Write To Karl Loren About This Page
![]()
|
|
Inductive and Deductive ReasoningMany people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:
Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball. As you can see, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively. Even so, it is important to recognize whether the form of an argument is inductive or deductive, because each requires different sorts of support. Adham's inductive argument, above, is supported by his previous observations, while Rizik's deductive argument is supported by his reference to the law of gravity. Thus, Adham could provide additional support by detailing those observations, without any recourse to books or theories of physics, while Rizik could provide additional support by discussing Newton's law, even if Rizik himself had never seen a ball kicked. The appropriate selection of an inductive or deductive format for a specific first steps toward sound argumentation.
Exercises for Induction and Deduction 1. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by inductive reasoning?
2. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by deductive reasoning?
3. Which of the following arguments would lead to a deductive conclusion?
1. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by inductive reasoning? You answered:
It is much more likely that this claim stems from personal observation than from adherence to some general principle, and so it would be best expressed by an inductive argument.
2. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by deductive reasoning? You answered:
Since California residents are residents of the U.S. by definition, and definition is one sort of general claim on which a deductive argument can be based, this claim would be best supported by a deductive argument.
3. Which of the following arguments would lead to a deductive conclusion? You answered:
Though the premise about this year is based on observation, the general or "major" premise, "The cherry crop needs at least a week of freezing temperatures," seems to be an assertion of established principle, making this a deductive argument with the conclusion, "The results won't be best this year."
1. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by inductive reasoning? You answered:
On which premise is it morely likely that someone would base that claim: "In my experience, final exams have counted for 30% of the course grade," or "The instructor has stipulated that the final exam counts for 30% of the course grade"? Since, unlike in the case of gravity, experience is not a good predictor of the way grades are determined, it is unlikely that this claim would be argued inductively.
1. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by inductive reasoning?
On which premise is it morely likely that someone would base that claim: "In my experience, Gravity's Rainbow has been required reading in such courses," or "The instructor has stipulated that Gravity's Rainbow is required reading"? Since, unlike in the case of gravity, experience is probably not a good predictor of what is assigned as reading in a course, it is unlikely that this claim would be argued inductively.
1. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by inductive reasoning?
On which premise is it morely likely that someone would base that claim: "In my experience, late papers have not been accepted," or "The instructor has stipulated that late papers will not be accepted"? Since, unlike in the case of gravity, experience is not necessarily a good predictor of course requirements, it is unlikely that this claim would be argued inductively.
2. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by deductive reasoning? You answered:
Since this claim would probably be based on a study of California's population growth rate, and a study is just a formal kind of observation, the argument made to support it would most likely be inductive. Of course, we could make a general principle such as "The population growth rate slowed in all 50 states last year" and then deduce that it therefore slowed in California, which is one of the 50 states. But such a deduction would be less likely, in part because the rate of growth is information best established by survey and observation.
2. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by deductive reasoning?
Since this claim would probably be based on a study of California residents' attitudes, and a study is just a formal kind of observation, the argument made to support it would most likely be inductive. Of course, we could make a general principle such as "All U.S. residents appreciate their good weather," and then deduce that Californians, who are by definition U.S. residents, therefore must appreciate their good weather, too. But such a deduction would be less likely, in part because attitudes, especially about such things as the weather, is information best established by survey and observation.
2. Which of the following claims would be best expressed by deductive reasoning? You answered:
Since this claim would probably be based in some way on a study of the number of cars registeed in various states, and a study is just a formal kind of observation, the argument made to support it would most likely be inductive. Of course, we could make a general principle such as "The state with the largest population has the greatest number of registered cars," and then deduce that California, the most populous state, therefore has the most cars. But such a deduction would be less likely, in part because both the size of the population and the number of cars are the sort of information established by survey and observation.
3. Which of the following arguments would lead to a deductive conclusion? You answered:
This is very close to a deductive argument, but "previously" suggests that the general premise here is based on observation and not an established principle. The equivalent claim for a deductive argument would be, "Whenever there is a mild winter, the cherry crop suffers."
3. Which of the following arguments would lead to a deductive conclusion? You answered:
The more general of the two claims here, "whenever the skiing was good in the winter, the cherry crop was profitable," is clearly based on individual observation--in this case, Primo's. Such observations are usually the basis for inductive arguments. A deductive argument along these lines might assert more simply, "Whenever the skiing is good in the winter, the cherry crop is profitable." If the second premise is, as here, "this year the skiing was good," the conclusion would be "the cherry crop will be profitable."
3. Which of the following arguments would lead to a deductive conclusion? You answered:
The basis for the more general of the two claims here, "Not since 1972 have I seen a good cherry crop after a mild winter," is clearly personal observation, and so would be best utilized in an inductive argument. The premise for a similar deductive argument might be, "There are no good cherry crops after a mild winter."
You have finished the section on Introduction to Induction and Deduction. You may now choose to continue with the section on Inductive Arguments or Deductive Arguments, or choose Main Menu to select a different section. |
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.