what is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?

Answer 1

Inductive reasoning is a process of arriving at a conclusion based on a set of observations. it is not a valid method of proof.
Deductive reasoning is a valid form of proof. it is a process by which a person make conclusions based on previously known facts.
deductive rea... is used more heavily than inductive re...... but it is possible only after inductive reasoning has led to hypothesis about a given situation

Answer 2

Deductive And Inductive Reasoning

Answer 3

Deductive Reasoning Definition

Answer 4

deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false



The difference between the two comes from the sort of relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.

Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, the truth of the conclusion is "contained within" the truth of the premises; i.e., the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. For example, the following are deductive arguments:

Answer 5

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axFot

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as: This ice is cold. A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue. ...to infer general propositions such as: All ice is cold. All billiard balls struck with a cue move. Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, even of probabilistic (bayesian) ones. Deductive reasoning was developed by Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras, and other Greek philosophers of the Classical Period (600 to 300 B.C.). Aristotle, for example, relates a story of how Thales used his skills to deduce that the next season's olive crop would be a very large one. He therefore bought all the olive presses and made a fortune when the bumper olive crop did indeed arrive.[5] Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion. [6] Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. Many incorrectly teach that deductive reasoning goes from general information to specific information and that inductive reasoning travels in the opposite direction. This is not accurate. Deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning examines specific information, perhaps many pieces of specific information, to derive a general principle. By thinking about phenomena such as how apples fall and how the planets move, Isaac Newton induced his theory of gravity. Once Newton induced that principle, he applied it deductively to make many predictions. Galileo applied it to deduce the existence of a planet disturbing's Uranus's orbit, a planet that would eventually be named Neptune.[7][not in citation given] Both types of reasoning are routinely employed. One difference between them is that in deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world. This is where inductive reasoning steps in. Given a set of evidence, however incomplete the knowledge is, the conclusion is likely to follow, but one gives up the guarantee that the conclusion follows. However it does provide the ability to learn new things that are not obvious from the evidence. Deductive reasoning is supported by deductive logic (which is not quite the same thing). For example: All apples are fruit. All fruits grow on trees. Therefore all apples grow on trees. Or All apples are fruit. Some apples are red. Therefore some fruit is red. Intuitively, one might deny the major premise or the conclusion; yet anyone accepting the premises accepts the conclusion. Deductive reasoning should be distinguished from the related concept of natural deduction, an approach to proof theory that attempts to provide a formal model of logical reasoning as it "naturally" occurs.

Answer 6

Inductive reasoning is when you look at examples of a thing and conclude that those examples represent the larger concept. For instance, if you look at ten horses and they are all black, you might conclude that all horses are black. Of course, that would be a fallacy. In theory, if you target your questions enough, you ought to get a general idea of the class. Polling uses this concept. If you look at a representative cross section of people (known as a sample) and ask them how they will vote, you should get a close estimate of how the entire group (known in polling as the universe) will vote.

Deduction involves taking known facts about the general population and applying it to a specific sample. For instance, if you know that all males have a Y chromosome, and you know John is a male, then you know that John has a Y chromosome. As long as your premises are right, your conclusion will be right. "All men love guns, John is a man, John must love guns." It's true, as long as the premises are true. Since it might not be true that all men love guns, the conclusion would be flawed.

Answer 7

Inductive - an argument that is intended to be strong rather than valid.
Deductive - an argument that is intended to be valid rather than strong

Answer 8

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/deductive.html

Answer 9

i dont know