Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/984636334299078656
2 adding clarity
source | link

I am taking a graduate-level course in a business-y/sociology-y field, and the logic presented in the literature is typically of the following format "X is a relatively simple and reasonable cause for Y, because r1reason_1,r2reason_2,r3reason_3. Also, we did a couple of case studies and this plays out."

It's not really inductive reasoning, because the case studies are wildly insufficient to really sciencealone support the hypotheses of the paper. It's not deductive reasoning because it is not proven that X causes Y.

Coming from a math/science background, I am good with mathematical proof, I am good with a rigorous statistical analysis, but the reasoning employed in this field is foreign and weird to me.

From some poking around, it looks like this type of logic is called "defeasible reasoning". Where can I read up on the epistemology behind defeasible reasoning from a source that would be accessible to a math/science guy?

EDIT heres an example of what I mean. A lot of claims are made, supported by invalid* arguments and a handful of case studies.

*invalid in the technical sense

I am taking a graduate-level course in a business-y/sociology-y field, and the logic presented in the literature is typically of the following format "X is a relatively simple and reasonable cause for Y, because r1,r2,r3. Also, we did a couple of case studies and this plays out."

It's not really inductive reasoning, because the case studies are wildly insufficient to really science the hypotheses of the paper. It's not deductive reasoning because it is not proven that X causes Y.

Coming from a math/science background, I am good with mathematical proof, I am good with a rigorous statistical analysis, but the reasoning employed in this field is foreign and weird to me.

From some poking around, it looks like this type of logic is called "defeasible reasoning". Where can I read up on the epistemology behind defeasible reasoning from a source that would be accessible to a math/science guy?

I am taking a graduate-level course in a business-y/sociology-y field, and the logic presented in the literature is typically of the following format "X is a relatively simple and reasonable cause for Y, because reason_1,reason_2,reason_3. Also, we did a couple of case studies and this plays out."

It's not really inductive reasoning, because the case studies are wildly insufficient to alone support the hypotheses of the paper. It's not deductive reasoning because it is not proven that X causes Y.

Coming from a math/science background, I am good with mathematical proof, I am good with a rigorous statistical analysis, but the reasoning employed in this field is foreign and weird to me.

From some poking around, it looks like this type of logic is called "defeasible reasoning". Where can I read up on the epistemology behind defeasible reasoning from a source that would be accessible to a math/science guy?

EDIT heres an example of what I mean. A lot of claims are made, supported by invalid* arguments and a handful of case studies.

*invalid in the technical sense

1
source | link

Seminal, accessible work on defeasible reasoning

I am taking a graduate-level course in a business-y/sociology-y field, and the logic presented in the literature is typically of the following format "X is a relatively simple and reasonable cause for Y, because r1,r2,r3. Also, we did a couple of case studies and this plays out."

It's not really inductive reasoning, because the case studies are wildly insufficient to really science the hypotheses of the paper. It's not deductive reasoning because it is not proven that X causes Y.

Coming from a math/science background, I am good with mathematical proof, I am good with a rigorous statistical analysis, but the reasoning employed in this field is foreign and weird to me.

From some poking around, it looks like this type of logic is called "defeasible reasoning". Where can I read up on the epistemology behind defeasible reasoning from a source that would be accessible to a math/science guy?