(October 4, 2021 at 6:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(October 4, 2021 at 5:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I am using observations in the world as premises in inductive arguments. Think really hard about the words 'premise' and 'inductive'.
To empirically test X isn't possible if X isn't some repeatable or reproducible phenomenon. But it's alway possible to give inductive arguments supporting the existence of X, and use empirical evidence in the premises.
Here is an example: Joan of Arc exist(ed). But there is no empirical test that we can perform in a laboratory leading us to her existence. However, an inductive argument along the lines of: (available historical accounts of various events in France's history and many elements of Joan of Arc's biography are better explained if she existed than not) would clearly be a fine argument.
Well, we have three surviving letters of Joan’s, so that’s a pretty convincing empirical test.
But let’s say we didn’t. Accounts of French history of that period are also empirical evidence. And there’s no reason that empirical evidence can’t be used in an inductive argument.
Boru
Scholars also have the written transcripts of her trials of Condemnation and Nullification, the latter having occurred 25 years after her immolation.