For brevity, I abbreviate: FP = False Premise, SIA = Strong Inductive Argument.
Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic (12 Ed, 2014) by Patrick J. Hurley
[p 46:] These four examples show that in general the strength or weakness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion.
[p 49:] For both deductive and inductive arguments, two separate questions need to be answered: (1) Do the premises support the conclusion? (2) Are all the premises true?
To answer the first question we begin by assuming the premises to be true. Then, for deductive arguments we determine whether, in light of this assumption, it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. For inductive arguments we determine whether it probably follows that the conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is strong; if not, it is weak. For inductive arguments we keep in mind the requirements that the premises actually support the conclusion and that they not ignore important evidence.
I already understand and so ask not about the quote above. 1. How can a FP still constitute a SIA?
I am confused by these 2 cases (out of a total of 4) that appear paradoxical:
2. 'False premise and Probably true conclusion': How is this possible?
3. 'False premise and Probably false conclusion': How is this possible?
- If the determination of Strongness needs the extra step of assuming true a FP, then how can the argument be judged 'Strong'?
If a FP were truly Strong, then you needed not this extra step of assuming true a FP!
At least the diction and use of 'Strong' disturbs me.
PS: Etymology helped me to perceive the similarity between Validity (in deduction) and Strongness (in induction), because the etymon of 'valid' (valere) means 'to be strong'. So Validity and Soundness meant the same thing etymologically, except that now the former applies to deduction and the latter induction.