Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the ...
For example, one might argue that it is valid to use inductive inference in the future because this type of reasoning has yielded accurate results in the past. However, this argument relies on an inductive premise itself—that past observations of induction being valid will mean that future observations of induction will also be valid.
The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle, [3] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy. [citation needed]
Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. [ 1 ]
It is divided into formal and informal logic, which study formal and informal logical reasoning. [8] [9] [10] Traditionally, logical reasoning was primarily associated with deductive reasoning studied by formal logic. [11] But in a wider sense, it also includes forms of non-deductive reasoning, such as inductive, abductive, and analogical ...
For example, given that the military budget of the United States is the largest in the world (premise=true), then it is probable that it will remain so for the next 10 years (conclusion=true). Arguments that involve predictions are inductive since the future is uncertain. An inductive argument is said to be strong or weak.
It is noted that no law of science can be considered mere inductive generalization of facts because each law does not exist in isolation. [8] This is for, instance, demonstrated by thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, who maintained that inductionism is the initial act in the formulation of a general law using the deductive approaches to science. [9]
Francis Bacon, articulating inductivism in England, is often falsely stereotyped as a naive inductivist. [11] [12] Crudely explained, the "Baconian model" advises to observe nature, propose a modest law that generalizes an observed pattern, confirm it by many observations, venture a modestly broader law, and confirm that, too, by many more observations, while discarding disconfirmed laws. [13]