The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy_ I Link Therefore I Am - Luke Cuddy [21]
Premise 1: In the past, when I camped out at a store for the Gamecube, I was able to get one,
Premise 2: And because this camping adventure is similar to the last one,
Conclusion: Therefore, it is likely that I’ll get a Nintendo Wii.
We can see that, provided the premises are true, the conclusion is probably or likely true, but not definitely true. It makes sense to conclude that you’ll get the Nintendo Wii, given your past experience with the Gamecube. But the truth concerning your success in getting the Gamecube in the past does not guarantee that, with absolute certainty or without a doubt, you will get the Wii. It’s still possible that Best Buy had a shipping problem or, say, some scum-bag tramples over you when the doors open and gets your Wii, so the conclusion is merely probable or likely. In fact, many of those happy campers (pun intended) did get their consoles, but they need not necessarily have gotten them.
Consider the kind of reasoning someone may have utilized just before Zelda II: The Adventure of Link came out in 1988. Because of the wild success of the original Zelda, and because of the general rule, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” someone might have concluded that The Adventure of Link would be like the first one in that Link would collect rupees and the view of the game would be a top-down perspective. But no one would bet their life on this conclusion and, in fact, it turned out to be false. Surprisingly—and to the dismay of many Zelda fans—in The Adventure of Link there aren’t any rupees to collect and the view of the game is actually a side-scrolling perspective. This is an example of inductive reasoning where it seemed as if the conclusion was going to be true, but turned out to be false in the end.
Even Ganon Needs to Put Forward Good Arguments
The goal for any rational creature—Ganon or gaming geek—isn’t simply to form arguments. We need to form good arguments , and we need to evaluate the arguments of others. In both the deductive and inductive realms, there are good and bad arguments. In either realm, a good argument has to meet two conditions: the conclusion must logically follow from the premises, and all of the premises must be true. If either one of these conditions (or both) is missing, then the argument is bad and should be rejected.
In the deductive realm, the term valid argument is reserved for an argument where a conclusion does, in fact, follow from premises (and invalid argument if the conclusion does not follow). When an argument is valid and all the premises are true, the argument is a good, sound argument. The conclusion, then, is without a doubt, absolutely, positively true. In the inductive realm, the term strong argument is reserved for an argument where a conclusion likely will follow from premises (and weak argument if the conclusion likely does not follow). When an argument is strong and all the premises are true, the argument is a good, cogent argument. The conclusion most likely or probably is true. Absolute truth and probable truth are good things, so sound arguments and cogent arguments are, by definition, good arguments in the deductive and inductive realms, respectively.
Thus, as critically thinking creatures, we must always go through the two-step procedure of checking our own arguments—and the arguments of others—to see if: (1) the conclusion follows from the premises (Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong?); and (2) all of the premises are true (Have you provided evidence to show the premises to be true?). If the argument fails to meet either (1) or (2) or both, then we should reject it, thereby rejecting the person’s conclusion as either absolutely false or probably false.
For example, the ten year-old’s argument for doing chores in order to buy a Nintendo Wii console is a bad one because Premise 2 is false,