I have watched a lot of videos to fully understand the differences between deductive and inductive arguments, but this one is the most helpful. Thank you very much!
Thank you alot, precise clear and understandable. believe me so far I have watched two videos of yours I have never understood from any teacher at anything the way I have understood from you. Thank you again.
I like how you're to the point without a bunch of fluff. I also like how you use the same example for both deduction and induction so I could compare. There's a lot of long-winded videos out there that don't help you understand the difference.
heck of a lot better than trying to read all this again. Reading about this stuff gets Pedro sleepy. Pedro is sleepy. Pedro just finish reading. D or I? Thank you Sir, for the great content.
1. Deductive argument begins with general principle and ends with specific provision. In inductive argument we begin with specific provisions or observations and we end with general principles. 2. In deductive argument the conclusion is necessarily certain given that the premises are true, while in inductive argument the general statement is probably true even if the premises are true.
Hi doctor, I have these questions, this statement is inductive or deductive (abortion is wrong, because all human life is sacred). And the other one (jon will proably be promoted soon, since he is working here for longer time than the others). I will be appreciated if you answered
Thanks, sir, but I still have a question. Suppose that I want to understand the process of expert judgement in clinical medicine and through a critical literature review, I consider that this process can be explained from the perspective of knowledge. However, this is my understanding rather than an existing theory. Can I based on it to do deductive research in clinical medicine?
It is like relationships between a scientist and an engineer A scientist finds the laws of nature by inductive reasoning Then by this natural laws which are discovered by scientists,engineers utilities them via deductive reasoning by expectations of validity of this laws in case if results was false it means that inductive reasoning failed and it needs to be corrected again by scientists
Example at world war 2 When German were building v2 rockets to hit London they use Newtonian laws of physic But the results was failure problem was they didn't consider aerodynamic laws which affect on speed and range of the rockets
Saying that deductive arguments' conclusions are necessarily true if premises are true is, in itself, an inductive argument that is probably true but not certainly true. Therefore, you can't say deductive arguments necessarily lead to true conclusions.
but if induction isn't valid, then deduction can't be valid. if one can't come to the conclusion that all men are mortal, there is not way to come to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.
This video is helpful, but it makes several false claims that are common misconceptions about the difference between these argument types. Deductive arguments need not use general principles to infer specific propositions. E.g.: "All chocolate bars are candy bars, no vegetables are candy bars, therefore no chocolate bars are also vegetables." OR hypothetical syllogism, e.g. "If it is raining then the grass is wet, if the grass is wet then you can't mow the lawn, therefore, if it is raining then you can't mow the lawn." Meanwhile, inductive arguments need not use specific propositions to infer general principles - they can also infer specific predictions. For example, the conclusion of your example argument could simply be, "Therefore, Mr. Moffat will wear black shoes on Friday."
Agreed. This video does perpetuate those misconceptions. As the target audience for this video was high school students I had attempted to simply, but i accept your point. I would add that despite the simplification it would still be true that all arguments that move from specific to general are inductive and all arguments that move from general to specific are deductive. So this distinction has utility, even if it is not comprehensive, as none of the arguments they encounter during A Level are of the kind you present above. Thanks for your comment though. Hopefully those who want to take this further will be able to do so reading this
@@mrmoffat That makes total sense! There is always a trade off between simplicity/clarity for a general audience and losing some of the nuance. Thanks again!
THANK YOU. You have no idea how much I appreciated this.
Short, to the point and good examples - this is great for all ages not just A level! Thank you!
Thank you for helping a 71 year old.
Hats off for u sir..
You helped me a lot
Glad it was useful
Very helpful! Would highly recommend. Clear and crisp for beginners without too much confusing theory.
Very helpful and straight to the point
I ntiyiso MuHlave. Na mina ndzi n'wi kumea hlamusela Swi twala.
Great Work Highly Appreciate
I like this explanation - so clear, brief and treat the viewers proportionally. Great Thanks
deductive argument can only be valid or invalid. Inductive argument can be strong or weak.
What the fuck are you saying 😂
😊😊😊😊thank you !!!
I have watched a lot of videos to fully understand the differences between deductive and inductive arguments, but this one is the most helpful. Thank you very much!
Glad it helped! Thanks for the feedback
This is good I have been fumbling about these arguments
You have amazing teaching skills, Thank you🎉🎉
This is the best example that I have found and I have searched and searched, thanks a lot!
Pretty clear and adds on to what i got from my lecture this week. Thank you.
Something very complicated explained in very easy way. Thanks.
structure and the strength of conclusion...thank you lecturer for the kind help
Thank you alot, precise clear and understandable. believe me so far I have watched two videos of yours I have never understood from any teacher at anything the way I have understood from you. Thank you again.
I like how you're to the point without a bunch of fluff. I also like how you use the same example for both deduction and induction so I could compare. There's a lot of long-winded videos out there that don't help you understand the difference.
very nice.. u are master in teaching.....
u are so fantastic please teach us informal fallacy
Out standing 🔥🔥🔥
Great way to explain , well done , Thank you
heck of a lot better than trying to read all this again. Reading about this stuff gets Pedro sleepy. Pedro is sleepy. Pedro just finish reading. D or I? Thank you Sir, for the great content.
thanks sir, its very effective and usefull..very clear concepts thanks u
Great video! They differ in structure and the strength of conclusions.
You are the best , you made it very clear. Thank you
THANK YOU THAT WAS THE BEST VIDEO ON THAT TOPIC!!
Very informative description..... 👍
Thank you! Very clear without jargon that I cannot understand.
Using both methods simultaneously leads to madness. Welcome to the world of focused A.D.D.
This was very good. Better than my math book. Thank you.
My wig needed this and you did a great job of explaining it.
Thanks for this. I have an exam tomorrow.
armyyy
Thank you for your clear explanation, great voice!
Thank you so much for the video!!! You made this simple and easy to understand. Thumbs up for you!!!!!
Love you sir well explained ❤️😘
very understandable, thank you so much
Thank you! This explanation makes so much sense.
Wow thx so so much for this info
thank you for this video, Mr. Moffat
Easy to understand. Thanks a lot
Thanks sir, how easily u explained us this topic
6:32 If you had seen your friend's swan, wouldn't that make it a deductive argument?
I loved it...thank you so much sir.
just what i needed for my revision. thank you so much
Good job bro
Can you explain why the God exist example is not Inductive please?
Thnx sir i understood 100 percent thnx alot
Thank you for this...now I know.
thanks you are an amazing instructor
1. Deductive argument begins with general principle and ends with specific provision. In inductive argument we begin with specific provisions or observations and we end with general principles.
2. In deductive argument the conclusion is necessarily certain given that the premises are true, while in inductive argument the general statement is probably true even if the premises are true.
I think your first example is inductive because it follows patterns and leads to an inference.
Great lesson, thank you!
Really nice sir.
4:06 it won't "equally could be false",it is more likely to be true then not.But yes,it is not certain.
A tad pernickety, but yes it is not 50/50 so point taken. Thanks for watching
Thank you! It has helped me with my assignment! :D
explanation is good
thanks for this video really helped me understand
This helped me a lot.
Any relation to Steven Moffat? Great Video!
Nice , Dear sir, please make videos on this topic"Effects of inductive method in learning process at secondary level"
Thanks for uploading/producing this. Am I right in saying that, at 5:30 in your vid, Mr Moffat might not have gone to work at all on Friday?
Yes. Or worn different colour shoes
Wonderful! But there is/are deductive arguments that go from particular to general and inductive arguments that proceed from general to particular.
Thank you very much sir 😊
Thank you for your nice video.
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH(no homo). YOU'VE SAVED MY LIFEEE MAN.
Nigga had to throw the no homo in there 🤣🤣
Thank you sir
You are awesome.
Thank you so much sir! ✨
precisely described.Thanks
this is very good.
1. DNA is the same for identical twins.
2. Identical twins are not always the same sexual orientation.
C. DNA does not determine sexual orientation.
nice speech
Great video. thanks much!
thank you sir you help me a lot
Awesome thank you soo much
Good dude, thanks you
Thanks so much 🙏
Hi doctor,
I have these questions, this statement is inductive or deductive (abortion is wrong, because all human life is sacred). And the other one (jon will proably be promoted soon, since he is working here for longer time than the others). I will be appreciated if you answered
Both are deductive as premises are general statements and results are specific.
Thanks, sir, but I still have a question.
Suppose that I want to understand the process of expert judgement in clinical medicine and through a critical literature review, I consider that this process can be explained from the perspective of knowledge. However, this is my understanding rather than an existing theory. Can I based on it to do deductive research in clinical medicine?
All scientific knowledge is inductive. You accumulate more and more evidence in order to make the truth of conclusions more and more probable.
I watched this entire video.
How can we explain Deduction and Induction in Metaphysics?? Like with the example of God you've given
what about the premises and conclusion??
It is like relationships between a scientist and an engineer
A scientist finds the laws of nature by inductive reasoning
Then by this natural laws which are discovered by scientists,engineers utilities them via deductive reasoning by expectations of validity of this laws in case if results was false it means that inductive reasoning failed and it needs to be corrected again by scientists
Example at world war 2
When German were building v2 rockets to hit London they use Newtonian laws of physic
But the results was failure
problem was they didn't consider aerodynamic laws which affect on speed and range of the rockets
Thanks very much
Can some one summer use in there own words how the differ ? TIA
The first deductive argument can be shown to not be necessarily true in real life. It doesn’t guarantee a future occurrence.
I think the probabilistic outcomes of inductive reasoning are evidence of the existence of everything.
Thank you so much!!!!
You're welcome!
Deductive argument can be either valid or invalid while inductive argument can be either cogent or uncogent
Thank you!
Saying that deductive arguments' conclusions are necessarily true if premises are true is, in itself, an inductive argument that is probably true but not certainly true. Therefore, you can't say deductive arguments necessarily lead to true conclusions.
He might work on Saturday or Sunday.
Thank you
I have some mistakes, gotta relearn. Thank you!
wow!!
thanks sir
Perfect !
I'm having a hard time believing that the one with God is deductive
...????
superbly explained!! but in this video Speaker pronunciation for word "often" wasn't correct. :)
Be A'man: look up ethnocentrism
A.B Guruji oh my goodness, really. Reaching
but if induction isn't valid, then deduction can't be valid. if one can't come to the conclusion that all men are mortal, there is not way to come to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.
This video is helpful, but it makes several false claims that are common misconceptions about the difference between these argument types. Deductive arguments need not use general principles to infer specific propositions. E.g.: "All chocolate bars are candy bars, no vegetables are candy bars, therefore no chocolate bars are also vegetables." OR hypothetical syllogism, e.g. "If it is raining then the grass is wet, if the grass is wet then you can't mow the lawn, therefore, if it is raining then you can't mow the lawn." Meanwhile, inductive arguments need not use specific propositions to infer general principles - they can also infer specific predictions. For example, the conclusion of your example argument could simply be, "Therefore, Mr. Moffat will wear black shoes on Friday."
Agreed. This video does perpetuate those misconceptions. As the target audience for this video was high school students I had attempted to simply, but i accept your point. I would add that despite the simplification it would still be true that all arguments that move from specific to general are inductive and all arguments that move from general to specific are deductive. So this distinction has utility, even if it is not comprehensive, as none of the arguments they encounter during A Level are of the kind you present above. Thanks for your comment though. Hopefully those who want to take this further will be able to do so reading this
@@mrmoffat That makes total sense! There is always a trade off between simplicity/clarity for a general audience and losing some of the nuance. Thanks again!