What is the difference between "infer" and "imply"?

Imply is what the speaker is doing. Infer is what the listener is doing. "John implied that he was going to the party, but Mary inferred from his facial expression that he wasn't."

Excellent definition Juan. And I will just add something to it. Infer implies arriving at a conclusion by reasoning from evidence which is brought about by something being Implied....oh well, better just stick with Juan's example. I'm just complicating things.
LOL

Thank-you both! I agree. Both are actions. One is related to the sender, one the receiver.

Juan is basically right, but it would be a mistake to infer that implying always involves a sender and that inferring always involves a receiver. A bare and mute fact can imply other facts, and a scientist will often infer conclusions from mere facts. No speakers or listeners necessarily involved at all, although making an inference always requires an intelligent interpreter.

Inference, broadly speaking, is the process of drawing conclusions from certain given propositions. Implication is primarily a relation between propositions. P implies Q means that the truth of Q is guaranteed if P is true. Speakers imply things in the derived sense that the things they assert imply those same things.

I'm sorry to sound so picky, but the distinction is vital to logic, and it's best to be a little careful with it.

No need to apologize. I do respect and appreciate your particular input Maiku.

[This message was edited by deeptread on 07-29-02 at 01:16 PM.]

I think someone mentioned on the old 'Answerpoint' that you can remember inFer as the fielder (catching a message), and imPly as the pitcher (throwing it).

In the following 2 statements:

All dogs are moral.
Socrates is a dog.

you see that it is possible to draw a conclusion:

Socrates is moral.

The first two statements imply the conclusion.

The person who reads or hears the first two statements can infer the conclusion.

So if I post on Answerpool:

'All dogs are moral, and Socrates is a dog.' you may well post 'Are you implying that Socrates is moral?' I would have to admit it.

Or you could just infer it without checking to confirm.

sorry to dissappoint you all... websters gives imply as a possible meaning for infer. i agree that using it this way sounds weird, but technically infer can apply to the speaker (or the facts as maiku points out) or the listener, and imply refers only to the listener.