Student or Learner
A sentence from a law journal article:
"Although the TEU does not include an express provision on the legal personality of the Union, it does grant the Union some treaty-making power, and some have argued that legal personality can already be implied from the Union's competencies and scope for independent action."
I was taken aback when I read "implied." Isn't "inferred" what the author meant to say? Or can "imply" be used to mean "infer"?
However, if it's true that " the TEU does not include an express provision on the legal personality", then you must make an inference, which you do by induction, not deduction.
USAGE NOTE Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.
(extracted from infer: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com)
See for instance:
Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naturally there is an exception for the 'mathematical induction' (Mathematical induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which rigorously speaking, despite its name, is a deductive process.
Last edited by Abstract Idea; 13-Jun-2010 at 03:28.
Inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The above reference probably proves your point better.
(What a pity it wasn't bertie who proved me wrong)
Having established that there are deductive inferences, and inductive inferences, it seems that this still means that "'inferred' is correct since you are making a deduction." is an incorrect statement.
And I still think that the inference in the original text was inductive, not a deduction.
Last edited by Raymott; 13-Jun-2010 at 04:05.
Back to the original sentence, I believe that there are two possible interpretations, that somewhat overlap a little bit.
1) Some people have argued that the legal personality of the Union is a consequence from the Union's competencies and scope for independent action.
2) Some people have argued that legal personality of the Union is already implicit in the Union's competencies and scope for independent action.
In my opinion both interpretations above are 'deductive inferences'. In fact, despite the slight difference of the information being implicit, not explicit, technically they represent the very same inference.
I can't see an induction here. In order to induce something here, you had to have a repetitive phenomena (or something similar) to work with. An 'inductive inference' has to be very carefully justified.
I was referring to the inferences of those who "have argued that legal personality can already be inferred from the Union's competencies and scope for independent action."
If the Union's competencies and scope for independent action are repetitive and cumulative, those competencies and action might induce the inference that the Union is a legal personality.