This is paranoia. He’s not rejecting you for personal reasons. It’s because you’re not making any sense. The question remains whether, if what you said isn’t what you meant, what you meant makes any sense.
I think it is easy to see why we CAN make the general claim! An Inductive conclusion is not correct because of the exquisite nature of its analysis… it SEEMS correct until a perfectly plausible exception is discovered.
On contrast, if i make a study with lab rats having identical genomes testing chemical “A” vs chemical “B”… and i make no changes to the chemicals or the genome or the rats’ environment … if i show there is a 20% difference in blood results every time I do the experiment, deductive reasoning says the same factors will ALWAYS produce a 20% difference!
I suggest you learn the meaning of “deductive reasoning” and stop embarrassing yourself here. That there is NOT an example of deduction, but of induction.
2 Likes
And if he were to put it in the form of a deductive argument, the premise that would entail the conclusion would simply beg the question. So it would solve nothing.
1 Like
What if that exception is discovered through inductive reasoning?
From what I can see, that is still inductive reasoning. You are using a small sample of a larger population to make conclusions about the larger population.
In fact, it is exactly this type of experiment that gave birth to many of the statistical models used in science for the purposes of inductive reasoning. Specifically, what is the probability that a random sampling of a single normally distributed population will give you two separated populations that have those specific means and deviation? In other words, what are the chances that you got a false positive?
Oh? If you can prove what you are saying, I will accept the correction.
So… you can produce a link showing the distinction?
It has to show BOTH sides: inductive vs deductive!!!
Discovery is not the issue. Einstein used flights of imagination to DISCOVER. But a flash of inspiration is not the issue I am bringing up!!!
AFFIRMATION is the issue.
@Rumraket
So to you there is NO useful difference?
If we cant master these key differences … we can go no further…or at least YOU cant.
In the case of Einstein, affirmation of his ideas came through inductive reasoning. One of the most recent examples is the inferred detection of gravity waves in the experiments being run at the LIGO stations.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:49, topic:9775”]In the case of Einstein, affirmation of his ideas came through inductive reasoning. One of the most recent examples is the inferred detection of gravity waves in the experiments being run at the LIGO stations.
[/quote]
You are playing word games.
I am dealing with the relative merits of DEDUCTION VS INDUCTION.
I accept your position that Induction has done many great things. If you would focus on my specific issue, I would be less likely to think you are simply trying to de-rail the discussion.
Sure.
From that link:
Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
That is pretty much what I said earlier. The problem with ID is that it never gets to that second step because its induction stops before it theorises about the identity of the Designer. As a consequence there is nothing to start making deductions from, and it will not make progress. It is sterile.
1 Like
When I look at the relative merits of deductive and inductive logic I also consider availability. Humans are limited beings which means we have limited knowledge. In order to make a deductive argument we need complete omniscient knowledge of a process throughout time and space, and that just isn’t available to us. At best, we can agree upon unprovable premises and stumble forward from those.
We can use deductive logic to make predictions from our hypotheses. However, we use inductive logic to test the accuracy of those hypotheses. That’s the big difference.
Excellent video on Deduction vs Induction! It should be mandatory viewing for this blog!!!
This quote also comes from the link:
“During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, people confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, and vice versa. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified.”
In the video’s example for Deduction, it talks about spiders and requires that the initial hypothesis must be true.
In my example of lab work where repetitive experimentation establishes the TRUTH that given unchanging lab variables, there is a consistent 20% difference in blood work produced by chemical A vs chemical B… this becomes the TRUE Hypothesis.
INDUCTIONS can be further made based on the lab work… but they will only be guesses a out truth… and not the underlying TRUTH that my lab work example has discovered.
Well, I tried.
1 Like
You are using inductive logic.
He’s been told already.
Googling around on this topic, I have encountered some authors who maintain that all premises in a given deductive syllogism must ultimately reduce to induction, whatever can be said of the validity of the argument. Basically, induction is how we grow from babies and is the basis for all categories. Would you agree?
1 Like
All you seem to be trying is to deflect the point: that deductive reasoning is more conclusive than inductive !
I would agree IFFFF… if you agree there IS a meaningful difference between inductive reasoning that never attains deductive status, and inductions that do!