Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/42481
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Recently, I started writing articles about different subjects I learn on my own (programming, logic ...etc).

While writing, I have this tendency to overexplain, I know that readers are smart, but I still think that there is room for misunderstanding, so I tend to repeat myself and oversimplify things unconsciously.

Is is just a feeling? how do I know if I am over-simplifying and over-explaining the material?

**Edit**

This is an example :

> The first argument is a Deductive Argument, in that it has Premise 1, Premise 2, and a conclusion .. And we may also consider it an Inductive Argument, in that we can verify Premise 1 and 2 inductivly, by means of observation, to determine whether Socrates has a beard, or whether all Greeks have beards, and to conclude whether the conclusion is probably true or false.
> 
> So, to some extent, we can consider some Deductive Arguments to be also Inductive Arguments. You can think of our argument this way inductively :
> 
> Premise 1: Socrates is a Greek (Inductively Probably True, because most records and accounts about Socrates refer to him as a Greek, and his name is a Greek name).
> 
> Premise 2: All Greeks have beards. (Inductively False, because many Greeks today apparently do not have beards, and many statues of ancient Greeks have no beards, therefore the statement is false).
> 
> Conclusion: Socrates has a beard. (The statement is probably Inductively True, since we have statues, paintings and references depicting Socrates as a man with a beard, therefore we know that this is probably True). Notice that our argument, although deductively valid, has one inductively false premise (Premise 2), and this does not make the conclusion necessarily inductively false.
> 
> Which means that the relationship between induction and deduction is very tricky.

Original score: 10