6.

DEDUCTION AND
INDUCTION
BA-LLB
 Deductive and Inductive Arguments
 Arguments in which the conclusion follows
with necessity from the premises are called
deductive arguments.
 Those in which the conclusion is derivable
from the premises only with probability are
called inductive arguments.
 Two examples will help illustrates this
distinction between necessary and probable
inference.
 a. Deductive
 All the pears in that basket are ripe.
 All these pears are from that basket.
 All these pears are therefore ripe.
 b. Inductive
 All these pears are from that basket.
 All these pears are ripe.
 All the pears in that basket are therefore ripe.
 Out of these two arguments, only the first
(argument a) has a conclusion that follows with
certainty from its premises, the conclusion of
argument b follows only with some degree of
probability from its premises.
 One difference between deductive and
inductive arguments is that the premises in a
deductive argument contain all the information
needed in order to reach a conclusion that
follows with necessity.
 Nothing in the conclusion refers outside the
premises.
 In the conclusion of an inductive argument,
we must venture beyond information
contained in the premises.
 Thus, our conclusion can never be certain,
although it can have a high probability of
being true.
 A classic example of deductive argument
highlights this issue of certainty.
 c. The sun has risen every morning since time
immemorial.
 Therefore the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
 We feel sure that the sun will rise tomorrow,
yet logically speaking the relation of this
conclusion to its premises is one of
probability, not necessity.
 In deductive arguments, we assert in the
conclusion a fact not itself contained in the
premises.
 in argument c above, for example, the
premises make assertions only about the
past; they assert nothing about what will
happen in the future.
 Therefore the premises do not rule out the
possibility of the conclusion being false-since
they yield a conclusion whose truth is only
probable with respect to these premises, not
necessary.
 It is in the nature of inductive arguments to
carry us beyond what is asserted in the
premises so that we may see what
implications those premises have other
events.
 Deductive reasoning is reverse.
 The premises contain all the information that
we seek to draw out or unfold.
 We attempt not to go beyond the premises
but to understand more specifically what
they contain.
 In the next example, everything contained in
the conclusion is contained, either explicitly
or implicitly, in the premises.
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE
REASONING: A COMPARISON
 General to specific
 Purpose is to reach a conclusion
that cannot be false.
 Applies known laws to specific
circumstances.
 Thinking makes inferences about
the relationship of claims.
 Truth of premises is assumed or
determined by reasoning.
 Conclusion is final.
 Indicator words that show this is a
conclusion: necessity, certainly,
absolutely, definitely.
 If the premises are true, or assumed
to be true, and the reasoning valid,
the conclusion cannot be false.
Deductive Reasoning
 Specific to general
 Purpose is to reach a conclusion for testing
and application.
 Discovers new laws.
 Thinking is guided by theories, observation,
research, investigation. Data are collected
and analyzed. Sudden insights and
unexpected discoveries can occur.
 Tests verify measure of truth in terms of
reliability, accuracy, applicability,
replicability.
 Conclusion is a hypothesis or statement of
probability.
 Indicator words that show this is a
hypothesis: probable, improbable, plausible,
implausible, likely, unlikely, reasonable.
 Even if the premises are true, the conclusion
is only probable, and could even be false.
More data or major change could call for
further testing.
Inductive Reasoning
FALLACIES
 An argument is constructed to prove that its
conclusion is true.
 But any argument can fail to fulfill this purpose if it
assumes a false proposition as one of its premises, or
if it fails to establish the truth of its conclusion.
 An argument whose premises do not support its
conclusion is one whose conclusion could be false
even if all its premises were true.
 Then the reasoning is bad, and the argument is said
to be fallacious.
 A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be
correct, but that proves, on examination, not to be
so.
 Types of fallacies
 Fallacies are put under two large groups: fallacies of
relevance and fallacies of ambiguity.
 Fallacies of relevance:
 When an argument relies on premises that are not
relevant to its conclusion cannot possibly establish
its truth, the fallacy committed is one of relevance.
 Its types are: the argument from ignorance, the
appeal to inappropriate authority, complex
questions, argument ad hominem(abusive), accident,
false cause, beginning the question, an appeal to
emotion, the appeal to pity (altruism), the appeal
to force, and irrelevant conclusion.
 Fallacies of ambiguity:
 Arguments sometime fail because their
formulation contains ambiguous words or
phrases, whose meanings shift and change
within the course of the argument.
 Its types are: Equivocation (words have more
than one literal meaning), amphiboly (false
grammatical construction), accent (emphasis
shifted), composition, division.
 Avoiding fallacies:
 Constant intellectual vigilance
 A realization of the flexibility of language
 Sensitive to the weave of different functions
 Keeping the word meanings clearly in mind.
 Defining the key terms