Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Inductive reasoning is a form of argument that—in contrast to deductive reasoning—allows for the possibility that a conclusion can be false, even if all of the premises are true. [39] This difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is reflected in the terminology used to describe deductive and inductive arguments.
While deductive logic allows one to arrive at a conclusion with certainty, inductive logic can only provide a conclusion that is probably true. [non-primary source needed] It is mistaken to frame the difference between deductive and inductive logic as one between general to specific reasoning and specific to general reasoning. This is a common ...
Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with inductive reasoning, in regards to validity and soundness. In cases of inductive reasoning, even though the premises are true and the argument is “valid”, it is possible for the conclusion to be false (determined to be false with a counterexample or other means).
Deductive reasoning; Inductive reasoning; Validity (logic) Cogency (disambiguation) This page was last edited on 21 May 2020, at 12:06 (UTC). Text is available under ...
The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle, [3] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy. [citation needed]
Non-deductive reasoning is an important form of logical reasoning besides deductive reasoning. It happens in the form of inferences drawn from premises to reach and support a conclusion, just like its deductive counterpart. The hallmark of non-deductive reasoning is that this support is fallible.
Deductive reasoning is the building of knowledge based on what has been shown to be true before. It requires the assumption of fact established prior, and, given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Inductive reasoning builds knowledge not from established truth, but from a body of observations.
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 ...