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] 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 ...
Unlike many other forms of syllogism, a statistical syllogism is inductive, so when evaluating this kind of argument it is important to consider how strong or weak it is, along with the other rules of induction (as opposed to deduction). In the above example, if 99% of people are taller than 26 inches, then the probability of the conclusion ...
The military budget argument example is a strong, cogent argument. Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-deductive logic include the statistical syllogism, which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction, a form
Synonym of mathematical induction. 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 reasoning commences with an assumption based on faithful data, leading to a generalised conclusion. For example, ‘All the swans I have seen are white. (Premise) Therefore all swans are white. (Conclusion)’. [15] It is clear that the conclusion is incorrect, therefore, it is a weak argument.
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 ]
But even arguments that are not deductively valid may still be good arguments because their premises offer non-deductive support to their conclusions. For such cases, the term ampliative or inductive reasoning is used. [63] Deductive arguments are associated with formal logic in contrast to the relation between ampliative arguments and informal ...
Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc.