"The sun has always arisen in the past therefore it will rise tomorrow" this could be seen as the expression of inductive argument...could you give an example of an inductive, or deductive reasoning?.....
2006-10-21 22:46:07 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
A famous example of inductive reasoning was given by Bertrand Russell: A farmer feeds a turkey every day for a year. On Christmas (Russell was English), the farmer approaches the turkey. Inductively, the turkey can expect the farmer to feed him, but he has come for a different reason this time. Russell's example was designed to show that inductive reasoning is not perfect, and that's the way induction is usually characterised by logicians today: an inductive argument is one in which the premises offer support for, but do not entail the conclusion.
The most famous example of a deductive argument comes from Aristotle: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Deductive arguments entail their conclusions. That is, if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.
2006-10-21 23:41:22 · answer #1 · answered by artful dodger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I still believe there's nothing in the past that says or implies that the sun will rise tomorrow just because it always has. Where is the uncaused first cause? I believe Aristotle had some entertaining thoughts on deductive reasoning.
But, Rene Descartes was good with inductive reasoning. I think, therefore, I am. Need I say more?
2006-10-22 03:53:50 · answer #2 · answered by The!AcademyIs 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
inductive - "A is true. Therefore, A is true."
deductive - "A is to B. B is to C. Therefore, A is to C."
Inductive presents a statement. Deductive presents a syllogism.
Obviously the result of the deductive is wrong.
That is a valid reason, where the A-B B-C A-C thing is true.
A sound arguement is where both A and B are true.
2006-10-21 22:58:11 · answer #3 · answered by Roka 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Deductive reasoning works from the extra time-honored to the extra particular. And occasion is : a million. All adult adult males are mortal. 2. Socrates develop right into a guy. 3. Socrates develop into mortal. Inductive reasoning works any opposite direction, shifting from particular observations to broader generalizations and theories. a million. Socrates develop into Greek. 2. maximum Greeks consume fish. 3. Socrates ate fish. Deductive oftentimes starts with a hypotheses as a results of fact it is going from the extra time-honored to the extra particular. And as we see in on a daily basis existence, the rationalization we make a hypotheses is using the fact we in ordinary terms understand time-honored records and not the small print, there for we hypothesis with regard to the top or end. the place as inductive you oftentimes start up out with a particular fact, and pass to a extra time-honored one.
2016-12-08 18:59:10 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thereis an immortal sentence written by george elliot in her book Silas Marner
" A dull mind once arriving at an inference is rarely able to retain the impression that, the notion from which the inference started is purly problematic"
This was said in context when Dunstan cass goes in a rainy night into the empty hut of Silas marner and not finding him there comes to the conclusion that Marner must have fallen in the stone pit and died.So there would be no heir to his gold. So if Dunstan takes it away no one will know it.
2006-10-21 23:01:16 · answer #5 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Inductive characterizes a reasoning process of generalizing from facts.
Deductive characterizes a reasoning process of logical reasoning from stated propositions.
2006-10-23 11:49:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋