Inference #1 - Example

Since we started this series on October 26, we have:
- Identified the underlying resolution in a controversy
- Categorized the resolution into one of four categories of claims
- Learned four ways to identify the issues that need to be addressed to support the resolution
- Learned what kind of evidence we can accept, and how to examine it

Today, we will begin to cover Inference – the connection between the evidence and the claim.

At first, it is not obvious that there is an inference at all. I mean, the evidence is either supportive of the claim or not, right? And if it supports the claim, it is good evidence and all good evidence is equally good, right? Well, no – not right. Allow me to explain.

The way that the evidence supports the claim is a very important factor in rating the strength of a position. There are six different inference types; from strongest to weakest they are: Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, and Form. Today, I will go over Inference of (or Inference from) Example.

Let’s say that I made a statement that “members of the National Association of Communicators (the NAC) generally ask intelligent questions”. This is a claim of fact and you all know what questions to ask (the last two newsletters were all about finding the right questions), so let’s talk about some different evidence I might offer and the difference in strength. Consider the following five evidence statements:

1-When I spoke to the NAC, I was asked many questions by one of the people that attended the meeting and they were all intelligent questions.

2-When I spoke to the NAC, I was asked questions by many of the people that attended the meeting and they were all intelligent questions.

3-After speaking to the NAC, I received email from many of the members that didn’t attend the meeting and they all asked intelligent questions.

4-After speaking to the NAC, I received email from each of the members that didn’t attend the meeting and they all asked intelligent questions.

5-After speaking to the NAC, I received email from each of the members of the NAC and they all asked intelligent questions.

These are all inferences of example meaning I have examples of actual questions being asked from actual members and (presuming that we agree on what an intelligent question is) we can review them. The inference of example is the strongest type of inference, but are they all of equal strength?

Evidence statement #1 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions when I spoke to the NAC, but is it enough evidence to show that “members of the National Association of Communicators (the NAC) generally ask intelligent questions” as I have claimed? Well, not on its own. It simply shows that ONE member asks intelligent questions. Can we agree to extend that generalization to all members? I think it would take more evidence to convince me.

Evidence statement #2 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions when I spoke to the NAC, and further that they came from many of the attending members. Is it enough evidence to show that “members of the National Association of Communicators (the NAC) generally ask intelligent questions”? Still, no. The statement only talks about members that attended the talk. Even if EVERY member that attended asked intelligent questions, it may be an insignificant percentage of all of the members. We would have to assure ourselves that the number and variety of attendees was representative of all the members – either by further examination of this evidence OR introduction of OTHER evidence. Maybe a few other speakers have found the same kind of intelligence when they spoke to the NAC. I think it would take more evidence to convince me.

Evidence statement #3 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions AFTER I spoke to the NAC, this time by some members that didn’t attend. Is it enough evidence to show that “members of the NAC generally ask intelligent questions”? I don’t know. The statement only talks about members that DID NOT attend the talk. It fails to be compelling evidence for the same reason #2 failed - it may be an insignificant percentage of all of the members. If coupled with #2, however, we have some compelling evidence – a sample of members that attended and a sample of those that didn’t attend asked exclusively intelligent questions. But if not coupled with #2, it would take more evidence to convince me. NOTE that the emails serve as DOCUMENTED evidence, which means that we no longer are relying on my credibility as evidence as we did in scenarios 1 and 2.

Evidence statement #4 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions AFTER I spoke to the NAC, this time by ALL of the members that didn’t attend. Is it enough evidence to show that “members of the NAC generally ask intelligent questions”? I don’t know. If it is a significant percentage of the membership (that is, if most members didn’t attend and are now emailing me intelligent questions), it is pretty sure that these NAC guys are a sharp bunch.

Evidence statement #5 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions AFTER I spoke to the NAC, this time by ALL of the members whether they attended or not. And the evidence is documented. This is locked up tight.

This is all about the inference of Example, in which I had examples of questions asked by NAC members. Early scenarios were less substantial and later ones were more so. In the first four scenarios, I was describing specific examples and asking whether or not we could reasonably draw a conclusion about the population that the examples came from. This is called generalization and there are two types - statistical generalization and anecdotal generalization. In both cases, the keys are representativeness, sample size, range of samples, and absence or present of counterexamples.

In the fifth scenario, where we had documented evidence of intelligent questions from ALL if the members, we needed no other evidence. In most cases, this is impossible. Seldom do we have this kind of complete enumeration because, long before we had received the email from each and every member, we would have inferred that they were all intelligent. Certainly in business, it is rare to know why every single customer buys your product either because it is not possible, or it is prohibitively expensive.

Another way to use examples is classification – that is making a statement about an individual based on their relationship to an accepted generalization. For instance, let’s say that after you have accepted that the members of the NAC ask intelligent questions, you run into a friend that mentions that he is a member of the NAC. Would it be appropriate to assume that he asks intelligent questions? Of course.

Two fallacies associated with inference by example the “Hasty Generalization” (Generalization or classification is made without enough data to support conclusion) and “Guilt by Association” (you associate with thieves, therefore you must be a thief). We will explore many logical fallacies in later articles.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication