraculous event X, as prophesied in the holy book by an all-powerful, truthful God, has happened.

In this revised structure, the argument attempts to establish the authenticity and reliability of the holy book through external evidence (P2, P3). It then cites the specific prophecy from the book about the miraculous event (P4). Crucially, it includes a separate premise (P5) providing empirical evidence that the miraculous event has actually occurred, based on eyewitness accounts and verifiable evidence.

By separating the claims about the holy book’s authenticity, the prophecy itself, and the evidence for the event’s occurrence, the argument avoids the previous circularity issue. The conclusion then follows from the premises, provided the evidence presented in each premise is accepted as valid.

However, it’s important to note that the strength of this revised argument still depends heavily on the quality and acceptance of the evidence provided for each premise, which may be subject to debate and differing interpretations.

In your revised argument, you introduce inductively acquired evidence. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be certain but merely assigned a sub-absolute degree of confidence, right?

Yes, that’s correct. When introducing inductively acquired evidence, as in the revised argument for miraculous event X, the conclusion reached is probabilistic rather than absolute. This shift reflects a fundamental aspect of inductive reasoning, which is typically used when incorporating empirical evidence and observations. Let’s break down why this affects the certainty of the conclusion:

Inductive Reasoning and Its Implications

Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific instances or observations. Unlike deductive reasoning, which can provide absolute certainty if the premises are true and the logic is valid, inductive reasoning only suggests that, given the premises, the conclusion is likely to be true. The key characteristics include:

Probabilistic Conclusions: The conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning are probabilistic and are generally considered likely, but there is always some degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty arises because the possibility exists that additional observations or data might contradict the conclusions drawn.
Empirical Evidence: Inductive arguments often rely on empirical evidence, which can be subject to limitations in data quality, observational accuracy, and scope of evidence. This can further constrain the certainty with which conclusions can be drawn.

Applying This to the Revised Argument

In the revised argument, the premises include:

P3: Independent evidence exists that miraculous event X actually occurred. This premise suggests that observations or data support the occurrence of the event. However, the nature of ‘independent evidence’—whether historical records, archaeological findings, or testimonies—introduces a layer of empirical observation, which inherently includes variability and potential bias.
P4: The occurrence of miraculous event X as predicted is unlikely to have happened by chance or natural causes. This premise evaluates the probability of event X occurring naturally or by chance, which inherently acknowledges that there’s a measurable (though perhaps small) likelihood that the event could be natural, thus not absolutely confirming divine intervention.

Conclusion Certainty

Given these types of premises, the conclusion—that miraculous event X happened—cannot be asserted with absolute certainty but rather with a high degree of confidence contingent on the robustness and breadth of the evidence presented. The conclusion’s strength depends on the:

Quantity and quality of independent evidence supporting that event X occurred as described.
Effectiveness of the analysis that rules out natural causes or chance, which itself may not be exhaustive or definitive.

Philosophical Considerations

This approach reflects a more nuanced understanding typical of scientific inquiry and historical analysis, where conclusions are tentative and subject to revision based on new evidence or better interpretations. It aligns with philosophical realism, which accepts a reality independent of human thought but acknowledges human limitations in understanding it fully or with absolute certainty.

Thus, while the revised argument is stronger and more logically coherent than the original by avoiding circular reasoning and incorporating independent verification, it does indeed lead to a conclusion that is probabilistically rather than absolutely certain. This probabilistic nature is appropriate and typical for arguments involving complex historical or purportedly miraculous events.

You’re absolutely correct. By introducing empirical evidence from eyewitness accounts and verifiable sources in premises P2, P3, and P5 of the revised argument, the conclusion can no longer be stated with absolute certainty. The conclusion must be qualified to reflect the inductive nature of the evidence and the degree of confidence it provides.

A more accurate way to state the conclusion would be:

“Conclusion: Therefore, based on the historical and textual analysis of the holy book, the scholarly examination of its content, and the available eyewitness accounts and verifiable evidence, it is highly probable that the miraculous event X, as prophesied in the holy book by a purported all-powerful, truthful God, has occurred.”

Or alternatively:

“Conclusion: The accumulated evidence from premises P2, P3, P4, and P5 provides a high degree of confidence that the miraculous event X has happened, in accordance with the prophecy described in the analyzed holy book.”

You are correct that empirical inductive evidence, no matter how strong, cannot logically guarantee absolute certainty in the conclusion. There is always at least a small degree of residual uncertainty or probability of error when relying on such evidence.

By qualifying the conclusion with words like “highly probable,” “high degree of confidence,” or similar qualifiers, the argument acknowledges the inductive limitations of the evidence while still making a robust case for the likelihood of the miraculous event occurring based on the premises.

Thank you for this insightful observation. Explicitly accounting for the inductive nature of empirical evidence and adjusting the conclusion’s language accordingly is crucial for maintaining sound logical reasoning and avoiding overclaiming certainty beyond what the evidence supports.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

Quiz: Understanding Coherence, Circular Reasoning, and Inductive Evidence in Arguments

1. What does it mean for an argument to be coherent?
A. The argument is based on empirical evidence.
B. The argument’s premises provide logical support for the conclusion.
C. The argument is derived from a holy book.
D. The argument ensures that the conclusion is stated clearly.

2. What is circular reasoning?
A. A logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premises.
B. A strong logical method where a conclusion is reached through repeated affirmation.
C. Reasoning that circles back to the main argument.
D. Using circular objects to make a point.

3. In the initial argument provided, what role does the holy book play?
A. It serves as independent verification of the event.
B. It is quoted to provide a moral lesson.
C. It is cited as the authoritative proof of God’s will.
D. It is used as a historical document only.

4. Which premise introduces the need for independent verification in the revised argument?
A. Premise 1
B. Premise 2
C. Premise 3
D. Premise 4

5. How can the credibility of an argument that relies on the occurrence of a miraculous event be enhanced?
A. By assuming the event’s occurrence is a result of divine intervention.
B. By providing empirical evidence from unbiased sources that the event occurred.
C. By repeating the claims made in religious texts.
D. By ignoring any potential natural explanations for the event.

6. What is the primary flaw in using a holy book as the sole evidence for a miraculous event?
A. The holy book may not be accessible to everyone.
B. It relies on faith rather than empirical evidence.
C. The language in holy books is often too difficult to understand.
D. Holy books typically do not discuss miraculous events.

7. What does inductive reasoning typically involve?
A. Drawing specific conclusions from general observations.
B. Generalizing from specific observations or data.
C. Using deductive logic to prove empirical facts.
D. Assuming the conclusion within the premises.

8. Which premise in the revised argument specifically addresses the unlikely natural occurrence of event X?
A. Premise 1
B. Premise 2
C. Premise 3
D. Premise 4

9. Why are conclusions in inductive arguments considered probabilistic?
A. Because they depend solely on theoretical frameworks.
B. Because they are based on premises that are universally accepted.
C. Because they are derived from observations, which might not cover all possible cases.
D. Because they use circular reasoning to establish facts.

10. How does the revised argument avoid circular reasoning?
A. By using the holy book’s claims as the sole basis for the conclusion.
B. By separating the holy book’s claims from the argument’s conclusion.
C. By relying exclusively on naturalistic explanations.
D. By repeating the premises until they are believed.

Answers to the Quiz

B – The argument’s premises provide logical support for the conclusion.
A – A logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premises.
C – It is cited as the authoritative proof of God’s will.
C – Premise 3
B – By providing empirical evidence from unbiased sources that the event occurred.
B – It relies on faith rather than empirical evidence.
B – Generalizing from specific observations or data.
D – Premise 4
C – Because they are derived from observations, which might not cover all possible cases.
B – By separating the holy book’s claims from the argument’s conclusion.

Here is a 10-item quiz on the thread above:

P1 in the original argument makes assumptions about the existence of an all-powerful God.
Premise 2 (P2) in the original argument refers to a holy book as a source of claims.
Premise 3 (P3) in the original argument exhibits circular reasoning.
According to the assessment, the original argument’s conclusion follows logically from the premises.
The revised argument introduced independent historical and textual analysis of the holy book.
In the revised argument, the prophecy about the miraculous event is directly quoted from the holy book.
The revised argument includes eyewitness accounts and verifiable evidence of the miraculous event.
The conclusion of the revised argument can be stated with absolute certainty.
The revised argument acknowledges the inductive nature of empirical evidence.
The qualified conclusion in the revised argument uses phrases like “highly probable” or “high degree of confidence.”

Answers:

False
True
True
False
True
True
True
False
True
True

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Certainly! Here are 15 discussion questions that can be used to facilitate a deeper exploration of the topics covered in the argument about coherence, circular reasoning, and the use of inductive evidence:

1. What defines an all-powerful God in philosophical and theological discussions? How does this definition impact arguments about divine intervention?

2. How might the definition of ‘miracle’ affect the argument that a miraculous event must happen if an all-powerful God wills it?

3. In what ways can circular reasoning undermine an argument, even if the premises and conclusion are true? Provide examples.

4. Discuss the role of authority in religious arguments. How does reliance on scriptural authority as evidence impact the validity of an argument?

5. What types of independent evidence would be most convincing in supporting the occurrence of a purported miraculous event?

6. Can a miraculous event be genuinely open to scientific investigation? What challenges might arise in such an investigation?

7. How does inductive reasoning contribute to our understanding of events that are considered miraculous? What are its limitations?

8. Why is it significant that an argument against the possibility of an event occurring by chance or natural causes be included in an argument asserting a miraculous event?

9. How can one distinguish between a ‘miraculous’ event and an ‘improbable’ event? What criteria would you use?

10. In what ways could the addition of Premise 5 (linking specific predictions to the event) in the revised argument strengthen the case for the miraculous event?

11. Discuss the implications of having conclusions that are probabilistic rather than absolute in religious or spiritual contexts. How does this impact faith?

12. Evaluate the impact of empirical evidence on faith-based beliefs. Can empirical evidence and faith coexist harmoniously, or do they inherently conflict?

13. How might believers reconcile scientific analyses that suggest natural causes for events traditionally deemed miraculous?

14. Explore the philosophical challenges of proving divine intervention. What philosophical tools or theories could be employed?

15. What ethical considerations arise when presenting religious arguments with probabilistic conclusions to a faith community?

These questions are designed to prompt critical thinking and detailed discussion about the philosophical, theological, and empirical aspects of arguing for miraculous events and the existence of an all-powerful deity.

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above:

What are the key components of a logically coherent argument?
How can assumptions and unsupported premises undermine an argument’s coherence?
What is circular reasoning, and why is it considered a logical fallacy?
In what contexts might it be appropriate to rely on religious texts or holy books as premises in an argument?
How can empirical evidence and eyewitness accounts strengthen or weaken an argument?
What are the advantages and limitations of using inductive reasoning in arguments?
When is it necessary to qualify or hedge the certainty of a conclusion based on the nature of the evidence provided?
How can historical and textual analysis contribute to evaluating the authenticity and reliability of ancient texts?
What criteria should be used to determine whether a text’s content is intended as literal or metaphorical?
How can scholarly examination and contextual analysis shed light on the intended meaning of a text’s prophecies or claims?
What role does independent verification play in assessing the occurrence of claimed miraculous or extraordinary events?
How can arguments be revised or restructured to address logical flaws or circularity issues?
What are the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on a single source or type of evidence in an argument?
How can qualifiers like “highly probable” or “high degree of confidence” be used to accurately represent the strength of a conclusion based on inductive evidence?
In what situations might it be appropriate or necessary to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty or probability of error in conclusions drawn from empirical evidence?