The roots of our tree of knowledge are inductive reasoning, the branches are deductive.
Bookmark
“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.”
Suppose “Harold” is a transgender?
Ping for later
#TechnicalCorrectnessMatters
Racist.
Inductive reasoning is data driven, and is often the focus of machine learning. You are looking for patterns in data that can be translated into effective rules. Deductive is looking at facts/evidence (which probably don’t have a pattern) and drawing conclusions. Of the two, deductive requires more imagination (IMHO).
"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."
The exception, as you pointed out, is global warming where the science is "settled" and the premise is beyond contestation in spite of the fact that in forty years it has failed to accurately predict a single event or condition even ONCE!!!
1. No mayten tree is deciduous, and all nondeciduous trees are evergreens. It follows that all mayten trees are evergreens.
A) Inductive
B) Deductive
2. Mike must belong to the Bartenders and Beverage Union Local 165, since almost every Los Vegas bartender does.
A) Inductive
B) Deductive
3. Either Colonel Mustard or Reverend Green killed Professor Plum. But whoever ran off with Mrs. White did not kill the professor. Since Reverend Green ran off with Mrs. White, Colonel Mustard killed Professor Plum.
A) Inductive
B) Deductive
4. I’ve never met a golden retriever with a nasty disposition. I bet there aren’t any.
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
5. Since some grapes are purple, and all grapes are fruit, some fruit is purple.
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
6. Why is Sarah so mean to Janice? The only thing I can think of is that she’s jealous. Jealousy is what’s making her mean.
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
7. Obama will make a fine president. After all, he made a fine senator.
A) Inductive
B) Deductive
8. The figure he drew has only three sides, so it isn’t a square.
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
9. It was the pizza that made my stomach churn. What else could it be? I was fine until I ate it.
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
10. It’s wrong to hurt someone’s feelings, and that is exactly what you are doing when you speak to me like that.
A) Deductive
B) Inductive
If you’re stumped on any of these, answers are provided here:
https://www.thatquiz.org/tq/previewtest?F/Z/J/V/O3UL1355243858
Boy sees girl.
Boy uses Inductive Method. [This girl is beautiful]
Girl sees boy seeing her.
Girl uses Deductive Method. [All men are slobs.]
Boy uses Seductive method.
Boy and Girl lose Critique of Pure Reason.
For example, if you can prove that something is true for 1, and is also true for n + 1, then you can show it is true for all positive integers. Even though this is incorrectly called an 'inductive proof', it is really pure deduction.
Induction also goes by the name of empirical. Because induction depends on what is observed it can never prove anything conclusively. No matter how many white swans you see, you can never be certain that there isn't a black swan hanging out in some pond you've never had a chance to visit.
That's why Newton could later be refuted by Einstein even though Newton's Laws are a pretty darn good approximation for everything much larger than atoms, and all of the evidence prior to the 20th century validated Newton's claims.
Also why Aristotle's Law that F = mv was a pretty good approximation at a time when most common surfaces had lots of friction.
>>Of course very little of this applies to the bogus ‘science’ of man-made global warming. There the rules of scientific reasoning fly out the window. <<
AGW is an example of Investment Reasoning.
The definition of Investment Reasoning is: If enough money is invested in a certain outcome of a series of theories, scientists will do all they can to arrive at that outcome.
This also known as the “draw your lines then plot your points” approach.
Deductive reasoning test with figures
Test your IQ with this deductive reasoning test using Latin squares. Use your logical reasoning skills to fill the missing cells of the Latin square.
https://www.123test.com/deductive-reasoning-test-figures/
So what sort of reasoning is “I get grant money for researching global warming, therefore global warming is real”.
Guess the author (if you can read the whole thing)
Quote:
Apparently, our discussion which took place a long time ago, and which, as I was pleased to learn, has not been forgotten by you, has nevertheless not cleared up this matter in your mind. I will attempt to do so now, in writing, which imposes both brevity and other limitations. I trust, however, that the following remarks will serve our purpose.
Basically the problem has its roots in a misconception of the scientific method or, simply, of what science is. We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative science, dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Scientific speculation is actually a terminological incongruity; for science, strictly speaking, means knowledge, while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At best, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown. Here science has two general methods of inference;
(a) The method of interpolation (as distinguished from extrapolation), whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer what the reaction might be at any point between the two.
(b) The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 0 to 100, and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 101, 200, or 2000.
Of the two methods, the second (extrapolation) is clearly the more uncertain. Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance away from the known range and with the decrease of this range. Thus, if the known range is between 0 and 100, our inference at 101 has a greater probability than at 1001.
Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent.
That an inference from consequent to antecedent is more speculative than an inference from antecedent to consequent can be demonstrated very simply:
Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the divided and divisor, and the consequent - by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case, gives us one possible result - the quotient (the number 2).
However, if we know only the end result, namely, the number 2, and we ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number 2, The answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods: (a) 1 plus 1 equals 2; (b) 4-2 equals 2; (c) 1 x 2 equals 2; (d) 4 2 equals 2. Note that if other numbers are to come into play, the number of possibilities giving us the same result is infinite (since 5 - 3 also equals 2; 6 3 equals 2 etc. ad infinitum).
Add to this another difficulty, which is prevalent in all methods of induction. Conclusions based on certain known data, when they are ampliative in nature, i.e. when they are extended to unknown areas, can have any validity at all on the assumption of everything else being equal, that is to say on an identity of prevailing conditions, and their action and counter-action upon each other. If we cannot be sure that the variations or changes would bear at least a close relationship to the existing variables in degree; if we cannot be sure that the changes would bear any resemblance in kind; if, furthermore, we cannot be sure that there were not other factors involved - such conclusions of inferences are absolutely valueless!
For further illustration, I will refer to one of the points which I believe I mentioned during our conversation. In a chemical reaction, whether fissional or fusional, the introduction of a new catalyzer into the process, however minute the quantity of this new catalyzer may be, may change the whole tempo and form of the chemical process, or start an entirely new process.
We are not yet through with the difficulties inherent in all so-called scientific theories concerning the origin of the world. Let us remember that the whole structure of science is based on observances of reactions and processes in the behavior of atoms in their present state, as they now exist in nature. Scientists deal with conglomerations of billions of atoms as these are already bound together, and as these relate to other existing conglomerations of atoms. Scientists know very little of the atoms in their pristine state; of how one single atom may react on another single atom in a state of separateness; much less of how parts of a single atom may react on other parts of the same or other atoms. One thing science considers certain - to the extent that any science can be certain, namely that the reactions of single atoms upon each other is totally different from the reactions of one conglomeration of atoms to another.
We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:
(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.
(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!
(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the birth of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.
(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.
(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.
In short, of all the weak scientific theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.
It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various scientific theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.
If anyone accepts such a theory uncritically, it can only lead him into fallacious and inconsequential reasoning. Consider, for example, the so-called evolutionary theory of the origin of the world, which is based on the assumption that the universe evolved out of existing atomic and subatomic particles which, by an evolutionary process, combined to form the physical universe and our planet, on which organic life somehow developed also by an evolutionary process, until homo-sapiens emerged. It is hard to understand why one should readily accept the creation of atomic and subatomic particles in a state which is admittedly unknowable and inconceivable, yet should be reluctant to accept the creation of planets, or organisms, or a human being, as we know these to exist.
End Quote
Argumentum ad Baculum Squidium Magnus: Fallacy of Fear of Giant Squid.
Consists of an emotional appeal and/or a threat of force involving a giant squid; this fallacy typically involves said squid falling from the sky. Also known as Secundum Squid.
Examples:
“I would love to get a driver’s license, but I don’t want to risk having a giant squid fall on me in the middle of the test.”
“You’re so obsessed with people starving in Africa. What about those poor people in Quebec? Why, a giant squid could gobble them up at any moment!”
Major Premise: All cows eat grass.
Minor Premise: Betsy is a cow.
Conclusion: However, due to the giant squid, Betsy actually does not eat grass.
Not so. “If I whore myself and suck Fascist schlong, The Won will give me grant money!”