which of the following is true of the distinction between induction and deduction course hero

What is an example of deduction from induction?

Sep 18, 2015 · Inductive reasoning means going from the general to the specific, while deductive reasoning is the reverse. Some forms of inductive reasoning go from the specific to the general, while others go from the general to the specific. Deductive reasoning never has a general conclusion. Question 2.

What is the deductive/inductive distinction?

Which of the following is true of the distinction between induction and. Which of the following is true of the distinction. School Ashford University; Course Title PHI 103; Uploaded By timmoore7701; Pages 10 This preview shows page 7 - 10 out of 10 pages.

Is an invalid deduction a weak induction?

which of the following is true of the distinction... User qa_get_logged_in_handle sort. which of the following is true of the distinction between induction and deduction?

What is an inductive argument that claims its conclusion follows?

Historically, from the time of Aristotle, the distinction between deduction and induction, more or less, has been described as: “[D]eduction consists in passing from more general to less general truths; induction is the contrary process from less to more general truths.” [W. Stanley Jevons, The Principles of Science 2nd ed. (1979 London: Macmillan, 1913), 11.]

What is the difference between inductive and deductive arguments?

Abstract: A deductive argument's premises provide conclusive evidence for the truth of its conclusion. An inductive argument's premises provide probable evidence for the truth of its conclusion. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments does not specifically depend on the specificity or generality of the composite statements.

What is the definition of deduction?

Deduction: an argument whose premises, if true, provide conclusive evidence for the truth of its conclusion. To take the classic example which must be mentioned at least once in this course: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

What is the inference that attempts to reach a conclusion concerning all the members of a class or group on the

Often (but not always!) induction is the sort of inference which attempts to reach a conclusion concerning all the members of a class or group on the basis of the observations of only some of them. So to put it another way, the conclusion of a very strong inductive argument with true premises is improbably false.

How to assess an argument as deductive or inductive?

To assess the argument as deductive or inductive, first, we begin by identifying the conclusion by recognizing that the first statement is less well known than the second statement, and the second statement seems to provide a reason for the first statement. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.

What is a conductive argument?

A conductive argument is a complex argument which provides premises which separately provide evidence for a conclusion — each is independently relevant to the conclusion.

What is monotonic reasoning?

This point is obvious for monotonic reasoning where arguments are evaluated independently of claims (1) by the person who espouses them or when (2) arguments are evaluated in terms of the principle of charity. Even for dialogical reasoning, a speaker's intention should not determine the distinction between inductive and inductive arguments, for few speakers are informed of the epistemological differences to begin with. ↩

Who was the first philosopher to correct the induction theory?

William Whewell was perhaps the earliest philosopher to register a correction to the view that induction can be defined as a process of reasoning from specific statements to a generalization. Throughout his writings he explains that induction requires more than simply generalizing from an enumeration of facts. He suggests as early as 1831 that the facts must be brought together by the recognition of a new generality of the relationship among the facts by applying that general relation to each of the facts. See. esp. William Whewell , The Mechanical Euclid (Cambridge: J. and J.J. Deighton, 1837), 173-175; The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, vol. 2 (London: J.W. Parker and Sons, 1840), 214; On the Philosophy of Discovery (London: John W. Parker and Son, 1860), 254. ↩