## Inductive Reasoning vs. Deductive Reasoning

• 23
What do you guys think of inductive reasoning vs. deductive reasoning?

I found inductive reasoning to the extreme, in my experience, to be far superior when doing scientific work on my spare time; whereas deductive reasoning to the extreme seemed far superior when I wanted to come up with philosophical ideas.
• 4.2k
I found inductive reasoning to the extreme, in my experience, to be far superior when doing scientific work on my spare time; whereas deductive reasoning to the extreme seemed far superior when I wanted to come up with philosophical ideas.

It's not a matter of preference. You need them both in order to do anything, at least anything scientific.
• 3.8k
Inductive reasoning is probabilistic (<100%) but deductive reasoning is certain (100%).

Inductive reasoning example:

1. X% of Indians are good at martial arts
2. Rajesh is an Indian
Therefore,
3. Rajesh is good at martial arts

As the value of X changes from 0 to 100 the inductive argument gets stronger until, when X = 100, the argument becomes deductive.

You could say, in that sense, inductive arguments are poor cousins of deductive arguments.
• 23
I understand that but it has worked for me that way. I am not talking about facts I am talking about personal preference.
• 23
In terms of truth deductive arguments are more certain but I found inductive arguments to be more useful in terms of science. It is just a personal preference tho, not the facts.
• 23
But I hear you. You can use them both depending on the situation.
• 40
"Personal preference" is a deeply unscientific frame of mind, Joseph. You use the method which is most appropriate to the context, as determined by scientific principle.
• 98
Naive inductive reasoning has many epistemic problems with it but probabilistic induction one has the bread and butter of much of Science and the seed of statistical play and inferences.

Deductive Reasoning is just necessary, and the logical syllogisms providing they undergo an ostensibility test and are examined at for faulty or unsupported premises seem fine... In that, even the epistemological uncertainty and examination of these premises for validity and soundness will usually rely on a broader understanding of the world.

In the real world though I think most favor abductive reasoning over deductive reasoning. As deductive reasoning or its limitation very much depends on a consensus of validity and soundness. One only needs to consider intelligent design or debates on gods existence to see why abduction would be preferred in secular spaces.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
tweet

#### Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.