CourseLover
$10/per page/Negotiable
Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze
things in as much detail as you can. Reply to each response below separately Angel Gaillard
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Week 3 Discussion 2
A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but, the conclusion false. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
A inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. The conclusion follows probably from the premises.
Deductive arguments are different than inductive arguments in the following four ways:
1. Inductive arguments cannot be false. Inductive arguments must be valid for a connection, one of which in the case of all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be as well. An inductive argument is
constructed in such a way for example: All birds are ducks, Uncle Scrooge is a duck,
Therefore, Uncle Scrooge is a bird.
1. Deductive arguments lean towards the premise of an argument. Deductive arguments have false conclusions unlike inductive arguments, that supports several reasoning regarding a conclusion that can be found in the strength of an argument.
1. Inductive arguments make up generalizations from specific observations. When dealing with an inductive argument, the individual can make many observations and infer an explanation of a theory. For example: Most birds can fly, Uncle Scrooge is a bird. Therefore, Uncle Scrooge can fly. In this, it is probable that the conclusion is true, but not certain. 1. Deductive arguments are used by rationalist and are mostly used in the field of mathematics. Deductive arguments are different from inductive arguments because they can be described as the basic forms of reasoning. There are so many types of deductive arguments where an individual can take up a theory when using this type of argument. Deductive arguments use reason rather than experience, and provide certainly rather than probability.
Which of the 4 differences between inductive and deductive reasoning is most
confusing?
I think that #2 and # 4 is most confusing because I am still trying to understand how the premises can both be true but, the conclusion remains false. In a deductive argument, I find it to be somewhat confusing because, it seems to me that it truly isn't an argument but a statement of fact supporting a conclusion. I am slowly grasping my head around the differences between them both as we go on in this class. Reference:
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zuniga Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to critical thinking. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Reply Reply to Comment Emily Wood
WednesdaySep 6 at 10:18pm
Manage Discussion Entry
Deductive arguments are different than inductive arguments in the following four ways:
(1) They are typically more structured.
The formatting of deductive arguments is more rigid and structured than inductive arguments. While there are various types of deductive and inductive arguments, inductive arguments provide a few more pathways to present an argument utilizing more common and slightly less structured approaches (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). For example, one way to utilize inductive reasoning is through analogies. This allows connection to information one would already be familiar with. (2) Deductive arguments try to be valid, while inductive arguments are not trying to prove absolute truth.
While both deductive and inductive arguments work to link the premises to the conclusion, the deductive argument is trying to be valid (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). The inductive argument is not trying to prove its absolute truth, but rather make strong connections and inferences.
(3) Deductive arguments can be sound, while inductive arguments can be cogent
Deductive arguments can be sound by having a standard format and each of the premises being true (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). With the connection between the premise and the conclusion proving validity, adding the proof to truth to each of the premises assures soundness. To link truth to the conclusion in an inductive argument, similar concepts are in play, yet the terminology is different. The
similar term for soundness from a deductive argument is cogent in an inductive argument.
(4) Formatting, not necessarily truth in information, can provide a valid argument in deductive arguments.
Standard form can be utilized in deductive arguments to show valid logic, even if the information is not necessarily accurate or truthful. While this doesn’t lead to soundness, it is still valid as far as logic is concerned (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Since inductive reasoning isn’t trying to prove the absolute truth, and
the formatting is different, there is a little more leeway in how to present information and it seems easier to actually think about what you are placing into the argument, rather than the rigid format. Even though there are still guidelines to consider, inductive arguments seem to provide more room for critical thinking around information rather than just presentation and structure like a deductive argument.
I find # 4 is most confusing because we are using different terms for a similar result. It is difficult to differentiate between the two terms for me, other than the fact that I know which argument type each is connected to. It seems to convolute the terms and outcome a bit. I am probably trying to oversimplify, or
missing a connection. I’d love to hear input from class on this. Reference
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to critical thinking [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Reply Rachael.#3
A) Answer the question: What are some differences between inductive and deductive arguments/reasoning 1) Valid deductive arguments have true premises and conclusion, while inductive arguments have a conclusion that is most likely true if the premises are true i. A deductive argument is valid when the premises are true, making it impossible for the conclusion to be false. This is absolute truth in the argument ii. It is okay for an inductive argument to have true premises with a conclusion that is most likely true based on the premises. The strength of the premises helps validate the conclusion.
2) Adding a premise to a deductive argument can make it unsound, while adding a premise to an inductive argument can make it stronger or weaker. i. Adding a premise to a deductive argument can make it unsound by proving that one of the premises is not true. However, according to Hardy, Foster, and Zúñiga y Postigo (2015), “…it cannot undermine a valid connection between the premises and the conclusion”. ii.When adding a premise to an inductive argument, it can make the overall argument weaker or stronger, depending upon the information being added to the argument. The argument can still be persuaded, but could be weaker if the added premise doesn’t help the arguer’s point of view.
3) Deductive arguments can be less persuasive than inductive arguments. i. When making a valid deductive argument, the premises have to be true, making
the conclusion true and impossible to be false. This can make the arguments obvious and little room to prove the truth in the argument to those who question it (Hardy, Foster, Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). If the premises were more detailed, then it could benefit. ii.While making an inductive argument, the premise tends to be more “complicated” and detailed, which is helpful in persuading someone to agree with the argument. Adding more details such as A has been doing B for such and such time makes the argument more valid and truthful when coming up with the conclusion that it will continue to happen (like the sun rising example in the textbook).
4) Inductive arguments can remain strong even if one of the premises are weaker,
whereas deductive arguments become invalid if a premise is found to not be truthful. i.If one of the premises in a deductive argument is found to be false, then the conclusion is no longer true and the whole argument is unsound and invalid. There is no
inbetween. ii.If one of the premises in an inductive argument is weaker than the rest or not truthful, then the whole argument becomes weaker but can still be persuaded to the audience. There is no absolute truth in inductive arguments, so there is some flexibility in the arguments. B) Which of the 4 differences between inductive and deductive reasoning is most confusing?
I think the most confusing for me is deciding what makes an argument less persuasive. I
understand that when deductive arguments are simplified they can be more obvious and more likely to be just taken as truthful. I understood the inductive example as well. But is it the way the premises and conclusions are written or does it have to do with how much is written as well? Does detail matter in this case with deductive or inductive arguments? It seems to me that detail in a premise matters but I’m not sure if that is always the case. Reference:
Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ (Links
to an external site.)Links to an external site. Reply