Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Thought Art

Deductive Vs Inductive Inference

2 posts in this topic

Okay so here is an example of a deductive inference from the book: philosophy of science a very short introduction by Samir Okasha

All Frenchmen like red wine

Pierre is a Frenchman 

Therefore, Pierre likes red wine

This is deductive reasoning, says the author because if the premise is true, then the conclusion is true…

an example of an inductive inference given by the author is:

The first five eggs in the box were good.

All the eggs have the same best-before date stamped on them

Therefore, the sixth egg will be good too

 This is inductive reasoning because the premise may be true, but could also be false…. 
 

However, I think that deductive reasoning is full of the problem of question begging. Where in reality do you start with a 100% true premise? You don’t.

Is the stamp not a partial premise? As is a sentence stating all Frenchman like wine? Both are statements that carry plenty of assumptions. 

 

also, even the example given in the book for deductive reasoning is actually an inductive inference because if the premise is true is begging the question.

A true deductive inference can only really take place in philosophical abstraction and not in day to day life. 
 

I am sure there are contexts in wife when we can treat things with deductive reasoning like in programming or in our business procedures. It can be a totally useful survival tool. But, In truth this is only actually inductive reasoning.
 

However, contemplate the famous painting “This is not a pipe”. There is a blurring and problem with thinking that things are either deductive or inductive when in reality these are not clear distinctions when it comes to most reasoning in reality. When you go meta on reading the actual book, and then think about how inductive and deductive reasoning is done in reality. It’s almost like deductive reasoning doesn’t even exist. 
 

In fact, the ego mind can misuse and abuse a false sense of deductive reasoning in science, politics, business, morality, etc

This is not a pipe 

the map is not the territory 

the limits of symbolic reasoning…

The only deductive this in reality is Being and Absolute Truth.

A7A67549-B044-44A5-AA8D-3C55FB4B2F7D.jpeg

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2022 at 3:10 PM, Thought Art said:

This is inductive reasoning because the premise may be true, but could also be false…. 

Odd if the author is saying inductive reasoning is "inferior" to deductive reasoning, but I doubt you're communicating his point anyway

On 15/01/2022 at 3:10 PM, Thought Art said:

However, I think that deductive reasoning is full of the problem of question begging. Where in reality do you start with a 100% true premise? You don’t.

Is the stamp not a partial premise? As is a sentence stating all Frenchman like wine? Both are statements that carry plenty of assumptions. 

You don't start with a true premise, but it says "if A then B". "A⇒B", if A is true then B is true. Well how would you know that B is true given that A is true? It relies on axioms

If you're doing a subset of math which involves studying logic itself, you'll find that they'll often end up getting you to look at these "laws" , which are "axioms" by which you can from A to B to C. It is the axioms which allows you to draw these arrows ⇒


If A⇒B and B⇒A, then we can say A⇔B. [These double jointed arrows are a type of "equivalence relation", and equivalence relations form partitions on sets, where you essentially get self-contained networks where each point in the network implies the existence of every other point. And so the existence of any point is only so and also implies the existence of every other point.*]

Using the word network since every point has a double-sided arrow joining it to every other point. (A⇔B and B⇔C means that A⇔C) 

*The visualisation of a partition formed from the equivalence relation is very cool if you get what it means in relation to ⇔

--
Deductive vs Inductive reasoning kinda mirrors the Ti vs Te meme in MBTI as well. 

Oh yeah, and laws/axioms are constructed from observation(/induction) in the first place. [A pattern you'll find in physics/maths is that we can do certain things before we develop all the completely precise notation and formalism for them. e.g. We don't need Peano Axioms to know how to count on our fingers] 

On 15/01/2022 at 3:10 PM, Thought Art said:

However, contemplate the famous painting “This is not a pipe”. There is a blurring and problem with thinking that things are either deductive or inductive when in reality these are not clear distinctions when it comes to most reasoning in reality. When you go meta on reading the actual book, and then think about how inductive and deductive reasoning is done in reality. It’s almost like deductive reasoning doesn’t even exist. 

Well given your approach earlier of poking holes at "A⇒B" by questioning how A is known to exist or be true in the first place, seems you're at some place now of questioning perception 

Edited by lmfao

Hark ye yet again — the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event — in the living act, the undoubted deed — there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0