Inductive is arriving to a conclusion based on specific examples. E.g. I put my hand in fire and it hurt.

I did it again the next day. I did it again the next day. Each time it hurt. Now I can make the conclusion that fire hurts based on these examples. Deduction is reasoning to a conclusion from stated premises. E.g. All men are mortal (premise), Bob is a man (second premise) Conclusion: Bob is a mortal

Scientists use both inductive and deductive reasoning to learn about nature. In inductive reasoning, one uses observations and the results of experiments to make generalizations about how nature works. These generalizations lead to new theories or new elaborations on a theory. In deductive reasoning, existing theories are subjected to rational consideration to produce logical consequences of the theory. These consequences may lead to new theories .and predictions that can be tested through experiment

This leads directly in to the area of theory and, by extension, hypotheses and deductive reasoning vs description, and also by extension, inductive reasoning. The qualitative camp state that data collected can only describe the situation as it is and that no theories can be developed. Where then does this leave the branch of qualitative research called Grounded Theory, whereby theories are developed based on the data collected?16 From the quantitative camp the argument goes that first you need to have a theory and from that develop a hypothesis that is to be tested. Yet there are examples of where this is not so. If you look at surveys, a quantitative technique, there is no need for a hypothesis or a theory the point of a survey is to find out information and not to test a hypothesis.17 Both sides use a combination of induction and deductive reasoning. In fact, it is not too difficult to see that induction and deduction are parts of the same process (Figure 1).18 For example, in epidemiology diseases are observed, patterns of disease are detected, tentative hypotheses are postulated about the underlying cause or causes, and theories of the disease are formulated: all inductive reasoning. From there, the theory is tested based on exposure and non-exposure, results are observed, and the theory of the disease is rejected or not rejected: all this is deductive. So why should there be a limit to our understanding based on to one type of reasoning over the other?

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations of individual instances of members of the same class. Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning in that a general conclusion is arrived at by specific examples. Definition of Inductive Reasoning

However, philosophically the definition is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular / individual instances to wider generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to individual instances. Though many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, this usage is outdated.[1] [edit]Examples of Inductive Reasoning This is an example of inductive reasoning: 90% of humans are right-handed. Joe is a human. Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90%. (See section on Statistical syllogism.)

Probability is employed, for example, in the following argument: Every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist. All life depends on liquid water to exist. However, induction is employed in the following argument: Every life form that everyone knows of depends on liquid water to exist. Therefore, all known life depends on liquid water to exist. [edit]Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion be false, even where all of the premises are true.[2] The previous deduction was a false assertion of inductive reasoning based on the weak inductive conjecture of John Vickers. His example is as follows: All of the swans we have seen are white. All swans are white. The previous statement is an example of probabilistic reasoning, which is a weak type of induction. It is not an example of Strong Inductive Reasoning. A proper example of inductive reasoning is as follows: All of the swans that all living beings have ever seen are white Therefore, all swans are white. Note that this definition of inductive reasoning excludes mathematical induction, which is considered to be a form of deductive reasoning.

Types of inductive reasoning

[edit]Generalization A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization) proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population. The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A. Therefore: The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.

Example There are 20 balls--either black or white--in an urn. To estimate their respective numbers, you draw a sample of four balls and find that three are black and one is white. A good inductive generalization would be that there are 15 black, and five white, balls in the urn. How much the premises support the conclusion depends upon (a) the number in the sample group compared to the number in the population and (b) the degree to which the sample represents the population (which may be achieved by taking a random sample). The hasty generalization and the biased sample are generalization fallacies. [edit]Statistical syllogism Main article: Statistical syllogism A statistical syllogism proceeds from a generalization to a conclusion about an individual. A proportion Q of population P has attribute A. An individual X is a member of P. Therefore: There is a probability which corresponds to Q that X has A. The proportion in the first premise would be something like "3/5ths of", "all", "few", etc. Two dicto simpliciter fallacies can occur in statistical syllogisms: "accident" and "converse accident". [edit]Simple induction Simple induction proceeds from a premise about a sample group to a conclusion about another individual. Proportion Q of the known instances of population P has attribute A. Individual I is another member of P. Therefore: There is a probability corresponding to Q that I has A. This is a combination of a generalization and a statistical syllogism, where the conclusion of the generalization is also the first premise of the statistical syllogism. [edit]Argument from analogy Main article: Argument from Analogy The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis infering that they also share some further property:[8]

P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c. Object P has been observed to have further property x. Therefore, Q probably has property x also. Analogical reasoning is very frequent in common sense, science, philosophy and the humanities, but sometimes it is accepted only as an auxiliary method. A refined approach is case-based reasoning. For more information on inferences by analogy, see Juthe, 2005. [edit]Causal inference A causal inference draws a conclusion about a causal connection based on the conditions of the occurrence of an effect. Premises about the correlation of two things can indicate a causal relationship between them, but additional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact form of the causal relationship. [edit]Prediction A prediction draws a conclusion about a future individual from a past sample. Proportion Q of observed members of group G have had attribute A. Therefore: There is a probability corresponding to Q that other members of group G will have attribute A when next observed.