An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. So, an inductive argument's success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments.
Similar to the concept of soundness for deductive arguments, a strong inductive argument with true premises is termed cogent. To say an argument is cogent is to say it is good, believable; there is good evidence that the conclusion is true. A weak argument cannot be cogent, nor can a strong one with a false premise(s).
The basic strength of inductive reasoning is its use in predicting what might happen in the future or in establishing the possibility of what you will encounter. The main weakness of inductive reasoning is that it is incomplete, and you may reach false conclusions even with accurate observations.
An inductively strong argument is such that if its premises are true, it conclusion is likely or probably true.
For example: In the past, ducks have always come to our pond. Therefore, the ducks will come to our pond this summer. These types of inductive reasoning work in arguments and in making a hypothesis in mathematics or science.
Inductive reasoning involves starting from specific premises and forming a general conclusion, while deductive reasoning involves using general premises to form a specific conclusion. Conclusions reached via deductive reasoning cannot be incorrect if the premises are true.
We use inductive reasoning in everyday life to build our understanding of the world. Inductive reasoning also underpins the scientific method: scientists gather data through observation and experiment, make hypotheses based on that data, and then test those theories further.
Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It's usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you go from general information to specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.
The benefits of an inductive approach, as seen for example in grounded theory, are that it allows flexibility, attends closely to context and supports the generation of new theory [see the paper on social loss as example].
Terms in this set (10) A deductive argument sets out to guarantee the truth of its conclusion based on the truth of its premises while an inductive argument attempts to offer a probability that its conclusion is true based on the truth of its premises.
What is the difference between an inductively strong argument and an inductively weak one? The difference is that an inductively strong argument succeeds in providing probable logical support for its conclusion ,but an inductively weak one fails to provide such support.
Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning that a rule or statement is true because specific cases are true. You may use inductive reasoning to draw a conclusion from a pattern. A statement you believe to be true based on inductive reasoning is called a conjecture.
Very generally, strong arguments are ones whose conclusions we should accept because they support the conclusions well. Previously, we focused just on logical form of the arguments, but not the actual truth of the premises or conclusions. We saw that a valid argument is one where the premises, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the conclusion. And a cogent argument is one that is invalid, and the premises, if they were true, would make the conclusion likely to be true. Ill-formed arguments are ones that are neither valid nor cogent.
All arguments will be either deductively strong, inductively strong, or weak. A weak argument is one that should fail to convince us of its conclusion. Given the way we are analyzing arguments, there are three ways that they can be weak.