Reasoning with Faith, Religion, and Atheism…Inductive Reasoning vs. Deductive Reasoning (Part 8)

Go to Main Menu or Start at the Introductory Page

Inductive Reasoning Vs. Deductive Reasoning

Logic, Reasoning, and Rationality are the entire basis for our thought process.  It is where we rightly divide our epistemology for knowledge & truth.  It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true; false; sometimes true; or partly true. By properly learning about the subsets of reasons one could avoid fallacious arguments and faulty reason.

Φ-(I.E. Fallacious reasoning is an error in reasoning that occurs due to a problem in mere structure of the argument.  Informal fallacies of reasoning contain a fundamental disconnect between the premises and the conclusion that renders the argument invalid. This disconnect often stems from the presence of a hidden co-premise that, if presented and in coherent sub-arguments the lack of validity and definition.
Φ-A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion.  A deductive argument claims that its premises make its conclusion certain. ).
Φ-An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In contrast, an inductive argument claims that its premises merely make its conclusion probable.)

In forwardness logic and reasoning is very much divided into two main groups:  inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

Deductive Reasoning & Argumentation

Let us first consider deductive logic.  Deductive arguments are based upon the concept of sound and consistent reasoning.  If the premises are true with valid systematic reasoning than the syllogism is considered successful in deductive argument in making its conclusion certain with logical validity.  It is the most scientific & logical method for proving something true, cause it takes the approach with a hypothesis/premises, and proves it true with reasonable deductive argumentation.  The idea of deductive reasoning is that in argumentation that one comes to a conclusion of a premise, they should do so using pure logic that holistically validates the proposition to be certain without flaw and fallacious logic.  According to this form of reasoning and argumentation, one should and always come to a consistent and logical conclusion.    

Inductive Reasoning & Argumentation

Inductive logic is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from a particular set of cases or observations. It must be understood that inductive arguments do not try to establish their conclusions through certainty. Instead, an inductive argument claims that its premises make the conclusion mostly probable based off samples, cases, experiments, and observations.  (Some very solid theory were conceived in induction, like the Theory of Gravity.)   Nonetheless, even when the premises are valid and provide very strong support for the conclusion, the conclusion is not always considered certain.  Just most probable based off the valid premises.   In inductive reasoning there is not always an apparent and fluid logical movement from premise to conclusion.  The correlation of samples does not conclude a definite and absolute causation.  In summary, the strongest inductive argument is not as well structured as a sound deductive argument.  This is what separates scientific theories from scientific proofs.

Basic Lesson on Inductive vs Deductive: 

This is what the differences are between the two main forms of reasoning.

*In dealing with both Deduction and Induction a simplistic definition is described as follows: A deductive argument claims that if its premises are true, its conclusion also must be true. An inductive argument claims that if its premises are true, its conclusion is most probably true. 

Critical thinking is the process of systematic process of deeply pondering over the question and assumption.  And rational logic is often divided into two main parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. However there is a third hybrid part that everyone should take into consideration and that is Abductive Reasoning.  Abductive is a kind of a hybrid between the two to find the most likely and probable answer.  While it still using both inductive & deductive logic to a certain degree.  It’s almost like a logical compromise between two to find the most probable answer, when pure deductive reasoning lacks the ability too.  Using critical thinking and rationality is the optimal ability of all three forms of reasoning to rightly divide on when to use, inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning. 

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, logic, reasoning and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Reasoning with Faith, Religion, and Atheism…Inductive Reasoning vs. Deductive Reasoning (Part 8)

  1. exrelayman says:

    Of course abductive reasoning is the least powerful form of reasoning. At wikipedea, abductive reasoning was said to be exactly the same thing as the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

  2. Marnie says:

    Can I just say what a relief to search out someone who really is aware of what theyre speaking about on the internet. You positively know the right way to bring an issue to gentle and make it important. More individuals must read this and perceive this facet of the story. I cant consider youre no more popular since you positively have the gift.

  3. Pingback: Reasoning with Faith, Religion, and Atheism…Introduction to Reasoning (Part 1) | The BitterSweet End

  4. It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don’t arrive at new information – at best, we are shown information which was obscured or unrecognized previously. Thus, the sure truth-preserving nature of deductive arguments comes at a cost.

  5. Pingback: What are the Different Types of Reasoning? | The BitterSweet End

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s