Inductive and Deductive Arguments

One of the most influential and controversial views on the problem ofinduction has been that of Karl Popper, announced and argued inThe Logic of Scientific Discovery (LSD). Popper held thatinduction has no place in the logic of science. Science in his view isa deductive process in which scientists formulate hypotheses andtheories that they test by deriving particular observableconsequences. Theories are not confirmed or verified. They may befalsified and rejected or tentatively accepted if corroborated in theabsence of falsification by the proper kinds of tests:

and is it inductive or deductive?

Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning - An Overview - ThoughtCo

Deductive And Inductive Paragraph Organization

It is now generally held that the core idea of Bayesian logicism is fatally flawed—that syntactic logical structure cannot be the sole determiner of the degree to which premises inductively support conclusions. A crucial facet of the problem faced by Bayesian logicism involves how the logic is supposed to apply to scientific contexts where the conclusion sentence is some hypothesis or theory, and the premises are evidence claims. The difficulty is that in any probabilistic logic that satisfies the usual axioms for probabilities, the inductive support for a hypothesis must depend in part on its prior probability. This prior probability representshow plausible the hypothesis is supposed to be based on considerationsother than the observational and experimental evidence (e.g., perhapsdue to relevant plausibility arguments). A Bayesian logicist must tellus how to assign values to these pre-evidential priorprobabilities of hypotheses, for each of the hypotheses ortheories under consideration. Furthermore, this kind of Bayesianlogicist must determine these prior probability values in away that relies only on the syntactic logical structure of thesehypotheses, perhaps based on some measure of their syntacticsimplicities. There are severe technical problems with getting thisidea to work. Moreover, various kinds of examples seem to show thatsuch an approach must assign intuitively quite unreasonable priorprobabilities to hypotheses in specific cases (see the footnote citednear the end of section 3.2 for details). Furthermore, for this ideato apply to the evidential support of real scientific theories,scientists would have to formalize theories in a way that makes theirrelevant syntactic structures apparent, and then evaluate theoriessolely on that syntactic basis (together with their syntacticrelationships to evidence statements). Are we to evaluate alternativetheories of gravitation (and alternative quantum theories) this way?This seems an extremely doubtful approach to the evaluation of realscientific theories and hypotheses. Thus, it seems that logicalstructure alone cannot suffice for the inductive evaluation ofscientific hypotheses. (This issue will be treated in more detail inSection 3, after we first see how probabilistic logics employ Bayes'theorem to represent the evidential support for hypotheses as afunction of prior probabilities together withtheir evidential likelihoods.)

Inductive and deductive reasoning

Some inductive logicians have tried to follow the deductive paradigm very closely by attempting to specify inductive support probabilities in terms of the syntactic structures of premise and conclusion sentences. In deductive logic the syntactic structure of the sentences involved completely determines whether premises logically entail a conclusion. So these logicians attempted to specify inductive support probabilities solely in terms of the syntactic structure of premise and conclusion sentences. In such a system each sentence confers a syntactically specified degree of support on each of the other sentences of the language. The inductive probabilities in such a system are logical in the sense that they depend on syntactic structure alone. This kind of conception was articulated to some extent by John Maynard Keynes in his Treatise on Probability (1921). Rudolf Carnap pursued this idea with greater rigor in his Logical Foundations of Probability (1950) and in several subsequent works (e.g., Carnap 1952). (For details of Carnap's approach see the section on in the entry on , in this Encyclopedia.)

Does adding an inductive paragraph boost my band or I should write all the main body paragraphs in a deductive style?
Inductive VS Deductive Arguments | Buy Custom Essay

Inductive and Deductive Arguments - Academic Writing

Among those not convinced by Hume's arguments stated in are D.C. Williams, supportedand corrected by D.C. Stove, and David Armstrong. Williams arguedin The Ground of Induction (1947) that it is logically truethat one form of probabilistic inductive inference is sound and thatthis is logically demonstrable in the theory of probability. Stovereiterated the argument with a few reformulations and corrections fourdecades later. Williams held that induction is a reasonable method. Bythis he intended not only that it is characterized by ordinarysagacity. Indeed, he says that that an aptitude for induction isjust what we mean by ‘ordinary sagacity’. He claims thatinduction, or one important species of it, is reasonable in the (notquite standard sense) of being “logicalor according to logic”.

Inductive and deductive reasoning - SlideShare

Inductive and deductive reasoning ..

Our deep and extensive understanding of deductive logic, in particularof the first-order logic of quantifiers and truth functions, ispredicated on two metatheorems; semantical completeness ofthis logic and the decidability of proofs and deductions.The decidability result provides an algorithm which when applied to a(finite) sequence of sentences decides in finitely many steps whetherthe sequence is a valid proof of its last member or is a validdeduction of a given conclusion from given premises. Semanticalcompleteness enables the easy and enlightening movement betweensyntactical, proof theoretic, operations and reasoning in terms ofmodels. In combination these metatheorems resolve both themetaphysical and epistemological problems for proofs anddemonstrations in first-order logic: Namely, what distinguishes validfrom invalid logical demonstration? and what are reliable methods fordeductive inference? (It should however be kept in mind that neitherlogical validity nor logical implication is decidable.) Neither ofthese metatheorems is possible for induction. Indeed, if Hume'sarguments are conclusive then the metaphysical problem, to distinguishgood from bad inductions, is insoluble.

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning - AP LANGUAGE …

Inductive deductive reasoning essay - …

That induction is opposed to deduction is not quite right, and therest of the definition is outdated and too narrow: much of whatcontemporary epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science countas induction infers neither from observation nor particulars and doesnot lead to general laws or principles. This is not to denigrate theleading authority on English vocabulary—until the middle ofthe previous century induction was understood to be what we now knowas enumerative induction or universal inference;inference from particular inferences: