Why is inductive reasoning effective?
Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from specifics to the general. We draw general conclusions based on discrete, specific everyday experiences. Because both writers and readers share this reasoning process, induction can be a highly effective strategy for persuasion.
The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.
The purposes for using an inductive approach are to (1) to condense extensive and varied raw text data into a brief, summary format; (2) to establish clear links between the research objectives and the summary findings derived from the raw data and (3) to develop of model or theory about the underlying structure of ...
The primary purpose of the inductive approach is to allow research findings to emerge from the frequent, dominant, or significant themes inherent in raw data, without the restraints im- posed by structured methodologies.
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.
Since 1600, the inductive method has been incredibly successful in investigating nature - surely far more successful than its originators could have imagined. The inductive method of investigation has become so entrenched in science that it is often referred to as the scientific method.
The validity of inductive reasoning is dubious. Since inductive reasoning requires specific premises to generate a conclusion, the conclusion is plausible but not always true. A deductive conclusion can only be proven to be correct if the premises supporting it are also valid.
Deduction is more precise and quantitative, while induction is more general and qualitative.
In making use of the inductive approach to research, the researcher begins with specific observations and measures, and then moves to detecting themes and patterns in the data. This allows the researcher to form an early tentative hypothesis that can be explored.
On the contrary, the Inductive Method summons the resourcefulness of the learners by presenting the examples first then asking them to figure out the rules or structures from the examples. Since the examples are provided first, the learners' are active and alert as soon as the examples hit the mark.
What is the strength of inductive?
A strong inductive argument is said to be one whose premises render the conclusion likely. A cogent argument is a strong argument with true premises.
The inductive approach involves beginning with a set of empirical observations, seeking patterns in those observations, and then theorizing about those patterns.
Induction is a method of reasoning that moves from specific instances to a general conclusion. Also called inductive reasoning. In an inductive argument, a rhetor (that is, a speaker or writer) collects a number of instances and forms a generalization that is meant to apply to all instances. (Contrast with deduction.)
An inductive approach to research begins by collecting data that is relevant to the topic of interest. Once a substantial amount of data has been collected, the researcher will then take a breather from data collection, stepping back to get a bird's eye view of the data.
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.
Although inductive and deductive reasoning are used in qualitative and quantitative research, it is important to stress the different roles of induction and deduction when models are applied to cases.
Many scientists consider deductive reasoning the gold standard for scientific research. Using this method, one begins with a theory or hypothesis, then conducts research in order to test whether that theory or hypothesis is supported by specific evidence.
It does not make sense to call one deductive argument more valid than another, but one inductive argument can be stronger or weaker than another. The actual truth values of an argument's premises and conclusion are irrelevant to the argument's strength.
Inductive arguments are not usually said to be "valid" or "invalid," but according to the degree of support which the premises do provide for the conclusion, they may be said to be "strong" or "weak" over a spectrum of varying degrees of likelihood.
Inductive reasoning is the most secure type of logic. According to the principle of charity, in interpreting an unclear argument or passage, we should always give the speaker or writer the benefit of the doubt.