In this paper I argue that the debate over the purported distinction between deductive and inductive arguments can be bypassed because making the distinction is unnecessary for successfully evaluating arguments. I provide a foundation for doing logic that makes no appeal to the distinction and still performs all the relevant tasks required of an analysis of arguments. I also reply to objections to the view that we can dispense with the distinction. Finally, I conclude that the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments is not one of the most important and fundamental ideas in logic, but rather is unnecessary.
Copyright © 2002, Informal Logic. This article first appeared in Informal Logic: 22:1 (2002), 1-17.
Please note that downloads of the article are for private/personal use only.
Goddu, G. C. "The 'Most Important and Fundamental' Distinction in Logic." Informal Logic 22, no. 1 (2002): 1-17.