Chapter 6
Induction
Introduction
Nature
Ascertaining Values
Ascertaining Causal Laws
Proving Facts
Proving Facts: Patterns of Behaviour
Proving Facts: Individual Behaviour
Proving Facts: General Behaviour
Common Errors
The real test of legitimacy [of what judges do] lies in the process. So long as
judges continue to accept the constraints inherent in the judicial method,
working from the base line of existing principle, and solving new problems,
or re-evaluating old solutions, consistently with principles, then they can
provide an effective answer to a criticism that they are trespassing into a
field which belongs to parliaments.
123
Introduction
Induction (also called
inductive reasoning
or
inductive logic)
involves
formulating a generalisation based on particular cases. Lawyers use induction
to extend a rule which applies in one case, and the value on which it is based,
to another case that bears some similarity to the first case. Social scientists use
induction to ascertain and justify causal laws.
Nature
Introduction
In deductive reasoning, the premises of an argument both support and ensure
the conclusion. This is possible because deduction reasons from the general to
the particular.
Induction is a weaker form of reasoning since the premises of
an argument
support the conclusion but do not ensure it. This is because induction reasons
from the particular to the general. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid.
___________________
123
Murray Gleeson, CJ, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 April 1999,
reporting a speech by His Honour to the Sydney Institute
 |
 |
 |