Inductive reasoning

“Inductive inference” redirects here. For the technique future a biological life form not requiring water could be
in mathematical proof, see Mathematical induction. discovered.
As a result, the argument may be stated less formally as:
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning
or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises All biological life forms that we know of de-
are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of pend on liquid water to exist.
the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argu-
ment is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive All biological life probably depends on liquid
argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[1] water to exist.

Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning

that derives general principles from specific observations,
though some sources disagree with this usage.[2]
2 Inductive vs. deductive reason-
The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning
ing
is more nuanced than simple progression from par-
ticular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows
Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument in- for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if
dicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for all of the premises are true.[4] Instead of being valid or
the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak,
truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the pos- which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is
sibility of moving from general statements to individual true.[5] Another crucial difference is that deductive cer-
instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed tainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as re-
below). ality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to
(probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.[6]
Given that “if A is true then B, C, and D are true”, an
1 Description example of deduction would be "A is true therefore we
can deduce that B, C, and D are true”. An example of
Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. It only deals induction would be "B, C, and D are observed to be true
in degrees to which, given the premises, the conclusion therefore A may be true”. A is a reasonable explanation
is credible according to some theory of evidence. Exam- for B, C, and D being true.
ples include a many-valued logic, Dempster–Shafer the- For example:
ory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as
Bayes’ rule. Unlike deductive reasoning, it does not rely
A large enough asteroid impact would create
on universals holding over a closed domain of discourse
a very large crater and cause a severe impact
to draw conclusions, so it can be applicable even in cases
winter that could drive the non-avian dinosaurs
of epistemic uncertainty (technical issues with this may
to extinction.
arise however; for example, the second axiom of proba-
bility is a closed-world assumption).[3] We observe that there is a very large crater in
the Gulf of Mexico dating to very near the time
An example of an inductive argument: of the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs

90% of biological life forms that we know of Therefore it is possible that this impact could
depend on liquid water to exist. explain why the non-avian dinosaurs went ex-
tinct.
Therefore, if we discover a new biological life
form it will probably depend on liquid water to
exist. Note however that this is not necessarily the case. Other
events also coincide with the extinction of the non-avian
This argument could have been made every time a new dinosaurs. For example, the Deccan Traps in India.
biological life form was found, and would have been cor- A classical example of an incorrect inductive argument
rect every time; however, it is still possible that in the was presented by John Vickers:

1
2 4 TYPES

All of the swans we have seen are white. that is easily accessible in the world around them. For ex-
Therefore, all swans are white. ample, in surveys, when people are asked to estimate the
percentage of people who died from various causes, most
respondents would choose the causes that have been most
Note that this definition of inductive reasoning excludes prevalent in the media such as terrorism, and murders,
mathematical induction, which is a form of deductive rea- and airplane accidents rather than causes such as disease
soning. and traffic accidents, which have been technically “less
accessible” to the individual since they are not empha-
sized as heavily in the world around him/her.
3 Criticism The confirmation bias is based on the natural tendency
to confirm rather than to deny a current hypothesis. Re-
Main article: Problem of induction search has demonstrated that people are inclined to seek
solutions to problems that are more consistent with known
hypotheses rather than attempt to refute those hypothe-
Inductive reasoning has been criticized by thinkers as di-
ses. Often, in experiments, subjects will ask questions
verse as Sextus Empiricus[7] and Karl Popper.[8]
that seek answers that fit established hypotheses, thus
The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of confirming these hypotheses. For example, if it is hy-
induction was given by the Scottish philosopher David pothesized that Sally is a sociable individual, subjects will
Hume.[9] naturally seek to confirm the premise by asking questions
Although the use of inductive reasoning demonstrates that would produce answers confirming that Sally is in fact
considerable success, its application has been question- a sociable individual.
able. Recognizing this, Hume highlighted the fact that The predictable-world bias revolves around the inclina-
our mind draws uncertain conclusions from relatively lim- tion to perceive order where it has not been proved to
ited experiences. In deduction, the truth value of the con- exist, either at all or at a particular level of abstraction.
clusion is based on the truth of the premise. In induction, Gambling, for example, is one of the most popular ex-
however, the dependence on the premise is always uncer- amples of predictable-world bias. Gamblers often begin
tain. As an example, let’s assume “all ravens are black.” to think that they see simple and obvious patterns in the
The fact that there are numerous black ravens supports the outcomes and, therefore, believe that they are able to pre-
assumption. However, the assumption becomes inconsis- dict outcomes based upon what they have witnessed. In
tent with the fact that there are white ravens. Therefore, reality, however, the outcomes of these games are diffi-
the general rule of “all ravens are black” is inconsistent cult to predict and highly complex in nature. However, in
with the existence of the white raven. Hume further ar- general, people tend to seek some type of simplistic order
gued that it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning: to explain or justify their beliefs and experiences, and it
specifically, that it cannot be justified deductively, so our is often difficult for them to realise that their perceptions
only option is to justify it inductively. Since this is circu- of order may be entirely different from the truth.[12]
lar he concluded that our use of induction is unjustifiable
with the help of “Hume’s Fork”.[10]
However, Hume then stated that even if induction were 4 Types
proved unreliable, we would still have to rely on it. So in-
stead of a position of severe skepticism, Hume advocated 4.1 Generalization
a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the
inevitability of induction is accepted.[11] A generalization (more accurately, an inductive general-
ization) proceeds from a premise about a sample to a con-
clusion about the population.
3.1 Biases
The proportion Q of the sample has attribute
Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construc-
A.
tion because any conclusions made are based on cur-
rent knowledge and predictions. As with deductive ar- Therefore:
guments, biases can distort the proper application of in- The proportion Q of the population has at-
ductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from tribute A.
forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues.
Examples of these biases include the availability heuris- Example
tic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.
The availability heuristic causes the reasoner to depend There are 20 balls—either black or white—in an urn. To
primarily upon information that is readily available to estimate their respective numbers, you draw a sample of
him/her. People have a tendency to rely on information four balls and find that three are black and one is white.
4.5 Causal inference 3

A good inductive generalization would be that there are P and Q are similar in respect to properties a,
15 black and five white balls in the urn. b, and c.
How much the premises support the conclusion depends Object P has been observed to have further
upon (a) the number in the sample group, (b) the number property x.
in the population, and (c) the degree to which the sam- Therefore, Q probably has property x also.
ple represents the population (which may be achieved by
taking a random sample). The hasty generalization and Analogical reasoning is very frequent in common sense,
the biased sample are generalization fallacies. science, philosophy and the humanities, but sometimes it
is accepted only as an auxiliary method. A refined ap-
proach is case-based reasoning.[14]
4.2 Statistical syllogism
Main article: Statistical syllogism 4.5 Causal inference
A causal inference draws a conclusion about a causal con-
A statistical syllogism proceeds from a generalization to
nection based on the conditions of the occurrence of an
a conclusion about an individual.
effect. Premises about the correlation of two things can
indicate a causal relationship between them, but addi-
A proportion Q of population P has attribute tional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact
A. form of the causal relationship.
An individual X is a member of P.
Therefore: 4.6 Prediction
There is a probability which corresponds to Q
that X has A. A prediction draws a conclusion about a future individual
from a past sample.
The proportion in the first premise would be something
Proportion Q of observed members of group G
like “3/5ths of”, “all”, “few”, etc. Two dicto simpliciter
have had attribute A.
fallacies can occur in statistical syllogisms: "accident" and
"converse accident". Therefore:
There is a probability corresponding to Q that
other members of group G will have attribute
4.3 Simple induction A when next observed.

Simple induction proceeds from a premise about a sample

group to a conclusion about another individual. 5 Bayesian inference
Proportion Q of the known instances of popu- As a logic of induction rather than a theory of belief,
lation P has attribute A. Bayesian inference does not determine which beliefs are
Individual I is another member of P. a priori rational, but rather determines how we should ra-
tionally change the beliefs we have when presented with
Therefore:
evidence. We begin by committing to a prior probability
There is a probability corresponding to Q that for a hypothesis based on logic or previous experience,
I has A. and when faced with evidence, we adjust the strength of
our belief in that hypothesis in a precise manner using
This is a combination of a generalization and a statistical Bayesian logic.
syllogism, where the conclusion of the generalization is
also the first premise of the statistical syllogism.
6 Inductive inference
4.4 Argument from analogy Around 1960, Ray Solomonoff founded the theory of uni-
versal inductive inference, the theory of prediction based
Main article: Argument from analogy on observations; for example, predicting the next sym-
bol based upon a given series of symbols. This is a for-
The process of analogical inference involves noting the mal inductive framework that combines algorithmic in-
shared properties of two or more things, and from this ba- formation theory with the Bayesian framework. Univer-
sis inferring that they also share some further property:[13] sal inductive inference is based on solid philosophical
4 8 REFERENCES

foundations,[15] and can be considered as a mathemati- • Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference

cally formalized Occam’s razor. Fundamental ingredi-
ents of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic proba- • Statistical inference
bility and Kolmogorov complexity.
• Stephen Toulmin

• Universal artificial intelligence

7 See also
• Abductive reasoning 8 References
• Algorithmic information theory
[1] Copi, I. M.; Cohen, C.; Flage, D. E. (2007). Essentials
• Algorithmic probability of Logic (Second ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education. ISBN 978-0-13-238034-8.
• Analogy
[2] “Deductive and Inductive Arguments”, Internet Encyclo-
• Bayesian probability pedia of Philosophy, Some dictionaries define “deduction”
• Counterinduction as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction”
as reasoning from the specific to the general. While this
• Deductive reasoning usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and
mathematical contexts, for the most part, it is outdated.
• Explanation
[3] Kosko, Bart (1990). “Fuzziness vs. Probability”. In-
• Failure mode and effects analysis ternational Journal of General Systems 17 (1): 211–240.
doi:10.1080/03081079008935108.
• Falsifiability
[4] John Vickers. The Problem of Induction. The Stanford
• Grammar induction Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Inductive inference
[5] Herms, D. “Logical Basis of Hypothesis Testing in Scien-
• Inductive logic programming tific Research” (pdf).

• Inductive probability [6] “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Kant’s account of

reason”.
• Inductive programming
[7] Sextus Empiricus, Outlines Of Pyrrhonism. Trans.
• Inductive reasoning aptitude R.G. Bury, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts, 1933, p. 283.
• Inquiry
[8] Popper, Karl R.; Miller, David W. (1983). “A proof of
• Kolmogorov complexity the impossibility of inductive probability”. Nature 302
(5910): 687–688. doi:10.1038/302687a0.
• Lateral thinking
[9] David Hume (1910) [1748]. An Enquiry concerning Hu-
• Laurence Jonathan Cohen
man Understanding. P.F. Collier & Son. ISBN 0-19-
• Logic 825060-6.

• Logical positivism [10] Vickers, John. “The Problem of Induction” (Section 2).
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 21 June 2010
• Machine learning
[11] Vickers, John. “The Problem of Induction” (Section 2.1).
• Mathematical induction Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 21 June 2010.

• Mill’s Methods [12] Gray, Peter (2011). Psychology (Sixth ed.). New York:
Worth. ISBN 978-1-4292-1947-1.
• Minimum description length
[13] Baronett, Stan (2008). Logic. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
• Minimum message length Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 321–325.
• Open world assumption
[14] For more information on inferences by analogy, see Juthe,
• Raven paradox 2005.

• Recursive Bayesian estimation [15] Rathmanner, Samuel; Hutter, Marcus (2011). “A Philo-
sophical Treatise of Universal Induction”. Entropy 13 (6):
• Retroduction 1076–1136. doi:10.3390/e13061076.
 5

9 Further reading
• Cushan, Anna-Marie (1983/2014). Investigation
into Facts and Values: Groundwork for a theory
of moral conflict resolution. [Thesis, Melbourne
University], Ondwelle Publications (online): Mel-
bourne.

• Herms, D. “Logical Basis of Hypothesis Testing in

Scientific Research” (PDF).
• Kemerling, G. (27 October 2001). “Causal Reason-
ing”.
• Holland, J. H.; Holyoak, K. J.; Nisbett, R. E.; Tha-
gard, P. R. (1989). Induction: Processes of Infer-
ence, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA,
USA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-58096-9.
• Holyoak, K.; Morrison, R. (2005). The Cam-
bridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. New
York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-
521-82417-0.

10 External links
• Confirmation and Induction entry in the Internet En-
cyclopedia of Philosophy
• Inductive Logic entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy

• Inductive reasoning at PhilPapers

• Inductive reasoning at the Indiana Philosophy On-
tology Project
• Four Varieties of Inductive Argument from the De-
partment of Philosophy, University of North Car-
olina at Greensboro.

• Properties of Inductive Reasoning PDF (166 KiB), a

psychological review by Evan Heit of the University
of California, Merced.
• The Mind, Limber An article which employs the film
The Big Lebowski to explain the value of inductive
reasoning.

• The Pragmatic Problem of Induction, by Thomas

Bullemore
6 11 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

11 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

11.1 Text
• Inductive reasoning Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning?oldid=697029653 Contributors: AxelBoldt, The Cunc-
tator, The Anome, Ryguasu, DennisDaniels, Michael Hardy, Earth, Owl, Voidvector, BoNoMoJo (old), Jfitzg, Andres, Evercat, EdH,
DesertSteve, Timwi, Trontonian, Bemoeial, Ike9898, Wolfgang Kufner, Radiojon, Markhurd, Peregrine981, Banno, Nufy8, Nurg, Ro-
manm, Ojigiri~enwiki, Mikiher, Tobias Bergemann, Filemon, Ancheta Wis, Giftlite, Zigger, Peruvianllama, Bovlb, Jason Quinn, Jackol,
Jmeola75, ELApro, Guppyfinsoup, Lucidish, Archer3, Discospinster, Freestylefrappe, Ivan Bajlo, Bender235, Kbh3rd, El C, Aaron-
brick, David Crawshaw, Bobo192, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Flammifer, Espoo, Samohyl Jan, Yuckfoo, Mikeo, Recury, Nightstallion,
Voxadam, Kazvorpal, Kenyon, Hq3473, Velho, Mindmatrix, Kzollman, Ruud Koot, Alfakim, Andrea.gf, Rjwilmsi, Jweiss11, Strake,
Bryan H Bell, Reinis, Matt Deres, Chris Pressey, Latka, RexNL, Fresheneesz, NotJackhorkheimer, Spencerk, King of Hearts, Chobot,
Dresdnhope, YurikBot, RussBot, Gaius Cornelius, Grafen, Holycharly, SAE1962, 24ip, Pkearney, Roy Brumback, Bota47, Shadro,
Tomisti, Sethery, Fram, Curpsbot-unicodify, Teply, Infinity0, Bo Jacoby, Jer ome, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, RedHouse18, David Ker-
now, Rtc, McGeddon, Istvan, Eskimbot, Klokie, Yamaguchi , Gilliam, Duke Ganote, Ohnoitsjamie, Betacommand, Bluebot, Anthonzi,
LaggedOnUser, DHN-bot~enwiki, DoctorStrangelove, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Go For It, Avb, Edivorce, Mr.Z-man, Jmnbatista,
Richard001, Kalexander, Jon Awbrey, Neshatian, Andeggs, Vina-iwbot~enwiki, Byelf2007, Jonrgrover, Normalityrelief, RichMorin, An-
tonielly, Aleenf1, Lukemcgrath, Grumpyyoungman01, Domokato, Levineps, Iridescent, K, Wjejskenewr, FleetCommand, CWY2190, In-
digenius, El aprendelenguas, TMN, Gregbard, Slazenger, Peterdjones, Khromatikos, Gogo Dodo, Wikipediarules2221, Miguel de Servet,
Letranova, Gacggt, Ucanlookitup, Second Quantization, Danny Reese, Defeatedfear, Fotomatt, AntiVandalBot, Luna Santin, Minhtung91,
Spencer, Salgueiro~enwiki, JAnDbot, Davewho2, Dmar198, Coffee2theorems, Magioladitis, Bongwarrior, Equinexus, Hasek is the best,
Arno Matthias, Farquaadhnchmn, DAGwyn, Snowded, Moopiefoof, Cathalwoods, MetsBot, Chrisdone, WLU, Mommyzbrat, STBot,
Dionysiaca, Pomte, TheSeven, OttoMäkelä, LordAnubisBOT, Mahewa, Touisiau, Chiswick Chap, Heyitspeter, Pianoman55~enwiki,
MetsFan76, STBotD, Andy Marchbanks, Straw Cat, Zach425, VolkovBot, Thewolf37, Pasixxxx, Hotfeba, Shinju, Jimmaths, Tiktuk,
Philip Trueman, Deleet, Katoa, Jazzwick, Philogo, Abdullais4u, Jackfork, PDFbot, Anarchangel, Saturn star, Jor344, Shifter95, Cnilep,
Harmonicemundi, PhysPhD, Jammycaketin, AlleborgoBot, Newbyguesses, Dwandelt, Matthew Yeager, Mark Klamberg, Flyer22 Re-
born, Bobklahn, Oxymoron83, Vanished user oij8h435jweih3, MiNombreDeGuerra, Bagatelle, Sunrise, Linkboyz, Melcombe, Onefor-
logic, ClueBot, Farras Octara, Eric Schoettle, Niceguyedc, Vandalometer, Rbakels, Excirial, Jusdafax, Kikilamb, Estirabot, ChrisKalt,
Hazzzzzz12, Lx 121, XLinkBot, Fastily, Gerhardvalentin, Tegiap, Saeed.Veradi, Skarebo, WikHead, Kwjbot, Kbdankbot, Tayste, Ad-
dbot, Tanhabot, Jtradke, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, ScienceApe, KUSSOMAK, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Oilstone, THEN WHO WAS
PHONE?, AnomieBOT, Doingmorestuffonline, Vanakaris, Bob Burkhardt, Parthian Scribe, Xqbot, Lord Bane, Hanberke, A157247, F-22
Raptored, Omnipaedista, RibotBOT, Delbertpeach, Alialiac, FieldOperative, Paine Ellsworth, SBA1870, Machine Elf 1735, Pinethicket,
Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Mavit0, A8UDI, Cleon7177, NeuroBells123, Gamewizard71, TobeBot, Jonkerz, Miracle Pen, Dbmikus, Hyperbytev2,
Ripchip Bot, Elspru, NerdyScienceDude, George Richard Leeming, EmausBot, Elanguescence, Grjoni88, T3dkjn89q00vl02Cxp1kqs3x7,
Gfoley4, RenamedUser01302013, Mo ainm, ZéroBot, Leminh91, CanonLawJunkie, Oncenawhile, Wagino 20100516, Erianna, EricWes-
Brown, L Kensington, Just granpa, 28bot, ClueBot NG, Gareth Griffith-Jones, MelbourneStar, Ek65, Millermk, Schicagos, Tsunamicharlie,
Albertttt, Thepigdog, Masssly, Widr, Helpful Pixie Bot, HMSSolent, Curb Chain, BG19bot, Wiki13, MusikAnimal, Jander80, Wandwiki,
Blue Mist 1, Will.Oliver, Trailspark, RichardMills65, Ctasa221, Fangli997376557, ChrisGualtieri, Lhu720, Hagrid da fifth, Watchpup32,
Neurocitizen, Oligocene, Moonstroller-2, Jochen Burghardt, M strat17, 90b56587, Reid12345, Londomollari42, EMBViki, Cauzality,
JustBerry, Aubreybardo, Liz, Logicman2, Hoffoholi, Superploro, Temprack5446, Loraof, Hellerrrr, Isambard Kingdom, Pretty Panther
26, LIZSMOBILEONE and Anonymous: 407

11.2 Images
• File:Brain.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Nicolas_P._Rougier%27s_rendering_of_the_human_
brain.png License: GPL Contributors: http://www.loria.fr/~{}rougier Original artist: Nicolas Rougier
• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
• File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-
sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Logic_portal.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Logic_portal.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contrib-
utors: Own work Original artist: Watchduck (a.k.a. Tilman Piesk)
• File:People_icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/People_icon.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open-
Clipart Original artist: OpenClipart
• File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
• File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Rei-artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau
• File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs),
based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber
11.3 Content license 7

11.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0