Inductive and Deductive Arguments People have always sought to better understand the world surrounding them through reasoning. People reason about things they wish to comprehend or things they want to question. Through reasoning, they come to a conclusion by formulating arguments supported by premises. People use arguments to convince others that their reasoning is correct. The premises may or may not effectively support the conclusion, thus this kind of faulty reasoning may be detected through correct reasoning and analyzation. There are two kinds of arguments: Inductive and Deductive arguments. Aristotle and other great thinkers believed induction and deduction were important in the explanation of the universe and scientific phenomena. …show more content…
Francis Bacon, a great philosopher from the sixteenth century, was one of the main contributors to the development of the scientific explanation (Shuttleworth). Bacon sought better ways to explain the world surrounding him and believed deduction alone wasn’t enough, and inductive argument was more adequate. Inductive Arguments aim to support a claim or a conclusion with premises with a level of probability (Copi). Unlike deductive arguments, inductive arguments cannot be characterized with validity as the premises support the conclusion with probability and not with necessity. Thus, inductive arguments can be described as “weak” or “strong” (Copi). Since an inductive argument is probabilistic, it is still the case for the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true. Because inductive arguments provide with new ideas and knowledge beyond what is already known, unlike deductive arguments which do not provide anything new, inductive argument is seen as necessary in the scientific method, in order to arrive at new explanations (Cline). Moreover, Bacon introduced the use of induction in the Scientific Method since induction would be adequate for observations of specific issues to a broader issues. Induction was also seen as adequate for scientific experimentation as it would allow to generalize the findings in such experiments. In a …show more content…
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
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement.
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
Statistical Induction- is based on statistical information, it predicts something will happen with numerical probability.
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:
Aristotle’s strong belief in logic led his argument in the principle of reasoning and the theory of knowledge. Aristotle believed that humans were born with a blank slate, having minds with no knowledge about anything. He was certain that knowledge is a process that it is acquired over an extended period of time and is not something that humans are born with or can achieve instantaneously. He viewed the human body as a knowledge-seeking tool purposefully made to aid in learning. Aristotle was the forefather in naturalist philosophy; he believed that knowledge was acquired through observation and interaction. He believed in acquiring knowledge through our senses, which is called perception. After perception, one must then be able to retain that knowledge through memory. One must experience those perceptions for oneself in conjunction with memory, the result of which is knowledge. To Aristotle, knowledge was having the ability to understand the essence and universal form of things. Aristotle wanted a way to protect against critics doubt...
In the essay “Studies In the Logic of Explanation”, Carl Hempel attempts to break down scientific explanation into its fundamental components in pursuit of defining what it means to explain a phenomenon scientifically. In doing so, he proposes a set of rigorous criteria that he believes constitute a true explanation. He starts by separating an explanation “into two major constituents, the explanandum and the explanans” (136). The explanandum is the phenomenon that is to be explained, while the explanans represent a series of statements which “account for the phenomenon” (137). According to Hempel, the explanans can be further subdivided into particular antecedent conditions and certain general laws which can be combined in such a way to
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...
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.
“In the eighteenth century philosophers extended the use of reason from the study of nature to human society” (McKay, 502). “The Enlightenment created concepts of human rights, equality, progress, universalism, and tolerance that still guide western societies today” (McKay, 502). Francis Bacon was the greatest advocator of the new experimental method. Bacon argued that new knowledge had to be found through observation and experience. He gave the empirical method its formal status and turned it “into the general theory of inductive reasoning known as empiricism” (McKay, 511). Empiricism was defined as “a theory of inductive reasoning that calls for acquiring evidence through observation and experimentation rather than deductive reason and speculation” (McKay, 511). Bacon’s work led into the creation of experimental philosophy in England after he had died. In 1660, Bacon’s followers put together the Royal Society where they met weekly to experiment and talk about recent discoveries of European scholars. Bacon believed there were only two ways of discovering the truth of anything and this belief backs up his idea of empiricism. He said “natural philosophy is, after the word of God, at once the surest medicine against superstition and the most approved nourishment for faith” (Bacon, 124-126) Another important philosopher after the time of Bacon
Aristotle saw logic as a tool that led to probing and eventually to explanations through argumentation rather than deductions alone [6]. In Aristotle’s view, deductions were not sufficient to lead to any type of validity, and most certainly not in the sciences, where arguments should “feature premises which are necessary” in order to avoid false suppositions [6]. He insisted that because science “extends to fields of inquiry like mathematics and metaphysics,” it is essential that not only facts had to be reported, but also explained through their “priority relations” [6].
The time period surrounding the 17th century was the beginning of an era of great scientific advancement in Europe that was known as the Scientific Revolution. It was during this phase that the use of reason and new advances in science resulted in paradigm shifts. Paradigm shifts are shifts in basic assumptions (paradigms) resulting from the discovery of new information that is no longer compatible with existing paradigms, forcing people to shift their mind frame to adapt to the new assumption ("Thomas S. Kuhn"). In this period, many scientists formulated new theories by developing procedures to test new ideas; one of these procedures was the Ba-conian Method. The creator of the Baconian method, Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), sought to reform and improve the philosophy of science, and thought that logic should have three goals: to correct habits of mind and intellectual mistakes, to supplement correct intellectual habits and compensate for incorrect ones, and to be constructive in the organization of logic gained (Da-vid). In his attempts to reform science and fulfill these goals, Bacon created a paradigm shift from the use of deductive investigation methods, or basing conclusions on a general law, to the inductive Baconian method that based conclusions on factual evidence from observation or experimentation (Smith). Bacon created this shift firstly by pointing out the flaws in other sys-tems of investigation by strongly criticizing several other philosophical approaches to science. Secondly, Bacon attempted to root out corruption or confusion that he felt was caused by other philosophies by encouraging people to acknowledge and compensate for them. Finally, Bacon created a method to organize and interpret data that would help scien...
Deductive reasoning is general information people have and use to reach to some type of conclusion. Deductive is done by understanding the first part which is using logic to reach a conclusion which reasoning is to understand what is going on. There are many different ways to explain what is required of deductive reasoning. For example, in an article, it states, “logical way of reaching a conclusion based on ded...
A scientific theory is an explanation that is well- substantiated explanation in regards to some aspect of the natural world that is attained through scientific method and is tested numerous times and usually confirmed through vigorous observation and experimentation. The term theory can be seen as a collection of laws which allow you to show some kind of phenomenon. The strength of a scientific theory associated with the diversity of phenomena can explain its elegance and simplicity. However when new evidence is gathered a scientific theory can be changed or even rejected if it does not fit the new findings, in such cases a more accurate theory is formed. Scientific theories are used to gain further
During week three of this course, I was able to clearly identify the difference between Inductive arguments, and deductive argument. Deductive arguments consist of multiple premises generally assumed to be true, therefore, the conclusion must be true. However, in the inductive reasoning, the premises are all believed to be true, for the truth of the conclusion, but there’s always a possibility that the conclusion can either be true or false.