Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
inductive argument An argument that provides probable support for its conclusion, as opposed to deductive arguments which provide conclusive support. inductive proof A proof method used in mathematics to prove statements about all natural numbers or other well-ordered sets, based on the principle of induction. inductive step
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] Inductive reasoning is in contrast to 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 conclusion of an inductive ...
Non-deductive arguments make their conclusion probable but do not ensure that it is true. An example is the inductive argument from the empirical observation that "all ravens I have seen so far are black" to the conclusion "all ravens are black". [36] A further approach is to define informal logic as the study of informal fallacies. [37]
Arguments that involve predictions are inductive since the future is uncertain. An inductive argument is said to be strong or weak. If the premises of an inductive argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true? If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak. A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true ...
For example, when predicting how a person will react to a situation, inductive reasoning can be employed based on how the person reacted previously in similar circumstances. It plays an equally central role in the sciences , which often start with many particular observations and then apply the process of generalization to arrive at a universal ...
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno observe that Bacon shuns "knowledge that tendeth but to satisfaction" in favor of effective procedures. [12] While the Baconian method disparages idols of the mind, its requirement for effective procedures compels it to adopt a credulous, submissive stance toward worldly power. [irrelevant citation]
This example looks like the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent ("If A is true then B is also true, and B is true, so A must be true"), but in this example the material conditional logical connective ("A implies B") in the formal fallacy does not account for exactly why the semantic relation between premises and conclusion in the example ...
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.