File Name: deductive and inductive reasoning .zip
Published on April 18, by Raimo Streefkerk.
Reasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations. Three methods of reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches. Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion.
Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive:. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its own operators and syntax.
But a deductive syllogism think of it as a plain-English version of a math equality can be expressed in ordinary language:. If entropy disorder in a system will increase unless energy is expended, And if my living room is a system, Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it. In the syllogism above, the first two statements, the propositions or premises , lead logically to the third statement, the conclusion.
Here is another example:. A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to treat patients. Adult stem cells are being used to treat patients successfully in more than sixty-five new therapies. Adult stem cell research and technology should be funded. A conclusion is sound true or unsound false , depending on the truth of the original premises for any premise may be true or false.
At the same time, independent of the truth or falsity of the premises, the deductive inference itself the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to conclusion is either valid or invalid. The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false:. There is no such thing as drought in the West. California is in the West. California need never make plans to deal with a drought. In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the conclusion is false because the premise, There is no such thing as drought in the West , is false.
A syllogism yields a false conclusion if either of its propositions is false. A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it looks so very logical—it is, in fact, logical.
But whether in error or malice, if either of the propositions above is wrong, then a policy decision based upon it California need never make plans to deal with a drought probably would fail to serve the public interest. Assuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive reasoning can give you absolutely certain conclusions.
However, deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge it is nonampliative because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies -statements that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while with deductive reasoning we can make observations and expand implications, we cannot make predictions about future or otherwise non-observed phenomena.
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis.
Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:. What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds.
The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [ Because inductive conclusions are not logical necessities, inductive arguments are not simply true.
Rather, they are cogent: that is, the evidence seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and the conclusion is therefore probably true. Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they are not cogent. It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge it is ampliative. It can make predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.
For example, Albert Einstein observed the movement of a pocket compass when he was five years old and became fascinated with the idea that something invisible in the space around the compass needle was causing it to move. This observation, combined with additional observations of moving trains, for example and the results of logical and mathematical tools deduction , resulted in a rule that fit his observations and could predict events that were as yet unobserved.
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them?
Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they make their best guess based on what they know.
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both.
A patient may be unconscious or fail to report every symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms. Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can. The abductive process can be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary. In fact, so much of Einstein's work was done as a "thought experiment" for he never experimentally dropped elevators , that some of his peers discredited it as too fanciful.
Nevertheless, he appears to have been right-until now his remarkable conclusions about space-time continue to be verified experientially. References 1. Verfaillie, Catherine. June 1, Thagard, Paul and Cameron Shelley. June 2, Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning. But a deductive syllogism think of it as a plain-English version of a math equality can be expressed in ordinary language: If entropy disorder in a system will increase unless energy is expended, And if my living room is a system, Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it.
Here is another example: A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to treat patients. The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false: There is no such thing as drought in the West. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions: What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds.
Types of reasoning often used to ground various approaches to social science research. Deductive reasoning moves from general theory down to particular examples, while inductive reasoning moves from particular examples up to general theory. Show page numbers Download PDF. Search form icon-arrow-top icon-arrow-top. Page Site Advanced.
Deductive reasoning , also deductive logic , is the process of reasoning from one or more statements premises to reach a logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear , and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning "top-down logic" contrasts with inductive reasoning "bottom-up logic" : in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse , narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion s remains. In deductive reasoning there is no epistemic uncertainty.
PDF | On Jun 25, , Yassine Oussi published Understanding Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning | Find, read and cite all the.
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion. Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain , the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable , based upon the evidence given. The three principal types of inductive reasoning are generalization , analogy , and causal inference. Each of these, while similar, has a different form.
View Deductive-and-Inductive-Reasoning. If one of the premises is false, the conclusion will be false.
Зараженный файл существует, сэр. Но он прошел Сквозь строй. - Если эта система его не перехватила, то откуда вы знаете, что вирус существует. Чатрукьян вдруг обрел прежнюю уверенность. - Цепная мутация, сэр. Я проделал анализ и получил именно такой результат - цепную мутацию.
Он разглядывал роскошную внутреннюю отделку, выстроившиеся в ряд компьютеры, диваны, книжные полки, залитые мягким светом. Увидав королеву шифровалки Сьюзан Флетчер, Чатрукьян моментально отвел. Он боялся ее как огня.
Алькасар. Беккер снова кивнул, вспомнив ночь, когда слушал гитару Пако де Лючии - фламенко под звездами в крепости XV века. Вот бы побывать здесь вместе со Сьюзан. - И, разумеется, Христофора Колумба? - просиял лейтенант. - Он похоронен в нашем соборе.
И словно по волшебству в этот момент открылась дверь, и в комнату оперативного управления, запыхавшись, вбежала Мидж. Поднявшись на подиум, она крикнула: - Директор. На коммутатор поступает сообщение.
Д-директор, - заикаясь выдавил светловолосый. - Я - агент Колиандер. Рядом со мной агент Смит. -Хорошо, - сказал Фонтейн.
Какой-то турист. - Вы уверены. - Туризм - моя профессия! - отрезал Клушар.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *