Help please , could you define inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
do you want that from a philosophical point of view, or a logical one or a mathematical view
deductive reasoning is based on facts proofs something you know to be true 100% of the time, inductive reasoning is based patterns or trends, something that looks like it will be true but is possible it might not happen.
Deductive reasoning arrives to its conclusion from primitive premises or assumption so your mind is moving from specific collective information to a general conclusion... Syllogistic logic from the eyes of maths or philosophy are based on deduction including conditional predicate logic...etc Inductive reasoning observes events to draw its general conclusion, and inductive reasoning is divided into incomplete induction and complete one... There still remains some unsolved problems with induction from a philosophical and logical point of view, despite the fact, that it is used a lot in science and experimental processing, for example when any medication is invented how would you know that medication will cure everyone with the same sickness such as paracetamol for headaches... In other words if you approximate heat to metal then we know it will extend but how can i conclude the general following conclusion that every time i heat a metal it will extend, and that should be true for every metal based on few experiments? If you see few bad people in a certain country, can i generalize and say everyone is bad in that particular country due to some misbehavior by some individuals? well this is an incomplete induction. Now in general the laws of classic and modern probability are applied in order to justify generalizing inductive reasoning ...
@mathsmind Wow... vary detailed. But not put into simple terms that i could really understand. Thank you though ! (:
OK WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER
???
All oranges are fruits All fruits grow on trees Therefore, all oranges grow on trees
this is an example of deductive reasoning from Arestolian point of view...
the first term all oranges are fruit is a true valid statment
the 2nd statement is valid as well, and the coclusion is valid
are you following me?
Yeah
so we have some information to get the right conclusion that is deduction
I understand that deductive is all the time and inductive is most or some of the time?
so what is the problem then?
if you see some bad student at school can u say all students are bad as a general conclusion?
are here yes no maybe?
are u*
Yeah
What i was trying to do is write is a few paragraphs the define inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Provide an example for both. Compare inductive and deductive reasoning. How are they the same? How are they different?
the last part of the question is wrong if your teacher was here i would smack his head
Haha why do you say that ?
As for the first part Deductive reasoning arrives to its conclusion from primitive premises or assumption so your mind is moving from specific collective information to a general conclusion...
this is the problem the tend to show up as philosophers and the students don't know what on earth is that teacher talking about
Inductive reasoning observes events to draw its general conclusion, and inductive reasoning is divided into incomplete induction and complete one...
did u get that one?
Processing;)
what's is wrong about that one?
hehehehe, ya keep processing till 98753894759873895798437598 light yrs
deductive is when you see something and come to a general assumption based on just that ? and inductive is when you take many different patterns or events and come to a conclusion?...>.<
i can't see a different in both statements can u?
Ohhh.Wow. i should have re read that.
i am not leaving u till u master this subject so follow my reasonings
and tell ur teacher someone wants to debate you...
ok so deductive is always true. inductive is only sometimes true?
not true
prove for me how deduction is always true?
deductive is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements to reach a logically (certain) conclusion.
how?
don't worry trust me those questions are for ur benefits
In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached from general statements, but in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached from specific examples. Sooo i would think there is room for error in both ways..
how?
we're going to loop so break the loop
come on ur a clever girl
Because if you take a general statement there can be specific instants where it is proven wrong. And if you take only the specific occurrences you may come to the wrong conclusion...
Am i completely off here?
well done
So that ^^^is how they are alike and how they can be different?right
yes
i told u i will make u master this and i fulfilled my promise
so far
Thank you !:) are you in school or are you a teacher?
i am an engineer
Oh nice :D
what major are u after?
I'm not sure yet,nothing to do with math ....i hoping ha. but that's kind of a silly Request huh:P I want to work with kids that's about all i know so far. I'm a junior and i do online school w/ connections academy.
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr u don't want to do math huh!
by the way are learning Aristotal deduction and induction or Russel's and David Humes induction?
Aristotal.
Ok then deduction would be part of Induction from Aristotal's point of view
would be one of the ways to help in inductive reasoning
how would you answer this question? "Which of these two forms of reasoning do you prefer? Why?"
again a wrong question because it depends on the subject, let me prove that for u
If i tell u prove to me that Paracetemol cures headache, which logic or reasonig would be of ur choice?
hmmm......inductive, cuz you would be looking at specific cases where it did. but also deductive cuz you would make the conclusion it did by looking at all the cases and find that more times then not it cured the headaches. is that what you mean?
see so u prefered incduction with the aid of deduction, so mainly u used inductive reasoning
now most people prefere inductive reasoning because it is easier and ends with a valid conclusion, where as induction is a pain for most people...
so i would say it depends if the subject requires inductive or/and deductive reasioning, but in terms of validation deduction is 100% valid if and only if the rules of logice were applied in the right way...
logic*
any objection?
Well deduction is gonna get you an accurate answer right?
yes
but deduction can not conclude for u inductive reasoning
And its an easy way to come to a conclusion,so most ppl would choose that way.
if and only if the subject submits to deductive reasioning
as in our medical example
do u deduce or induce that every heated metal extend?
when i looked it up it said that deductive works from "top down" what does it mean by that ?
deduce ?
if i say the metal in USA exted by heating how can u generalize that aheated metal in Brazil extend as well for example?
extend*
take an issue of investigating a crime, would that be inductive reasoning or deductive?
Inductive, you look at all the small specific facts, not just the main facts of the case.
good girl well done, in other words experimental subjects requires inductive reasoning and that is a general property for induction...
so the metal and investigation example or more inductive reasioning than deductive...generally speaking
see i told u, that u r clever...
but ur teacher is not...
Hahaha, thanks : ) now i have to organize this all into something i can turn in :P
do u need me or should i leave?
I will write it out and send it to you later before i turn it in ? could you just check it over and make sure i sound like i know what im talking about ha
i will wait and check ur work
Oh no dont worry about it , i will turn it in tomorrow: ) i have time .
turn it in with a smack hehehe don't forget
Haha I wont !(:
hehehe then u'll be smacked hehehe
Ok : )
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!