INDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

by Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor | March 23, 2015 10:23pm ET

During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion.
Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, deductive reasoning and inductive
reasoning are confused. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that
proper logic can be identified.

Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction,
starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a
specific, logical conclusion, according to the University of California. The scientific method uses
deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based
on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations
should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific —
the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at
Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all
members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is
mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that
the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is
logical and true.

According to the University of California, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided
the premises are true. It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is
not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue.
For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is
a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.

A common form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which two statements — a major
premise and a minor premise — reach a logical conclusion. For example, the premise "Every A
is B" could be followed by another premise, "This C is A." Those statements would lead to the
conclusion "This C is B." Syllogisms are considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to
make sure the argument is valid.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 1 of 16
Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad
generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the
general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an
explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science there is a constant
interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based
on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not
ascertain with complete certainty."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion
to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all
grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

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.

Abductive reasoning
Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is
abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and
proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations, according to Butte
College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It
often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no
clear explanation.

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often
used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions
based on the evidence presented to them.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 2 of 16
Inductive Reasoning

Description
Inductive reasoning, or induction, is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a
general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations. In doing
so, it recognizes that conclusions may not be certain.
Inference can be done in four stages:
1. Observation: collect facts, without bias.
2. Analysis: classify the facts, identifying patterns of regularity.
3. Inference: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts.
4. Confirmation: Testing the inference through further observation.

In an argument, you might:

 Derive a general rule in an accepted area and then apply the rule in the area where you want
the person to behave.
 Give them lots of detail, then explain what it all means.
 Talk about the benefits of the parts and only get to the overall benefits later.
 Take what has happened and give a plausible explanation for why it has happened.

Inductive arguments can include:

 Part-to-whole: where the whole is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger).
 Extrapolations: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area.
 Predictions: where the future is assumed to be like the past.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 3 of 16
Example
Say this Not this

Look at how those people are

Those people are all mad.
behaving. They must be mad.

All of your friends are good. You can

Be good.
be good, too.

The base costs is XXX. The extras are It will cost YYY. This includes XXX for
XXX, plus tax at XXX. Overall, it is great base costs, XXX for extras and XXX for
deal at YYY. tax.

Heating was XXX, lighting was YYY,

We need to cut costs, as our
parts were ZZZ, which adds up to
expenditure is greater than our
NNN. Yet revenue was RRR. This
revenue.
means we must cut costs!

Discussion
Early proponents of induction, such as Francis Bacon, saw it as a way of understanding nature
in an unbiased way, as it derives laws from neutral observation.
Induction uses evidence more than logic when it says 'all these are true, so that should be true
too'. This can result in a more uncertain and probabilistic conclusion than the more contained
and certain deductive reasoning. Inductive arguments are hence always open to question as, by
definition, the conclusion is a bigger bag than the evidence on which it is based. This breadth
allows it to be used where deductive methods may not work, for example in prediction or
invention.
In argument, starting with the detail anchors your persuasion in reality, using immediate
sensory data of what can be seen and touched and then going to the big picture of ideas,
principles and general rules.
Starting from the small and building up to the big can be less threatening than starting with the
big stuff, which can make inductive arguments more persuasive as people may understand the
process better than a more clinical deduction.
Scientists create scientific laws by observing a number of phenomena, finding similarities and
deriving a law which explains all things. A good scientific law is highly generalized and may

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 4 of 16
 be applied in many situations to explain other phenomena. For example the law of gravity was
used to predict the movement of the planets. Of course when you find a law, you have to
spend ages proving it and convincing others that it is true.
In set theory, an inductively created rule is a superset of the members that are taken as the start
point. The only way to prove the rule is to identify all members of the set. This is often
impractical. It may, however, be possible to calculate the probability that the rule is true.
In this way, inductive arguments can be made to be more valid and probable by adding
evidence, although if this evidence is selectively chosen, it may falsely hide contrary evidence.
Inductive reasoning thus needs trust and demonstration of integrity more than deductive
reasoning. The clear danger with induction is that it is used to create 'proof' to support beliefs
rather than possibilities that facilitate exploration.
Inductive reasoning is also called Generalizing as it takes specific instances and creates a
general rule.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that

is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises

(assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive

argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if

the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in

which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid

argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.

Here is a valid deductive argument: It's sunny in Singapore. If it's sunny in Singapore, he won't

be carrying an umbrella. So, he won't be carrying an umbrella.

Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried

to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or

increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 5 of 16
only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false.

There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument. But its success or strength is a

matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. A deductive argument is valid or else invalid.

The difference between the two kinds of arguments does not lie solely in the words used; it

comes from the relationship 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

premisesdefinitely establishes the truth of the conclusion (due to definition, logical entailment,

logical structure, 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.

Some analysts prefer to distinguish inductive arguments from conductive arguments; the latter

are arguments giving explicit reasons for and against a conclusion, and requiring the evaluator

of the argument to weigh these considerations, i.e., to consider the pros and cons. This article

considers conductive arguments to be a kind of inductive argument.

The noun "deduction" refers to the process of advancing or establishing a deductive argument,

or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument.

"Induction" refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of

reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.

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, then the truth of the conclusion is said to be "contained within" the truth of the

premises; that is, 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. Here is a deductive argument:

John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend our meeting today. Therefore, John won't be able
to attend our meeting today.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 6 of 16
That argument is valid due to its logical structure. If 'ill' were replaced with 'happy', the

argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical structure (called modus

ponens). Here is the form of any argument having the structure of modus ponens:
P

If P then Q

So, Q

The capital letters stand for declarative sentences, or statements, or propositions. The

investigation of these logical forms is called Propositional Logic.

The question of whether all, or merely most, valid deductive arguments are valid because of

their structure is still controversial in the field of the philosophy of logic, but that question will

not be explored further in this article.

Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging forms. Inductive arguments might conclude

with some claim about a group based only on information from a sample of that group. Other

inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence or authority or causal

relationships. Here is a somewhat strong inductive argument based on authority:

The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

Here is an inductive argument based on evidence:

The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.

Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better evidence:

Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder. John's fingerprints are the only ones on
the murder weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed the murder.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 7 of 16
This last argument is no doubt good enough for a jury to convict John, but none of these three

arguments about John committing the murder is strong enough to be called valid. At least itt is

not valid in the technical sense of 'deductively valid'. However, some lawyers will tell their juries

that these are valid arguments, so we critical thinkers need to be on the alert as to how people

around us are using the term.

It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts improperly define "deduction" as reasoning

from the general to specific and define "induction" as reasoning from the specific to the general. These

definitions are outdated and inaccurate. For example, according to the more modern definitions

given above, the following argument from the specific to general is deductive, not inductive,

because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:

The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.

Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is

inductive:

It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.

Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.

It is worth noting that the proof technique used in mathematics called "mathematical

induction", is deductive and not inductive. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction

typically take the following form:

Property P is true of the number 0.

For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.

When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then

the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary

standards.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 8 of 16
Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of

evidence which the author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and

deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to

them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument.

Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument,

depending on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example:

Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.

It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the

Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of "champagne" and so the conclusion

follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of

this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the

speaker's mind. He or she may merely believe that nearly all champagne is made in France, and

may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive.

It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to

do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that

the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the

premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all.

Consider, the following argument:

All odd numbers are integers.

All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.

This argument is logically fallacious because it is invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no

support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we

must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 9 of 16
the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an

inductive argument.

Inductive Fallacies

Inductive reasoning uses a move from specific instances to general rules. Inductive
(or Generalization)fallacies fail due to breaking the rules of this form of reasoning.
 Composition: Generalizing from a few to the whole set.
 False Analogy: X has property Y. Z is like X. So Z has property Y.
 Hasty Generalization: Generalizing from too-small a sample.
 Misleading Vividness: a memorable few events prove high probability.

FORMAL FALLACIES

Formal Fallacy is a type of argument the logical form of which is

not validating, that is, there are arguments of that form that are not
valid. Formal Fallacy is the most general fallacy forfallacious arguments
that are not formally valid, and a given argument will usually commit a
more specific formal fallacy―see the Subfallacies, below. A given
fallacious argument would be classified as a Formal Fallacy only if it
could not be given a more specific classification. For this reason, there is
no Example of Formal Fallacy given; instead, see the Examples under
the Subfallacies.

In modern systems of formal logic there are usually an infinite number

of argument forms that are not validating. For this reason, to count as a
formal fallacy, a non-validating form of argument needs at least one of
the following additional characteristics:

 It is deceptive and likely to be committed, usually by having a

logical form that is similar to and liable to be confused with a
validating form of argument. The fallacies of propositional logic
are of this type.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 10 of 16
  It is part of a system of rules such that any argument of a type
which the rules can be applied to, and which commits no fallacy,
thereby breaks no rules. Syllogistic fallacies are of this type.
Exposure:

The distinction between a Formal and an Informal Fallacy is that a

formal fallacy is based solely on logical form, and an informal fallacy
takes into account the non-logical content of the argument. This roughly
parallels the distinction between deductive and non-deductive modes of
reasoning. Typically, formal fallacies are committed by deductive
arguments, whereas informal fallacies occur in arguments that could be
at best inductively strong. However, there are exceptions to this pattern,
for instance Begging the Question.
Source:

Robert Audi (General Editor), The Cambridge Dictionary of

Philosophy, 1995.

Formal and Informal Fallacies

by Harvey Bluedorn. Copyright 1995. All rights reserved.

Logical Fallacies
A fallacy is a defect in an argument which misleads the mind. The defect may be
intentional or unintentional. If the defect is intentional, we sometimes call it a sophism.
One’s understanding of fallacies may be used for good — in order to avoid or expose
error; or it may be used for evil — in order to subtly deceive.

Ethics of Fallacy Detection

Being mislead by another's reasoning may lead one to be persuaded to follow a foolish
and harmful course of action. As Christians are to be as wise as serpents, so they ought
to be aware of the false reasonings which are common to man ever since the initial
deception by the serpent in the garden. One should sense some moral obligation to be
aware of faulty reasonings in order to protect himself from the misleadings of others,
and to protect others from being mislead by himself. Above all, it is to the glory of God

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 11 of 16
that we reason correctly, for without correct reasoning we cannot understand His Word,
and without understanding we cannot fully and properly obey.

Detection of a fallacy in another's reasoning does not necessarily imply that it is proper
to point it out. One can become obnoxious and offensive if he continually picks apart
what others say. There are more gracious ways to avoid errors than simply pointing
them out frankly, candidly and bluntly. To be sure, there are times to be brutally
honest, but such times are less frequent than practiced. One's goal should be to win
another to sound reasoning, and winning another often involves more than naked
reason — it involves courtesy, consideration, and gentle coaxing. Also, one ought to
approach such matters with humility, for fallacy is a malady so common to man that it
is certain that the corrector himself is to be found at fault from time to time.

Formal Fallacies
A formal fallacy is one which involves an error in the form, arrangement or technical
structure of an argument. The question in view is not whether a conclusion is true or
false, but whether the form of the argument is correct or incorrect — valid or invalid.

The concluding statement of an argument may be objectively true, though the

argument is formally invalid; or the concluding statement may be objectively false,
though the argument is formally valid. Here are some examples:

Formally Valid Arguments:

1. True and Valid:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

2. False but Valid:

All men are green.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is green.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 12 of 16
Formally Invalid Arguments:

3. False and Invalid:

Some men are green.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is green.

4. True but Invalid:

Some men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

In example 2, the first statement is false, but the form or structure of the argument is
correct or valid. (If all men were green; then Socrates would be also.)

In examples 3 and 4, the first statement says something about some men, not about all
men. One could correctly reason from this first statement that Socrates might possibly
be green or mortal, but he could not correctly reason that Socrates necessarily is green
or mortal.

Formal fallacies are therefore invalid arguments — arguments where the concluding
statement does not necessarily follow from the statements preceding it. The concluding
statement may actually be objectively true, but it's truth does not depend on or follow
from the other statements.

A change in the actual terms used in an argument may affect the actual truth value of
the argument, but a change in terms will not affect the validity or invalidity of the
argument. All men including Socrates are truly mortal; but all men including Socrates
are not truly green. If all men were green, then Socrates would be also! But if only
some men were green, then Socrates would not necessarily be green.

Because the terms themselves do not affect validity, we can substitute symbols for the
terms.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 13 of 16
All men are mortal. All a are b.
Socrates is a man. c is a.
Therefore Socrates is mortal. Therefore c is b.

No matter what terms you may put in the place of a, b, and c, if all a are members of
the class called b, and c is a member of the class called a, the c must necessarily be a
member of the class called b.

Because there are only a small number of possible relationships between the terms,
these relationships can also be represented by symbols. When this is done, the whole
form of an argument can be written in symbols. This is called symbolic logic, which is a
special branch of the study of formal validity.

Informal Fallacies
Correct reasoning involves clear expression and valid form. Formal fallacies are a
matter of invalid form. Informal fallacies are a matter of unclear expression. Formal
fallacies deal with the logic of the technical structure, while informal fallacies deal with
the logic of the meaning of language. The word "informal" does not here mean it is
inferior, casual or improper. It only means that our focus is not on the form of the
argument, but on the meaning of the argument.

An informal fallacy involves such things as: the misuse of language — words or
grammar, misstatements of fact or opinion, misconceptions due to underlying
presuppositions, or just plain illogical sequences of thought.

We encounter both formal and informal fallacies every day, but unlike formal fallacies,
we cannot reduce informal fallacies to symbolic formulas. We can, however, compile a
list of characteristic profiles of informal fallacies, and arrange them into general
categories.

I. Informal Fallacies of Ambiguity

The first general category of informal fallacies we will examine is that which involves
the imprecise use of language. Each language has its own "logic" — the way the written
symbols or the spoken symbols are arranged to convey certain meanings. When a word

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 14 of 16
or an expression is used in an imprecise manner, a door is opened for a
misunderstanding — a fallacy.

A. Equivocation

A word may have more than one distinguishable meaning. An argument may be
constructed around the ambiguity of the meaning of that word. If you use one meaning
of the word in a premise; then another meaning of the word in another premise, or in
the conclusion, you may appear to have proved something.

Example:
Logic teaches you how to argue.
People argue entirely too much.
Therefore we don't need to teach people Logic.

In this "argument" the word "argue" is used in two entirely different senses. In the first
line, the word "argue" is used to mean only the process of arranging propositions to
flow logically from a premise to a conclusion. In the second line, the word "argue" is
used to include such meanings as a heated discussion, a bitter disagreement, a
contentious altercation, a dispute or a controversy. A logical argument may sometimes
lead to a dispute, or it may sometimes settle a dispute; but there is no necessary
connection between teaching logical argument and encouraging people to bitterly
argue.

Often a person does not recognize that he is using a term in two senses because the
two senses are often very close — yet distinguishable. A gracious way to approach
someone whom you think has equivocated is to ask him to define his use of the word in
each proposition. If he does not recognize any difference, you may point out the
differences — often subtle — which you notice. If he still does not catch on, you may
wish to offer an example of your own equivocation in order to humble yourself and
thereby disarm any "defense" mechanism which may be kicking in and blinding him.
Another possibility which you must consider is that you have invented the equivocation
in your mind — it is not real. If you are still satisfied that he has equivocated, you must
determine whether the conversation can continue around the point, possibly returning
later to the point after other things have been discussed and clarified.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 15 of 16
B. Amphibology or Semantic and Syntactic Ambiguity

A variation on the above is when a word, phrase or grammatical construction is used

which can be understood more than one way.

 Example: Lots for sale. (Semantic Ambiguity: Allotments of land or numerous

things?)
 Example: Laurie calls her mother when she's alone. (Syntactic Ambiguity: Who is
alone, Laurie or her mother?)

A Semantic Ambiguity can be removed by defining the ambiguous word or by offering a

synonym. A Syntactic Ambiguity can be removed by reconstructing the sentence.

Some Amphibologies may be deliberate.

 Example: "What I have written, I have written." (John 19:22)

Pilate states a fact, that he had written the inscription of condemnation on the cross;
then he declares his intention, that he was not going to change the inscription.

The www.christianlogic.com has more on logic.

LAFD/M11/LT&L Page 16 of 16