Inductive/Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments.

Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never true or false. An example of a deductive argument: 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal The first premise states that all objects classified as 'men' have the attribute 'mortal'. The second premise states that 'Socrates' is classified as a man- a member of the set 'men'. The conclusion states that 'Socrates' must be mortal because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a man. Deductive arguments are generally evaluated in terms of their validity and soundness. An argument is valid if it is impossible both for its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. An argument can be valid even though the premises are false. This is an example of a valid argument. The first premise is false, yet the conclusion is still valid. 1. Everyone who eats steak is a quarterback. 2. John eats steak. 3. Therefore, John is a quarterback. This argument is valid but not sound. For a deductive argument to be considered sound the argument must not only be valid, but the premises must be true as well. Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument: All of the ice we have examined so far is cold. Therefore, all ice is cold. The words 'strong' and 'weak' are sometimes used to praise or demean the goodness of an inductive argument. The idea is that you say "this is an example of strong induction" when you would decide to believe the conclusion if presented with the premises. Alternatively, you say "that is weak induction" when your particular world view does not allow you to see that the conclusions are likely given the premises. Strong induction All observed crows are black. Therefore: All crows are black.

The conclusion of this argument is not certain. Though all crows that we have observed are black, it is logically possible that there is a white crow. However, though the conclusion is not certain given the premises, it is nevertheless highly likely. We have very good reason to accept it, though it is not indefeasible. So we call this argument an instance of strong induction. Weak induction Consider this example: I always hang pictures on nails. Therefore: All pictures hang from nails. Here, the link between the premise and the conclusion is very weak. Not only is it possible for the conclusion to be false given the premise, it is even very likely that the conclusion is false. Not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are hung. Thus we say that this argument is an instance of weak induction. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example: Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too. Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down. Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball. As you can see, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively. Even so, it is important to recognize whether the form of an argument is inductive or deductive, because each requires different sorts of support. Adham's inductive argument, above, is supported by his previous observations, while Rizik's deductive argument is supported by his reference to the law of gravity. Thus, Adham could provide additional support by detailing those observations, without any recourse to books or theories of physics, while Rizik could provide additional support by discussing Newton's law, even if Rizik himself had never seen a ball kicked.