- Big Questions
- Consciousness & Healing
- Extended Human Capacities
- Worldview Transformation
- Community Groups
commented on Nov. 30, 2013
The following definitions show why our reasoning processes are so different, it’s not just to do with our beliefs/concepts but how we reason within these beliefs/concepts. Both inductive & deductive reasoning have their place within humanity as they both serve a purpose however they can be seen in opposition to each other usually depending on the belief or concept involved.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INDUCTIVE REASONING (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.
Inductive reasoning to me is more to do with what science at any given time is unable to prove or give an answer too however deductive reasoning is supposed to be more precise within its evaluative deductions. The problem I see with deductive reasoning is it will only look into things it can measure where inductive reasoning will also look beyond what it can measure at any given time. Inductive reasoning makes more logical sense because it evaluates through both reasoning processes depending on the belief/concept involved of course.
If anyone wants to add to this or pick holes in this please feel free however I would like to ask Dusty to refrain from replying please, show a little respect of other people’s wishes Dusty.