Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

At first glance inductive validity and deductive validity might appear to be the same, but they are not. There is a fine line between that which is deductive and that which is inductive, enough so that one could argue that deductive is Truth, while inductive is merely subject truth. It’s much like the difference between being 99.99% and 100% sure; or having a surgery with a 99.99% success rate compared with a 100% assurance of success. While these two seem to be exactly alike, they are not.

Much the way people will find falsehood with the .01% error, so will people find invalidity in inductive reasoning. This is not to say that inductive reasoning has no logical place in good judgment, merely that we have to be aware that there is that slight chance that we could be wrong. There is also the other side of the coin in being skeptical, only to find out that what we found almost beyond belief was based completely in reality.

Inductive logic has a great place in our life, as it allows us to make logical assumptions and skepticisms.

One such example would be: If a Horse hybrid, a Mule hybrid, and Sheep-goat hybrids are all sterile, therefore tigers should be sterile too. Unfortunately this does not hold up, as Wikipedia will tell you that while most hybrid animals are in fact sterile, a tiger is not one of them. Of course it makes logical sense to infer the conclusion of hybrids, such as many other things in life, assuming facts have a way of throwing in small exceptions to our rules.

Therefore we should not treat inductive logic as being infallible, but instead as logical skepticism, or at least be open to other interpretations or examples that prove any previous inferences to be false.

Deductive reasoning on the other hand is more of an infallible logic while using the formula properly.

For example: If I kiss my girlfriend, then she will enjoy it. I kissed my girlfriend therefore she enjoyed our kiss. Now if someone does not put in the proper data, then the formula will be wrong. For example: Humans are omnivores, therefore all humans eat meat. I have a friend who is human, but she doesn’t eat meat. This can happen, as there are Vegetarians, people who do not eat meat and instead live out their lives as herbivores.

I inputted the false data of all humans eating meat, the formula was still right, but the conclusion came out false because I did not use the proper data. Unfortunately this type of logical argument is limited as the data has to follow the explicit details of both it’s premises and has to have both of them be true in order to have a cogent outcome.

In conclusion I would just like to point out that there is room for both inductive and deductive reasoning in our lives. Unfortunately neither one is always 100% correct when used in real world circumstances; as we use less then 100% accurate data for our deductive reasoning, later we will act as if our inductive reasoning is just as valid, if not more valid then our deductive reasoning. We must use caution and care when using either form of reasoning in the real world, as life is many times guided by the illogical actions of human beings.

Even our greatest mathematicians fall prey to illogical thinking, such as saying religion is blind faith, yet they use a multi-verse theory, which is unable to be proven, has no witnesses, or any other valid form of data in which to base their conclusion upon.

Yet apparently since they use some sort of science or math to produce this theory, it’s obviously using less blind faith, even though people have experienced real miracles and seen real supernatural beings. We must take care to always properly use any philosophical reasoning within the right context, otherwise we will fall into terrible fallacies, and will never become proper critical thinkers.