Skip to main content

Deductive, Inductive, Analogical, Abductive What are they?

 

Explain the differences between inductive, deductive, analogical, and abductive arguments.

Inductive Reasoning

  • Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to a general conclusion. It involves collecting data, recognizing patterns, and forming a hypothesis based on those patterns.

Deductive Reasoning

  • Deductive reasoning moves from general premises to a specific conclusion. It involves starting with a general principle and applying it to a specific case. It is the age-old classic method of critical thinking.

Analogical Reasoning

  • Analogical reasoning involves making comparisons between two things and drawing inferences based on their similarities. It identifies similarities between two things and suggests that they are likely to be similar in other ways. It is used most often to explain new and difficult concepts by relating them to something else, different but similar in structure.

Abductive Reasoning

  • Abductive reasoning involves forming a hypothesis to explain a particular observation or set of observations. It involves identifying the best explanation for a given set of facts. It is used often when there is little data and you need an explanation.

In summary: Various types of reasoning exhibit the following natures.

1.      Inductive: Specific to general.

2.      Deductive: General to specific.

3.      Analogical: Comparing similar things.

4.      Abductive: Best explanation of some (single) event.

#2 is the strongest, #1 is the second strongest. #3 and #4 are relatively weak methods and are seldom used in scientific papers. Sometimes, analogical and abductive reasoning leads to hypotheses that can subsequently be proved using deductively.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more