Reasoning is the action of constructing thoughts into a valid argument. This is probably something you do every day. When you make a decision, we are using reasoning. By taking different thoughts and thinking why you should go with one thought over another. Inductive and deductive reasoning are both propositional logic. Propositional logic is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and simplifying entire propositions, statements to hold more complicated propositions or statements. This means it uses a combination od facts to come up with a conclusion. Both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning have a premise and a conclusion. They are both reasoning’s and a conclusion. How both reasoning’s get to a conclusion is different. Deduction …show more content…
Sir Francis Bacon a 17th century was an English philosopher, also known as a scientist back in the day that he studied. He tried to challenge an ancient authority, Aristotle. With a theory, such as deductive reasoning already being around for over 2,000 years. Inductive thinking starts with a theory, then goes to a hypothesis, goes to an observation, and ends with a confirmation. Inductive thoughts work the other way around; it is going from something specific to a much bigger thought. In this reasoning, you being with something specific and being to then notice patterns and for a hypothesis. Once you have done this you can later draw a conclusion. Inductive reasoning starts with facts and details and moves to a general conclusion. The conclusion is probabilistic, strong or weak, and can be proved false. Inductive reasoning, also known as top down approach is where the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion is the hypothesis. Inductive reasoning is also known as “cause and effect” reasoning because it comes up with a conclusion first. An example for inductive reasoning is “my older sister plays basketball, my friend’s older sister plays basketball, my neighbor’s older sister plays basketball, therefore all older sisters play basketball. You have most likely heard people use this reasoning before, which can’t be true. Just because you are an older sister does not …show more content…
Whenever you are trying to figure out a problem or trying to connect information together that you have, you can use inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning and just make sure that you are paying attention. Whether it is that you have facts and details to start with that you can base a conclusion on or whether you’ve got a broader conclusion that you’re going to be coming up with examples for. Remember that they won’t always be true, you might still have to go and research whether the conclusion you come up with is accurate or not
example, Skloot states, “As Cliff and Fred lowered Henrietta’s coffin into her grave and began covering her with handfuls of dirt, the sky turned black as strap molasses. The rain fell thick and fast. Then came long rumbling thunder…” and Henrietta’s cousin Peter, stated, “We shoulda knew she was trying to tell us something with that storm” (92). Skloot, includes this casual argument because it illustrates how Henrietta’s family believes Henrietta created the storm. Skloot also uses deductive reasoning, which goes from general to specific. For example, she states, “First, HeLa didn’t grow from one of Henrietta’s cells. It grew from a sliver of her tumor, which was a cluster of cells. Second, cells often behave differently, even if they’re all from the same sample, which means some grow faster than others” (99). Skloot uses deductive reasoning to explain how HeLa began and uses specific evidence. Skloot uses both types of reasoning in her book to create a stronger argument.
Rene Descartes and David Hume lived in two completely different time periods, yet they shared interest in some of the same philosophical categories. Could animals reason? How did humans expand their knowledge compared to animals? Questions like these were answered both by Descartes and Hume even though they had two opposing views. Descartes was the first to address the questions about animal instincts, and later on Hume set out to refute some of his ideas.
define an argument is a main idea, often called a claim, backed up with evidence that supports the idea.
Deduction is the third characteristic of rationalism, which is to prove something with certainty rather than reason. For example, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God through deductive reasoning in his third meditation. It went something like this: “I have an idea of a perfect substance, but I am not a perfect substance, so there is no way I could not be the cause of this idea, so there must be some formal reality which is a perfect substance- like God. Because only perfection can create perfection, and though it can also create imperfection- nothing that is imperfect can create something that is perfect.
Inductive reasoning was use many times, voicing specific beliefs before explaining, in broad terms, why these beliefs were important. This use of bonding, pathos and inductive reasoning to encourage the audience to support birth control was very powerful.
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion (bees can produce a mental map and plan with just 1 million neurons in their brain) follows, with certainty, from its premises. Conditional arguments are a clear case of deductive argument. A conditional deductive argument has a conditional statement for its premises i.e. it is in If…then… form. The premise of the argument is, that bees returning to the hive with the news of a new source of nectar do a dance that represents the new source direction and distance. Other bees observe the dance but, still exploits the old source of nectar. The conditional premise of the argument is, if the bees found that the old source has become depleted of nectar when they return (Sufficient condition), then, they fly directly to the new source without having to return to the hive to follow the other bees' directions (Necessary condition). The conditional premise affirms the sufficient condition and, the conclusion states the necessary condition of the conditional premise. Therefore, bees think, plan and produces a mental map with just 1 million neurons in their brain to reach to the new source of nectar to where they directed at. All the bees fall into a homogeneous group as they have a similar nature and character. The actions of one bee are a sample which is a representative of the populations of bees in a similar way.
The term inductive reasoning refers to reasoning that takes specific information and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate. An example of inductive reasoning is: All observed children like to play with Legos. All children, therefore, enjoy playing with Legos. Relying on inductive reasoning throughout everyday life is just a part of human nature. If someone were to take into consideration every plausible outcome of a given situation, they would never get anything done or been stricken with worry. The simple principle of induction (SPI) states that:
While reading Two Ways of Knowing by James Bradley, I was on a spring break trip to Alabama. In Alabama, I was with golf team golfing at a tournament. The hold trip was filled with chances to use inductive reasoning. One example of inductive reasoning I did was if I should work on homework on the bus, sleep, or read. This example is weak, but the outcomes have strong outcomes either way I go. In doing homework, I would have it done and not have to worry about it when I got back from the trip. However, if I didn’t do homework, I would be struggling to get everything done when I got back to campus. In the end, I choose to do a combination of all three choice, and I am recovering from that choice. Another example of inductive reasoning
The problem of induction has a close relation with the inductive reasoning and such expression as “a posteriori”. There are two distinct methods of reasoning: deductive and inductive approaches. A deductive argument is the truth preserving in which if the premises are true than it follows that the conclusion will be true too. The deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific things. On the other hand, an inductive argument is an argument that may contain true premises and still has a false conclusion. Induction or the inductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in which we make a conclusion about future experience or about presence based on the past experience. The problem of induction also has a connection with the expressions as “a priori” and “a posteriori”. The truth in a priori statement is embedded in the statement itself, and the truth is considered to be as common knowledge or justification without the need to experience. Whereas, in order to determine if a pos...
Two principles of reasoning are useful to lawyers when constructing arguments or providing support for their arguments; inductive and deductive reasoning. Through careful inspection of these principles, along with the consideration of two theories implemented in mathematical logic, we can conclude that they are very similar. The indirect proof method and the valid argument form of Modus Ponens (in mathematical logic) closely relate to the theories of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning (used in the field of law). I feel that my knowledge of mathematical logic will help me to form more carefully constructed, valid arguments as a
In this argument, if “employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them” is considered the p and “it is rational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill a duty of loyalty to their employees” will be the q. It continues to follow that q is false as it is not rational for employees to expect companies to recognize and fulfill loyalty to their employees. The logical form ends with not p as “It is false that employees have a duty of loyalty to the companies that employ them”. It is known that this argument is deductively valid but in order to show that the conclusion is also true, it must be true that the argument is deductively sound. An example of a deductively valid argument would be as following: Premise 1) All mammals have four feet; Premise 2) Lions are mammals; Conclusion) Therefore, Lions have four feet. Premise 1 in this argument is true, mammals do have four feet, Premise 2 is also true, Lions are mammals, and therefore the conclusion is also true that Lions have four feet. With these true premises leading to a true conclusion help us understand
David Hume is a very famous philosopher for the methods that he takes to attack certain objects that he has a strong opinion on. He is the type of philosopher that will attack some of the simple things that we accept as humans and have grown to believe over time. He questions the validity of these arguments in regards to the methods that one took to arrive at their desired conclusions. He most notably takes a deeper look into induction and generalization. Induction is basically moving from some type of fact to formulate a specific conclusion about something. Generalization, on the other hand, is making broad assumptions on things usually with insufficient evidence. These two distinct points are the basis of David Hume’s argument expressed in, “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” The main question that he poses is whether inductive reasoning overall can lead one to gain knowledge.
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
Inductive reasoning is logical reasoning where people have a lot of the information and use that to reach a conclusion. It is viewing the available data and figuring out what will be the results. For instance, from an online article, it demonstrates, “Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion” (Rouse, 2013). It shows that there are a lot of ideas to analyze and calculate what the possible outcomes will be. It can also be done by looking at patterns. When looking at patterns, it is important to study it to see what is recurring. This makes it possible to predict what will happen based on the knowledge that has been collected. Inductive reasoning is using information or events that have happened in the past to see what is in store for the future.