Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning in biological sciences involves drawing specific conclusions from general principles or theories, often through the use of syllogisms. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, involves making generalizations based on specific observations or evidence, leading to the formation of hypotheses or theories. Both types of reasoning are important in scientific inquiry, with deductive reasoning used to test hypotheses and inductive reasoning used to generate hypotheses.
8 Key excerpts on "Deductive and Inductive Reasoning"
eBook - ePubThought and Knowledge
An Introduction to Critical Thinking
- Diane F. Halpern(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
...75) A distinction is often made between inductive and deductive reasoning. (See the Thinking as Hypothesis Testing chapter for a related discussion of this topic.) In inductive reasoning, observations are collected that support or suggest a conclusion. It is a way of projecting information from known examples to the unknown (Heit, 2000). For example, if every person you have ever seen has only one head, you would use this evidence to support the conclusion (or suggest the hypothesis) that everyone in the world has only one head. Of course, you cannot be absolutely certain of this fact. It is always possible that someone you have never met has two heads. If you met just one person with two heads, your conclusion must be wrong. Thus, with inductive reasoning you can never prove that your conclusion or hypothesis is correct, but you can disprove it. With inductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true. In deductive reasoning, we begin with statements known or believed to be true, like “everyone has only one head,” and then conclude or infer that La Tisha, a woman you have never met, will have only one head. This conclusion follows logically from the earlier statement. If we know that it is true that everyone has only one head, then it MUST be true that any specific person will have only one head. Similarly, if I show you a rectangle that is 2’ by 3’, then the area of the rectangle must be 6 square feet. Deductive reasoning is sometimes described as reasoning “down” from beliefs about the nature of the world to particular instances. Rips (1988) argues that deduction is a general purpose mechanism for cognitive tasks: deduction “enables us to answer questions from information stored in memory, to plan actions according to goals, and to solve certain kinds of puzzles” (p...
eBook - ePubReasoning
The Neuroscience of How We Think
- Daniel Krawczyk(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
...While they may not always be correct, they may better represent real-world behavior. • Knowledge influences inductive reasoning with similarity judgments affecting whether people will infer new information about a new instance based on information about a prior instance. • Inductive reasoning varies based on culture, which emphasizes that people’s background knowledge is critical for determining the types of inferences that they will make. Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Introduction Deductive and Inductive Reasoning have been considered to be core constructs in the study of reasoning. These forms date back to ancient times with clear roots in classical Greek philosophy. Aristotle emphasized the value of deductive reasoning as a source of powerful inferences in his writings. Deductive reasoning can reliably yield a valid conclusion based on the premises provided and the premises must also be valid for the approach to be successful. Inductive reasoning by contrast may yield a valid inference and is likely to move us beyond the current known information. Inductive reasoning comes with a price; however, in the form of a greater probability of an invalid inference if we inappropriately move beyond the information that we currently have. In other words, deduction is a safe bet moving us from currently known information to a relatively safe and valid conclusion, while inductive reasoning gives us a greater leap forward in terms of new knowledge, but comes with a greater opportunity for making erroneous conclusions. Our focus in this chapter will be on the types of psychological approaches that have been applied toward understanding deduction and induction. Experimental psychology differs from philosophy, the other main discipline associated with deduction and induction. While philosophy has focused on the certainty and the validity of these types of reasoning, the psychological approach has focused primarily on gaining experimental evidence...
eBook - ePubLogic and Critical Thinking in the Biomedical Sciences
Volume I: Deductions Based Upon Simple Observations
- Jules J. Berman(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
...1 Introduction to biomedical logic Abstract Reasoning involves using the relationships among assertions to draw a true inference. The basic unit of reasoning is the syllogism, which takes the form: assuming assertion A and B are true, then we can conclude the assertion C is true. A logical argument involves chaining syllogisms to draw a new inference. Because syllogisms can be examined easily, they serve as an excellent model for uncovering faulty reasoning, and most books on logic contain dozens of examples of fallacious inferences drawn from deceptively constructed syllogisms. In this chapter, we will discuss common fallacies selected from the field of biomedicine. We will also discuss the concept of proof, as it is known to biologists, and how it differs from proof, as it is known to mathematicians. We will see that biologists can seldom prove anything, with certainty, but lacking such proof does not prohibit us from establishing physical laws and generalizations based on the relationships among observable biological processes. Keywords Syllogism; Induction; Deduction; Fallacious reasoning; Weight of evidence; Tentative conclusions Chapter outline Section 1.1. What is reasoning? Section 1.2. What is proof? Section 1.3. Fallacies Section 1.4. Can several weak arguments substitute for one strong argument? Glossary References Couldn't Prove Had to Promise. Title of book of poems by Wyatt Prunty Section 1.1 What is reasoning? It is difficult to cover so basic a concept as reasoning without stepping on somebody's toes. Mathematicians, experimentalists, engineers, and cognitive scientists might all have their own ways of thinking about thinking...
eBook - ePubCritical Thinking Across the Curriculum
A Brief Edition of Thought & Knowledge
- Diane F. Halpern(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...For example, if every person you have ever seen has only one head, you would use this evidence to support the conclusion (or hypothesis) that everyone in the world has only one head. Of course, you can't be absolutely certain of this fact. It's always possible that someone you've never met has two heads. If you met just one person with two heads, your conclusion must be wrong. Thus, with inductive reasoning you can never prove that your conclusion or hypothesis is correct, but you can disprove it. When we reason inductively, we collect facts and use them to provide support or disconfirmation for conclusions or hypotheses. It's how we discover what the world is like. Lopes (1982) described induction this way: “Scientists do it; lay people do it; even birds and beasts do it. But the process is mysterious and full of paradox … induction cannot be justified on logical grounds” (p. 626). We reason inductively both informally in the course of everyday living, and formally in experimental research. For this reason, hypothesis testing is sometimes described as the process of inductive reasoning. When we reason inductively we generalize from our experiences to create beliefs or expecta-tions. Sometimes inductive reasoning is described as reasoning “up” from particular instances or experiences in the world to a belief about the nature of the world. © King Features Syndicate, Courtesy KFS, INC In deductive reasoning, we begin with statements known or believed to be true, like “everyone has only one head,” and then conclude or infer that LaTisha, a woman you've never met, will have only one head. This conclusion follows logically from the earlier statement. If we know that it is true that everyone has only one head, then it must also be true that any specific person will have only one head. This conclusion necessarily follows from the belief; if the belief is true, the conclusion must be true...
eBook - ePub- Robert Gass, John Seiter(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...As Leighton (2006) commented: Deductive reasoning is a cornerstone of scientific research in which claims to new knowledge are evaluated rigorously. Scientists, however, are not the only ones who should profit from systematic thinking. Students stand to become better decision makers, problem solvers, and thinkers when they learn to reason systematically. (pp. 109–110) In this chapter we examined deductive reasoning. Unlike inductive reasoning, which deals with probabilities, deduction reasons from known premises, or premises taken to be true, to reach certain conclusions. Ordinary people are not particularly adept at distinguishing valid from invalid arguments. However, their ability to use deduction increases with training and practice. Deduction has practical applications to everyday life, though we may not always realize when we are using it. The syllogism is one of the most common ways of learning to assess validity and invalidity. Three types of syllogisms were examined; categorical, conditional, and disjunctive. Rules and strategies for evaluating each type were also provided. With practice, the rules become almost second nature. Notes 1 One could just as easily argue that people are naturally given to mystical or magical thinking. 2 For the record, Frank Zappa is listed as #22 on Rolling Stone ’s greatest guitarists of all-time list. Brian May is #26 and Jerry Garcia #46. Other guitarists such as Ry Cooder, Steve Vai (Whitesnake), Alice Cooper, and Joe Satriani (Deep Purple), also read music. 3 Some pregnancies might include vaginal bleeding, which could be mistaken for a period, but that is not the same as menstruation. 4 The reasoning is as follows: If Neanderthals and humans diverged onto separate evolutionary paths long ago (say, 400 thousand years) and remained separated, then humans in different parts of the world should have roughly the same amount of Neanderthal DNA. Such is not the case, however...
eBook - ePubRecipes for Science
An Introduction to Scientific Methods and Reasoning
- Angela Potochnik, Matteo Colombo, Cory Wright(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...We have already encountered many examples of scientific reasoning. These include, to name a few, reasoning from large-scale carbon release during the last two centuries to the dramatic increase in the average global temperature (Chapter 1); reasoning from the temperature of colored lenses to the hypothesis that light colors vary in temperature (Chapter 2); and reasoning from the results of modeling the San Francisco Bay to the rejection of the Reber Plan (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 began by describing how scientists reasoned from the speed of light and observation of distant astral bodies to the conclusion that the universe must be at least 13.8 billion years old. Deliberative scientific reasoning involves making and evaluating inferences, and inferences are the backbone of any argument. An inference is a logical transition from one thought to another that obeys abstract rules. Whereas reasoning, as we’ve characterized it, is a psychological process, the features of inference are instead logical. An argument is a set of statements (stated propositions) with inferential structure. You might think of an argument as a set of instructions for performing inferences to reason your way to some conclusion. This differs from the everyday use of the word argument to mean bickering—a quarrel one might have with friends or family. An important part of scientific work is reasoning from empirical evidence in ways that involve logical inferences, and assembling arguments reflecting the structure of those inferences. Making inferences and assembling arguments requires being able to distinguish the roles of premise and conclusion. The premises of an argument are statements that provide rational support, the basis for inference. The conclusion of an argument is the statement that is supported by the premises, the endpoint of an inference. For example, recall Aristotle’s reasons for thinking that the universe is eternal. These can be reconstructed into an argument as follows: 1...
eBook - ePub- Linden J. Ball, Valerie A. Thompson, Linden J. Ball, Valerie A. Thompson(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Or upon learning that Linda will not come to our barbecue if it rains on Saturday, and noting that it is indeed raining on Saturday, we do not set a place for her. While not as impressive as Holmes’ conclusions, they emerge in a straightforward way from the provided information, and have a certainty lacking in Holmes’ inferences. Reasoning has long been of interest to philosophers, and more recently psychologists and neuroscientists. Philosophers are interested primarily in the epistemic relationship between premises and conclusions; that is, they want to know the nature of the warrant the premises provide for accepting the conclusion. Psychologists are concerned with the cognitive processes/mechanisms involved in drawing the inference. Neuroscientists are concerned with the neural mechanisms underwriting these processes. In this chapter we briefly discuss the contributions made to our understanding of inductive and deductive reasoning by each of these disciplines. Given its broad scope, the review is by necessity incomplete, but we address and integrate the major issues, note the progress that has been made, and point out shortcomings and dilemmas that need to be addressed to move the field forward. Philosophical issues One major area of study for philosophy is the acquisition and justification of knowledge. Reasoning from given information (premises) to conclusions is one important source of knowledge. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the major philosophical issue in the study of reasoning is the nature of the warrant that the premises provide for accepting the conclusion. Based on this relationship, philosophers have sorted arguments into two broad categories: deduction and induction. Deduction Consider the following deductive arguments: (A) All men are mortal; Socrates is a man \ Socrates is mortal. (B) All men are short; Socrates is a man \ Socrates is short. Deductive arguments can be evaluated for validity and soundness...
eBook - ePubA Class Room Logic
Deductive and Inductive, with Special Application to the Science and Art of Teaching
- George Hastings McNair(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Perlego(Publisher)
...16. OUTLINE. I NDUCTIVE R EASONING. (1) Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Distinguished. (2) The “Inductive Hazard.” Essential in world’s progress. Cultivated and regulated in school. (3) Complexity of the Problem of Induction. (4) Various Conceptions of Induction. Quotations from prominent authorities. (5) Induction and Deduction Contiguous Processes. (6) Induction an Assumption. A mode of inference; A method. (7) Universal Causation. Law stated and illustrated. Conditions all induction. (8) Uniformity of Nature. Defined and illustrated. Conditions all induction. Empirical. (9) Inductive Assumptions Justified. (10) Three Forms of Inductive Research. (1) Enumeration (2) Analogy (3) Analysis. Illustrated. Conditions determine form followed. (11) Induction by Simple Enumeration. Defined and illustrated. Outcome threefold—these illustrated. (12) Induction by Analogy. Two conceptions. Analogy by type or example. Illustrations representative. Error of analogy. Suggestiveness of analogy. Value of analogy. Requirements of a true analogy. Three. (13) Induction by Analysis. Importance. Defined and illustrated. (14) Perfect Induction. Defined and illustrated. Its use. Method of Socrates. (15) Traduction. Defined and illustrated. Three methods compared. 17. SUMMARY. (1) Reasoning is the process of deriving a judgment from two antecedent judgments...
