In his writing, Russell Baker questions the argument against abortion that is associated with the fact that every aborted child may become a great composer, an artist, or some other prominent person. A similar story is often cited by the opponents of abortion, arguing that Beethoven’s mother was sick with syphilis, and eight older brothers and sisters of Ludwig Beethoven were deaf, blind, and underdeveloped, and in case this woman had performed the operation, humanity would be deprived of the great composer. Baker constructs his argument based on the case of Beethoven whose brothers and sisters were ill, and there was a high risk that the same may happen to him. Such premises as the existing illness of the family, the potential decision to make an abortion, and the issue of genius are taken into account. Baker applies the method of inductive reasoning that implies the transition of knowledge from single statements to general propositions, as noted by Schwarze and Lape (2012). In other words, it is a method of research and cognition connected with the generalization of the results of observations and experiments.
Explaining the point of antiabortionists that focus on the identified argument, Baker claims that it would, perhaps, be ridiculous to regret all the unborn genius and reproach women undergoing abortion as one never knows what a path a person will choose in his or her life. For instance, likewise, Beethoven’s mother, Hitler’s mother would never have thought that her son would initiate World War II. At the same time, it is possible to note that numerous wars killed thousands of males who might become essential to the existence of geniuses, both great and horrifying. In this regard, the author moves to the conclusion that genius has a dark side as well.
In recent years, military exercises have been conducted in Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3, where the fighting efficiency of the units has increased. The units of the XYZ army participated in the mentioned activities in Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3. Consequently, in recent years, combat effectiveness was improved in all divisions of the XYZ army. This is an inductive inauthentic conclusion that is based on the three premises. It can be identified as plausible since it looks rational and supported by premises. The induction option is an inference by analogy. Namely, based on the similarity of two objects, one concludes that they are similar in other parameters as well.
However, considering the described situation from a different angle, one may note that a particular conclusion does not follow from certain propositions. In particular, the demonstrative events do not prove that the whole army increased its capacity for fighting. The overall combat capability of the given army may be drastically reduced or, on the contrary, essentially enhanced but not due to the above events. Thus, any inductive conclusion needs to be verified. The above argument shows that the characteristic feature of induction is its probabilistic character. Based on the original assumptions, the induction conclusion is only likely to be true, and the result can be both true and false. These two arguments represent the fallacies in philosophy that can be easily created and then revealed. Thus, induction does not guarantee the attainment of truth, but only leads to it, helping to seek the truth.
Reference
Schwarze, S., & Lape, H. (2012). Thinking Socratically (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.