First read this. Then skim this discussion and this and pay careful attention to the posts by Kritikos.

How to distinguish them? Do you agree with the author of the above article's distinction method? In short, he thinks that intention of the maker of the argument decides what kind of argument it is. Thus, it is not an mind-independent fact what kind an argument is. That is interesting, maybe even implausible. Who knows. Kennethamy defended the intention theory before.

Kritikos, a critique of Ken argued like this:
(#92)

Ken also made this analogy:
(#95)

(#97)

Which I find persuasive. But Ken offers no theory about how to distinguish them, he only argues that they are different.

I wonder if the type/token distinction can help us here.

I am not sure what you think we need a theory of: The difference between correct and incorrect, or between induction and deduction.

Some conclusions we can assume are only probable. We would not give these conclusions the same guarentee we would with deductive conclusions (as mentioned within the article).

And to ascertain whether a conclusion can be nothing more than probable, I would suspect we must take a look at the conclusion. Anything which falls into the scope of Hume's problem of induction; that is, a future occurence concluded based on past occurences, we can assume is inductive.

And the relation between this and the question in the thread is... (?)

I don't understand how you can't see the relation. You're asking how to distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments. I offered one way you can.

Haha, I love how you put the question mark in parenthesis. You could have just as easily typed, "Wat is the relation between this and the thred?".

I don't understand what you are asking in your opening post.

Are you wanting to be able to distinguish between an argument that is intended to be deductively valid and one that is intended to be inductively valid? (Please note, "valid" means something different with induction than deduction, though, roughly, they mean that there is a kind of support that the premises give for the conclusion; with deduction, the support is absolute, and with induction, it is not).

If you find an argument that is deductively valid, or resembles a deductively valid argument, typically, it will be intended to be an example of deduction, but otherwise, if it is an argument, it is most likely intended to be induction.

There are also clues that can occur, whereby someone tells you how strongly they think the conclusion follows, which generally is an indication of whether it is a deductive argument or an inductive one. If they say, "it is likely" (or something similar) in the conclusion, usually this will mean they intend to have an inductive argument, but if they say "necessarily" or "it is impossible" (or something similar), they almost certainly mean that it is a deductive argument (though some people seem confused by this and imagine this to be a modal fallacy that is being committed, rather than simply the person telling you what kind of argument it is).

Often, people do not fully state an argument, such that there are implicit premises (i.e., premises that are not stated), which are judged to be sufficiently obvious that they don't need to be stated. For example, when speaking with a person schooled in modern theories of the shape the earth, one will normally find it unnecessary to state "the shape of the earth is roughly spherical", even though it may be a required part of the argument. So one is often in a position of needing to understand the intentions of the speaker (or writer) in order to identify what the argument is.

In practice, I think that the article to which you have linked is correct, that one must typically figure out the intentions of the speaker in order to know what the argument is. But the essential nature (I mean that phrase in the ordinary way, not in some metaphysical sense) of a deductively valid argument (or, for that matter, an inductively valid argument) is not determined by someone's intentions.

Not exactly. I asked for a theory of what a deductive argument is and what an inductive argument is. That you have not given.

How to distinguish them?

Did you intentionally use CS spellings instead of TO? "wat" instead of "what" and "thred" instead of "thread".

Then I misunderstood. I didn't know you were asking only for theories. I got this impression because you typed:

So, I provided a way to distinguish them. I suppose if we all worked together we could piece together a theory. Or maybe you could piece one together using knowledge you've gathered already on your blog!

...

I am asking:

1. What is a deductive argument and what is a deductively valid argument?
2. What is an inductive argument and what is an inductively valid argument?
3. Are all arguments deductive or inductive?
4. Are some arguments deductive and inductive?

Kritikos' position is that all deductive arguments are deductively valid. So, in his view there is no deductive argument that commits a formal fallacy. Seems implausible to me and it is certainly inconsistent with what most logicians think.

1. What is a deductive argument and what is a deductively valid argument?

2. What is an inductive argument and what is an inductively valid argument?

3. Are all arguments deductive or inductive?

4. Are some arguments deductive and inductive?

Then maybe you too should read the links.

Of course, what is needed is an explanation of what a deductive argument is and what an inductive argument is.

That is not difficult. Deductive arguments are intended to be conclusive arguments by the arguer. If the argument is not conclusive, but is intended to be conclusive, it is a failed (invalid) deductive argument. On the other hand, if an argument is not intended to be a conclusive argument by the arguer, it is non-deductive. But if the premises fail to support the conclusion of the non-deductive argument, then it is a failed (weak) non-deductive argument.

However, whatever the arguer intends, deductive or non-deductive, there are some arguments which it would hardly make sense to intend it as deductive, since it is so clearly non-conclusive; or make sense to intend it as non-deductive since it is so clearly conclusive. It would be a good rule (I think) to count a valid deductive argument as deductive, and a strong non-deductive argument as non-deductive.

But can't we distinguish between inductive and deductive arguments without considering the intent of the arguer at all?

I don't see how, although, as I said, there are pretty clear cases of both kind when it would be implausible for the arguer's intention not to be the one or the other. In those cases we have what, in legal jargon, we might call, "constructive intent". That it was the arguer's intent whether or not it actually was (or the arguer was confused).

Zetherin;120208 wrote:

But can't we distinguish between inductive and deductive arguments without considering the intent of the arguer at all?

I don't see how, although, as I said, there are pretty clear cases of both kind when it would be implausible for the arguer's intention not to be the one or the other. In those cases we have what, in legal jargon, we might call, "constructive intent". That it was the arguer's intent whether or not it actually was (or the arguer was confused).

But we can distinguish an inductive argument from a deductive argument by looking looking at the argument. If all the premises can be true without the conclusion being true, it is an inductive argument:

1.) Socrates was Greek
2.) Most Greeks eat fish
3.) Socrates ate fish

This is an inductive argument. And we know it's not a deductive argument because although the premises may be true, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises; the conclusion may not be true.

Isn't that right?