Just as though there are two sides to every story, there is also two different ways of arguing that leads to two different ways of knowing. We can either base our knowledge off of facts or we can base it off of assumptions. Either way, there are different arguments that go with each, which in turn both lead to different types of conclusions or knowing. An inductive argument comes to a conclusion that is likely to be true, whereas a deductive argument comes to a conclusion that must always be true (Rainbolt and Dwyer, 57). The crucial difference is the fact that deductive arguments are based on the irrefutable knowledge that leads to a definite conclusion whereas inductive arguments are based on assumption that leads to indefinite conclusions.
There are four types of inductive arguments; predications, generalizations, arguments by analogy, and arguments by causation. All of these are things that must be conferred from premises. Premises are the data or statements in which we build our conclusions off of. Predictions are simply hypothesis made from premises and generalizations are assumptions based off of premises, both of these things are never
…show more content…
Inductive arguments deal with assumption and an indefinite conclusion. On the other hand, deductive arguments deal with facts and conclusions that cannot be refuted. Inductive arguments use predictions, generalizations, and arguments by analogy and causation. An advantage of inductive arguments is that there is no doubt about it, yet the disadvantage along with that is the fact that it could lead people to not trust the world around them. Deductive arguments use logic, definitions, and affirming the antecedent. An advantage to these types are arguments is that we are not left wondering, whereas a disadvantage is that it could lead to a deterrent of curiosity and
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.
In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume attempts to uncover the ultimate truth about where our knowledge comes from. This leads him to suggest that all our ideas and knowledge arise from outward experiences and sensations. He attempts to prove this by solving the "problem of induction." I disagree with Hume's ideas, and in this essay I will explain why. I shall begin by explaining the problem of induction, and the sceptical doubts Hume raises concerning the inductive process. I will then explain how Hume solves the problem. Finally, I will conclude by offering a critique of Hume's doctrine, and explain why I find it to be inconsistent.
Statistical Induction- is based on statistical information, it predicts something will happen with numerical probability.
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.
The epic poem, Beowulf, a work of fiction, offers more insight into Ancient Anglo-Saxon English culture than the work of Bede, who wrote, A History of the English Church and People. The epic poem Beowulf gives an enhanced illustration and clearer understanding of the culture of the Ancient Anglo-Saxon’s. The epic poem gives the audience a picture of what the Ancient Anglo-Saxon English valued; seafaring, warriors, heroes, and paganism.
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.
In summary he remarks that the ground of knowledge is a demonstrative syllogism and the ground of that syllogism is premises so we must know (be convinced of) the primary premises better than the conclusion. Nothing can be better known to a man who seeks knowledge through demonstration than the basic truths.
...undervalued the use of inductive reasoning, more modern logicians have embraced the value of this type of thinking and acknowledge that both inductive and deductive reasoning can be used to arrive at more thorough and accurate truths about our world and the situations that occur within it.
...h not justifiable enough to be relied. Even though the inductive reasoning has been a success in the determination of events and instances that have occurred in the past, philosophers still argue about its appropriateness, in the modern society (Earman, 2006, p.36). The problem of induction has been analyzed through various philosophical studies with the aim of finding a justifiable answer to the dilemma. The uncertainty of inductive reason forms the basis of myriad questions that engulf the justification of the approach. According to some philosophers, it is possible that some unknown phenomenon might occur, leading to justification with a known phenomenon. As aforementioned, falsification and irrationalism are some of the solutions to the induction problem. It is, therefore, imperative for individuals to falsify the beliefs through hypothesis and empirical testing.
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
For example, a strong inductive argument could be that, “Joe and Tim are both in boxing club. Joe has red gloves, therefore Tim probably has red gloves.” This argument does not ensure that Tim has red gloves, but since the argument follows a logical structure and the premises that both Joe and Tim are in boxing club and that Joe has red gloves are probably true, the argument leads to a strong conclusion.
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”
In an inductive argument, new ideas and information may be introduced, aiding new scientific explanations and conclusions, whereas in an deductive argument, no new ideas or information is introduced since the conclusions are already stated either explicitly or implicitly within the premises. Both inductive and deductive arguments work hand in hand and are used in Empirical Science and in the Scientific Method. Deductive arguments alone, as encouraged initially by Aristotle, is not effective when trying to explain a more complex idea or phenomena. Deduction and scientific experimentation along with induction is much more effective at explaining and arriving at a conclusion and the Scientific Method and the Empirical Sciences now consists and depends of these two types of arguments, deductive argument to prove a specific conclusion, and inductive argument to generate new ideas and
Descartes is clearing away all knowledge that can be called into doubt. By doing this he hopes to create something real and lasting in the sciences, a foundation to build on. This indisputable fact will become the starting point or origin of all other true knowledge he can build upon it. He starts the first argument by attacking the very beginning of knowledge, human senses. Descartes states, "Surely whatever I had admitte...