It's not the best idea to define inductive arguments as "bottom up" reasoning that moves from specific-to-general. Example: "Mary is nearly always late. So Mary will probably show up late today." This is inarguably *inductive*. But it sure doesn't appear to move from the specific to the general. Just the opposite! Same goes for deductive argument. "Top down" reasoning that moves from specific-to-general just doesn't cut it as a definition. Example: "Either Bill is going or Ted is going. Bill is not going. So Ted is going." This is straightforwardly *deductive*. But it looks to me like a specific claim about Bill and Ted, and a specific claim about Bill, leading to a specific conclusion about Ted! What's "general" about this argument?
I primarily think with deductive reasoning and I have a friend who primarily thinks with inductive reasoning. The issue is that she fails to realize her inductions are probabilities based on an educated guess. She mistakes her inductions to be true certainties. She has a lot of emotional biases from particular personal experiences that cause her to stereotype unfairly.
I have always thought of deductive and inductive reasoning as different kinds of arguments for different situations, not as a kind of preference somebody might have in their general approach to drawing conclusions. But now that you mention it, I see there might be something to what you're saying. For instance, in my own case, I'm now much more drawn to probabilistic reasoning than my younger self, who in the brashness of youth was always looking for a knock-down deductive proof! 😄
This was incredibly helpful for a research paper/study proposal I am writing about mixed methods research in the Library and Information profession. Thank you!
I get this feeling that society often uses inductive reasoning while thinking it's deductive reasoning. You have to be absolutely certain of the premise in order to have a logical conclusion.
Thanks again for this great video! What if sometimes we want to do reasoning backward, such as from conclusion to premises or from effect to causes, does this type of reasoning still falls into inductive reasoning (as we just change the direction of the reasoning) or it's something called abductive reasoning? Thanks.
Thanks for the video. Explaining the difference in terms of the level of certainty offered by the two methods helps to distinguish the purposes. Just an observation - the Venn diagram helps develop the understanding. However, it is a bit misleading. If all foxes are canines, then the circle for foxes would be inside the circle for canines. The blue shaded region in the foxes circle should not exist because that would indicate that there are some foxes that are not canines.
A fair enough observation! But it's not a mistake: it's the standard way to do a Venn diagram. The shading of that area of the circle represents "there is nothing here." Sounds like you prefer Euler diagrams. Check them out: they might be more intuitive for you.
Yes that the crown story. Princess, unicorns what is a horse with a corn in the forehead . What is an unicorn, I have not seen people on the streets dressed with a corn in the head and wearing 3 years old dresses.
I love the topic and appreciate the time you put into this. I want to critique a little bit though. 1) Volume adjustments need to be made between the intro and the main content. The intro is much louder than the content. The outro is also louder and after turning up the volume to hear your voice, the outro was much too loud for my home. 2) In my opinion: the unicorn example is fun, but gets in the way of the topic of logic. Thank you. I subscribed to your channel.
Thanks, Silver Bear! It's an unfortunate twist of fate that the RUclips algorithm gods direct so much traffic to this early video that was made back when I barely knew what I was doing with audio/video. 😎
Very nice presentation - well done! However… I disagree with you that the distinction is merely a matter of intent - every argument, by definition, always argues for the truth of its conclusion - that, after all, is the whole purpose of an argument! So, the intent is always the same! The real distinction is in fact this… deductive arguments appeal to premises that are ACTUALLY TRUE, whereas inductive arguments appeal to premises that are only ever PROBABLY TRUE So, here’s my question… are you able to proffer a premise that is ACTUALLY TRUE? (Both your deductive examples fail the test for truth, rendering them in fact inductive) Since Truth (with a capital ‘T’) is beyond our reach (a ‘Blaue Blume’), I contend that the idea of a truly deductive argument, is nothing more than that - just an idea - nothing more…
Thank you, elaela. This was the third video I ever made so I didn't know what I was doing. 😄 Now 20 videos later I still don't know a lot about audio/video production but it's fun to learn as I go. 👍🏼
Yes, this was an early video when I was still figuring things out. Actually, I’m _still_ figuring things out, but I think the audio of the channel has improved. 🙂
@johnchiappone2163 If you have hearing impairment I can recommend you a good doctor that can make an audio-head phone suited for your needs. If you deaf you need help with hearing but if one is stupid than I can not fix stupidity.
So on what basis would anyone believe in the Uniformity of Nature which is the foundation of science? In other words, based on inductive reasoning, how do you "know" tomorrow will be like today?
Purely inductive. The laws of nature _could_ change tomorrow for all we know. All we have to go on is past experience: so far, the laws of nature have been consistent, reliable, unchanging. So it's reasonable to believe they will continue that way. But there's no guarantee.
@kossnfx I understand why you would think so. But then you'd have a Euler diagram, not a Venn diagram. What you see here in this video is the standard Venn diagram for universal affirmative statements (i.e. categorical sentences of the form "All S are P.")
@Cantbuyathril Deductive reasoning is based on logic and is implicit true and correct. Inductive is bullshit actually, to be in tact with your talking style.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
It's not the best idea to define inductive arguments as "bottom up" reasoning that moves from specific-to-general. Example: "Mary is nearly always late. So Mary will probably show up late today." This is inarguably *inductive*. But it sure doesn't appear to move from the specific to the general. Just the opposite!
Same goes for deductive argument. "Top down" reasoning that moves from specific-to-general just doesn't cut it as a definition. Example: "Either Bill is going or Ted is going. Bill is not going. So Ted is going." This is straightforwardly *deductive*. But it looks to me like a specific claim about Bill and Ted, and a specific claim about Bill, leading to a specific conclusion about Ted! What's "general" about this argument?
I primarily think with deductive reasoning and I have a friend who primarily thinks with inductive reasoning. The issue is that she fails to realize her inductions are probabilities based on an educated guess. She mistakes her inductions to be true certainties. She has a lot of emotional biases from particular personal experiences that cause her to stereotype unfairly.
I have always thought of deductive and inductive reasoning as different kinds of arguments for different situations, not as a kind of preference somebody might have in their general approach to drawing conclusions. But now that you mention it, I see there might be something to what you're saying. For instance, in my own case, I'm now much more drawn to probabilistic reasoning than my younger self, who in the brashness of youth was always looking for a knock-down deductive proof! 😄
I can't thank you enough! This was clear and straight to the point. Love this!
I love the examples used and the animation for it really pops out. Very appealing!
This was incredibly helpful for a research paper/study proposal I am writing about mixed methods research in the Library and Information profession. Thank you!
You’re welcome-and good luck with your paper/proposal!
You explained this incredibly well. Thanks!
I get this feeling that society often uses inductive reasoning while thinking it's deductive reasoning. You have to be absolutely certain of the premise in order to have a logical conclusion.
Yeah is a big deal to analyze what is true or not. What is real and what is fake. Big paradox if one is idiot.
watched some videos, finally something that explains it well
thanks for the input, really led me in the right direction.
This is awesome thank you soo much!
Make more! Especially ones that will help in aptitude tests, please and thank you.
Wow..you really helped me with that inductive reasoning part...thanks
Thanks again for this great video! What if sometimes we want to do reasoning backward, such as from conclusion to premises or from effect to causes, does this type of reasoning still falls into inductive reasoning (as we just change the direction of the reasoning) or it's something called abductive reasoning? Thanks.
Yes, sounds like you might have abductive reasoning in mind.
THANK YOU 😭😭😭
Thanks for the video. Explaining the difference in terms of the level of certainty offered by the two methods helps to distinguish the purposes. Just an observation - the Venn diagram helps develop the understanding. However, it is a bit misleading. If all foxes are canines, then the circle for foxes would be inside the circle for canines. The blue shaded region in the foxes circle should not exist because that would indicate that there are some foxes that are not canines.
Thank you! That was bugging me.
A fair enough observation! But it's not a mistake: it's the standard way to do a Venn diagram. The shading of that area of the circle represents "there is nothing here."
Sounds like you prefer Euler diagrams. Check them out: they might be more intuitive for you.
Yeah, it bugs my students sometimes, too. 😄 Are you familiar with Euler diagrams? It's an alternative system more in line with what you're saying.
I'm learning reasoning from someone who believes in unicorns >:3
Nice🤣
Yes that the crown story. Princess, unicorns what is a horse with a corn in the forehead . What is an unicorn, I have not seen people on the streets dressed with a corn in the head and wearing 3 years old dresses.
I love the topic and appreciate the time you put into this. I want to critique a little bit though.
1) Volume adjustments need to be made between the intro and the main content. The intro is much louder than the content. The outro is also louder and after turning up the volume to hear your voice, the outro was much too loud for my home.
2) In my opinion: the unicorn example is fun, but gets in the way of the topic of logic.
Thank you. I subscribed to your channel.
Thanks, Silver Bear! It's an unfortunate twist of fate that the RUclips algorithm gods direct so much traffic to this early video that was made back when I barely knew what I was doing with audio/video. 😎
when scientist do experiments, are they using inductive or deductive reasoning? not forming a hypothesis but doing the actual experiments.
Most is inductive
Thanks Sir
Makes alot of sense🤔
Rational raciosinio argument discussion subjetsy😂❤❤❤
Very nice presentation - well done!
However… I disagree with you that the distinction is merely a matter of intent - every argument, by definition, always argues for the truth of its conclusion - that, after all, is the whole purpose of an argument!
So, the intent is always the same!
The real distinction is in fact this… deductive arguments appeal to premises that are ACTUALLY TRUE, whereas inductive arguments appeal to premises that are only ever PROBABLY TRUE
So, here’s my question… are you able to proffer a premise that is ACTUALLY TRUE? (Both your deductive examples fail the test for truth, rendering them in fact inductive)
Since Truth (with a capital ‘T’) is beyond our reach (a ‘Blaue Blume’), I contend that the idea of a truly deductive argument, is nothing more than that - just an idea - nothing more…
totally agree. I think the other part is excellent, but the "intent" part really is not helpful
@@ling-feilin4743 Sorry - didn’t intend to…
great explanation! but it's too silent
Thank you, elaela. This was the third video I ever made so I didn't know what I was doing. 😄 Now 20 videos later I still don't know a lot about audio/video production but it's fun to learn as I go. 👍🏼
Helpful 👍
I can't hear you.
Yes, this was an early video when I was still figuring things out.
Actually, I’m _still_ figuring things out, but I think the audio of the channel has improved. 🙂
@johnchiappone2163 If you have hearing impairment I can recommend you a good doctor that can make an audio-head phone suited for your needs. If you deaf you need help with hearing but if one is stupid than I can not fix stupidity.
So on what basis would anyone believe in the Uniformity of Nature which is the foundation of science? In other words, based on inductive reasoning, how do you "know" tomorrow will be like today?
Purely inductive. The laws of nature _could_ change tomorrow for all we know. All we have to go on is past experience: so far, the laws of nature have been consistent, reliable, unchanging. So it's reasonable to believe they will continue that way. But there's no guarantee.
Could we draw a third circle for those foxes sleep on trees?
You can create a visual representation any way you'd like, but the way shown in the video is how to do it in the standard Venn system.
@@LetsGetLogical Thanks for your reply
All Dingos are carnivores
Babies are made of tender flesh
Maybe the dingo ate your baby.
Nice wee fox.
you are soy amazing and beautiful
If "All foxes are canines" then your Venn diagram is wrong from the very start; the "fox" circle would be a subset entirely within the canine circle
@kossnfx I understand why you would think so. But then you'd have a Euler diagram, not a Venn diagram. What you see here in this video is the standard Venn diagram for universal affirmative statements (i.e. categorical sentences of the form "All S are P.")
Since nothing in life is certain
deductive reasoning is bullshit.
@Cantbuyathril Deductive reasoning is based on logic and is implicit true and correct. Inductive is bullshit actually, to be in tact with your talking style.
possibly the worst use of a Venn diagram on the Internet
😂
This was incredibly helpful. Thank you.