INDUCTIVE REASONING:

1. Inductive reasoning, or induction, is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a general rule.
It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations.

2. Inductive Reasoning is reasoning from experience, sense perceptions, and observations to form a
conclusion. This is the most common form of reasoning that humans partake in. The most common type
of inductive reasoning is in forming an expectation of what will happen in the near future, based upon
past observations.

3. The conclusion in an inductive argument is NOT guaranteed but only probable and takes us beyond the
premises to a possible new belief.

4. Inductive reasoning is the use of specific evidence (facts, examples, expert opinions) that lead to a
logical conclusion.

Example of inductive reasoning:

1. Almost all people are taller than 26 inches

2. Wakeel is a person

3. Therefore, Wakeel is almost certainly taller than 26 inches

As a stronger example:

100% of biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.

Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.

This argument could have been made every time a new biological life form was found, and would have
been correct every time; this does not mean it is impossible that in the future a biological life form that
does not require water could be discovered.

As a result, the argument may be stated less formally as:

Page7

All biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.

All biological life probably depends on liquid water to exist.

Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643
 Types of induction or inductive logic / inductive reasoning:

1. Improper induction so-called: 2. Proper Induction

a) Perfect induction a) Scientific Induction

b) Parity of Reasoning b) Imperfect Enumeration

c) Colligation of Facts c) Argument by Analogy

Induction Improperly so-called:

Induction improperly so-called are those processes of reasoning which have only superficial
resemblance with induction but which lack the essential characteristics of induction. The processes are
also called “processes stimulating induction”. Mill holds that these processes are of three types i.e.

(A) Perfect induction

(B) Induction by parity of reasoning

(C) Colligation of Facts

A. Perfect induction:

The process of establishing a universal proposition on the basis of the observation of each and every
instance that comes within its sweep is called perfect induction. As it is based on the complete
enumeration of the instances, this is also called “induction by complete enumeration.

The so called perfect induction is not induction at all. It is not perfect in the literal sense of the term. In
perfect induction we count all the particular instances and then arrive at a general proposition. Like
simple Enumeration here also the ground of inference is the counting of instances. The only difference is
that here enumeration is complete because we count all the instances. It is for this reason that perfect
induction is called induction by complete enumeration e.g. we examine that every book in our library is
an English book and then sum up over results in general proposition---“All the books in the library are
English books” again, we may prove by perfect induction the general proposition that “All the months of
Page7

the year have less than 32 days” after an examination of each and every month. Such an induction is
called perfect because the general proposition so arrived at is perfectly certain. When we have observe
each and every case coming under the “All” the universal conclusion must be certain. But the conclusion
Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643
merely sum up the particulars in an abbreviated form without giving any new information. If I observe
that every student in my class is married and then assert that the whole class is married, this general
assertion is just a summary of but I have observe. Thus in perfect induction there is no inductive leap,
from the known to the unknown; from “some” to “all”. Hence Mill and Bain deny perfect induction the
status of induction proper.

B. Parity of reasoning:

Induction by Parity of Reasoning is a process of instance in which we establish a general proposition on

the gerund that the same reasoning which establishes a particular case will establish every other similar
case under the general proposition. This process of inference is called parity of reasoning because
parity (or similarity) is the ground of passing from particular case to a general proposition.

Induction by parity of reasoning we arrive at a general proposition not on the ground of over observation
of particular cases, but on the parity or sameness of reasoning. We suppose the reasoning which is
applied to a particular case might as well be applied to all other similar cases coming under the general
proposition e.g. after proving that A is mortal, we may infer that is true of “all man” not because it is true
of a particular man A, but for the same reason which proves it to be true of A. we argue that because A is
mortal therefore parity of reasoning demands that all man should be mortal. It will be noted here that
universal conclusion is not believed on the ground of particular instances. We don’t say that all men are
mortal because A is mortal, but because of the reason which is the ground of over conviction in a
particular case. Hence although parity of reasoning looks like scientific induction in as much as it
proceeds from the particular to the general, yet it lacks the fundamental mark of scientific induction,
namely, basing the general conclusion on the observation of particular facts. To quote Mile, in parity of
reasoning “the characteristics quality of induction is wanting, since the truth obtained, though really
general, is not believed on the evidence of particular instance.”

C. Colligation of Facts:

The term “colligation of facts” means binding together or mental union of a number of observed facts
by means of a suitable notion. Mill defines colligation thus: Colligation is that mental operation which
enables us to bring a number of actually observed phenomena under a description; which enables us to
Page7

sum up a number of details in a single proposition.”

Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643

A Colligation literally means binding together (from Latin colligare, con, together; ligare, to bind). Thus
colligation of facts means the process by which many isolated facts are gathered or summed up under a
single proposition. In colligation we first observe the parts of a whole separately of piecemeal and then
colligate them together to have an idea of the whole. Suppose a blind man touches the trunk, legs, tale,
tusks, etc. of an animal separately and then sums up his partial observation in a single proposition. This
animal is an elephant. This would be colligation. A navigator sailing in a sea, discovers land. He can’t at
first decide whether it is a continent or an island. He coasts along it and after completely going round it,
he pronounces it an island. Thus he connects together the details of his observation under the idea of an
island. Again, it was a colligation of facts that Kepler, after observing the successive positions of the
planet Mars, inferred that it moved in an ellipse. He simply colligated the different positions occupied by
Mars under the general conception of an ellipse.

A little reflection will show that colligation lacks the induction leap, a going beyond our observations. It
is merely a summary of what we have observe under a general description.

Induction Proper:

Inductions proper may be subdivided into:

(A) Scientific induction.

(B) Unscientific induction or induction per simple enumeration or imperfect enumeration.

(C) Arguments by Analogy.

A. Scientific induction.

Scientific induction is the establishment of a general real proposition, based on observation of particular
instances, in reliance on the principle of the uniformity of nature and the laws of causation.

B. Arguments by Analogy.

Analogy is the name of another mode of argument of an inductive character, which is a form of
scientific induction. Mill holds that analogical reasoning may be reduced to the following formula, “Two
Page7

things resemble each other in one or more respects, a certain proposition is truth of the one, and
therefore, it is truth of the other.”

Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643

Analogy is the name of another mode of argument of an inductive character, which is a form of scientific
induction. Mill holds that analogical reasoning may be reduced to the following formula, “Two things
resemble each other in one or more respects, a certain proposition is truth of the one , therefore, it is
truth of the other.”

Analogy means likeness or resemblance. In analogy we base our argument on the resemblance between
things. If A and B resemble each other in some points and a new point “p” is found in A, we infer that it
will be found in B as well. Thus in analogy we reason from likeness in some points to likeness in
other points. It is a reasoning in which we infer that things resembling each other in some respects
resemble also in other respect. This would be an argument from analogy to argue that we conclude that
because women resemble men in all physical gifts, therefore they should also be allowed to take part in
politics like men. The formula of analogy is that things alike in some respects are also alike in others.

If I report that I got very good service from a computer of a certain make and model, you may infer that
a new computer of the same make and model will serve you well. That conclusion has some degree of
probability, but the argument is far from compelling.

Arguments by analogy are not to be classified as either valid or invalid; probability is all that is claimed
for them.

Every analogical argument proceeds from the similarity of two or more things in one or more respects to
the similarity of those things in some further respect. Schematically, where a, b, c, and d, are any entities
and P, Q, and R are any attributes or “respects,” an analogical argument may be represented as having
the form

a, b, c, d all have the attributes P and Q.

a, b, c all have the attribute R.

Therefore d probably has the attribute R.

Analogy lacks the essential characteristics of scientific induction. It is kind of inference from one
instance of resemblance to another instance of resemblance; from particular to particular. It does not
give us any generalization. Secondly, in analogy we proceed from one point of likeness to another point
Page7

of likeness without proving any causal connection between those points.

Simple Enumeration and Analogy are otherwise known as imperfect induction.

Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643

Strong Analogy:

The analogy in which the points of likeness between two entities are more than points of difference will
be strong analogy and probability of our conclusion will be more.

C. Imperfect enumeration.

Induction by simple enumeration is the establishment of a general real proposition on the ground of
more uniform or un-contradicted experience without any attempt at explaining a causal connection.

Induction by simple enumeration consists in establishing a generalization on the ground of mere uniform
or uncontradicted experience without an attempt at discovering any causal connections. Thus a person
who has seen only green parrots may believe that all parrots are green. He has never come across a
parrot of any other color, nor has he hear from anybody else that parrots of other colors also exist. On
the ground of this uniform and un-contradicted experience he arrives at the general proposition all
parrots are green. Generalization as all Mohammadans are weak in mathematics or Hindus are weak in
Urdu, all swans are white, all crows are black etc. are the results of simple enumeration. Thus in simple
enumeration we merely enumerate or count as many relevant instance as we can, an overconfidence and
certainty depend upon the number of such instance. If we come across a very large number of parrots
which are green, over generalization all parrots are green may acquire some force. Bacon describes
simple enumeration as a process in which we have never found an instance to the contrary. Its formula
may be stated as follows,

“Such and such has always been found to be true, no instance to the contrary has been met with,
therefore such and such is always true.”

This form of induction is induction proper because it involves an inductive leap which is essential of
scientific induction. It begins from some instance and goes to a general proposition. But it lacks one
fundamental condition of scientific induction, namely causal connections between facts. The
generalization “all parrots are green is based on the mere counting of instance, and not on the discovery
of any causal connection between “parrots” and “greenness”.
Page7

Refrence:

1. Hussain, K., A text book of Induction.

Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643
2. http://niyamaklogic.wordpress.com

3. Copi, Cohen, Jetli & Prabhakar: Introduction to Logic.

4. Krishana Jain:A Text Book of Logic.

Page7

Muhammad Hamzah Hashmi wasique.shah@gmail.com 0333-7703643