Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (2025)

First in this tutorial/summary, let's recall the hat problem from Chapter 1 (also see the tutorial). In that story we noted that the prisoners were not going to be allowed to use inductive reasoning. Each prisoner had to be sure about what hat he had on his head, otherwise he would answer "no" (he did not know).

For instance, we noted one inductive possibility (probability only) for the first man (x):

If only three hats are used (one on x, one on y, and one on z), then we know x has a higher probability of having on a red hat IF he sees two white hats, one on y and one on z. If he sees two whites, then there is only one chance for him to have on a white hat but two chances for him to have on a red hat.

x-----------------------------------------y----------------------------z
( probably redInductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (1) )---------------(white hat)---------------(white hat)

Consider the take away message from this example.

  1. We can be smart using inductive reasoning even though we do not have certainty for our inference. We can also be dumb and have less probability for our inference . If x was allowed to choose based on probability, he would be smart to choose red and not very smart choosing white. Choosing red is wiser because the probability is higher - there are two red hats left but only one white. So, x would not be certain that he had on a red hat but he would be smart (playing the odds) if he chose red as the most probable.
  2. We use inductive reasoning every day and should think hard about how to have less risk, more probability, and stronger inductive inferences . We make decisions that involve risk. We cannot be certain of what the future will bring. Something that worked in the past may not work in the future. We want to make decisions backed by evidence that lesson risk and increase the probability of success. We want what we will call strong inductive arguments. We want to avoid weak inductive arguments.
  3. Very strong inductive conclusions = reliable beliefs. (See the optional tutorial for C2.) Reliable beliefs are beliefs backed by lots of evidence, even though we cannot be absolutely certain that they are true. We have overwhelming inductive evidence that people will fall off tall buildings if they jump due to gravity, even though we have not and cannot test every human being. Based on the evidence, we have a reliable and practical belief even though we believe in a big generalization.

Categorizing inductive arguments as strong v weak is similar to categorizing arguments as valid or invalid for deductive arguments. But there will not be a crisp cut off between strong v weak arguments. See the barrel full of apples example in the textbook (C3). The point of this example is that there is a sliding scale from weak to strong inductive inferences, but never certainty for any inductive inference, no matter how strong the evidence is for the inference.

Most of our future discussion on inductive reasoning will be on how to make inductive arguments stronger, and avoid weak inductive arguments such as those discussed in Chapter 5. But let's do the basics first and get some practice just seeing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

Deductive arguments

Arguments where the goal (to achieve valid and soundInductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (2) arguments) is to provide conclusive evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

(Valid or Invalid)

Valid arguments succeed in achieving this goal IF the premises are true (sound argument). Invalid arguments fail in achieving this goal EVEN IF the premises are true.

Inductive arguments

Arguments where the goal (to achieve strong and reliable beliefs) is to provide the best available evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is unlikely that the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Strong inductive arguments achieve this goal - providing the best available evidence. Weak inductive arguments do not.

Here are some examples:

Deductive argument Examples

All Internet hackers and spies for the Chinese government are Chinese.
Wen Ho Lee is Chinese.
So, Wen Ho Lee is an Internet hacker and spy for the Chinese government.

Valid or Invalid?Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (3)

All Chinese people are Internet hackers and spies for the Chinese government..
Wen Ho Lee is Chinese.
So, Wen Ho Lee is an Internet hacker and spy for the Chinese government.

Valid or Invalid?Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (4)

Take Away Point: Both arguments are attempting to provide conclusive evidence for the conclusion. They are attempting to deduce a conclusion from a general statement and information about Wen Ho Lee. These arguments are not using any language that would indicate that the conclusions are only probably true. They are both implying a slam dunk conclusion. The first one though fails in this attempt; it is invalid. The second one partially accomplished the goal of conclusive evidence for the conclusion; it is valid. But the premises would have to all be true for the conclusion to be conclusive.

Inductive argument Examples

After careful observation we have not seen any hummingbirds all day in this forest.
Therefore, probably there are no any hummingbirds in this forest.

Strong or weak induction?Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (5)

After careful observation by trained hummingbird specialists over many weeks, no hummingbirds or signs of hummingbird habitation were found in this forest.
Therefore, probably there are no hummingbirds in this forest.

Strong or weak induction?Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (6)

Take Away Point: Note the important message form these two examples. Both are inductive and both have uncertain conclusions. But clearly the second inductive argument is stronger than the first one. It has more evidence. Many weeks of observation by trained observers v only one day by untrained observers.

Common sense = When something is very important to us, we want the best available evidence for our inductive conclusions. The second argument also has a big generalization as a conclusion, but the conclusion has a higher probability and involves less risk. We want less risk, but we have to use induction every day. So, we should learn how to have less risk for our inductive conclusions.

Quiz

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (7)

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (8)

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (9)

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (10)

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (11)

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (12)


return to top

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments (2025)

FAQs

Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Arguments? ›

Inductive reasoning is a form of argument that—in contrast to deductive reasoning—allows for the possibility that a conclusion can be false, even if all of the premises are true. This difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is reflected in the terminology used to describe deductive and inductive arguments.

Is inductive reasoning the same as inductive argument? ›

In an inductive argument, the evident truth of a statement is verified by examples that have proven to be true or that turn out to be true. In the case of inductive reasoning, a statement may seem to be true until an exception is found.

What is an example of an inductive argument? ›

The following example illustrates how an inductive argument uses specific facts to make a broader conclusion: Premise: All the tigers I saw on my safari trip to South Africa were orange. Conclusion: Therefore, all tigers are orange.

Which two forms are inductive arguments? ›

2. Inductive arguments may be either analogical arguments or generalizations.
  • The similarities between these two forms of argument are far important than any differences between them. ...
  • The difference between the two consists in the nature of their targets.

What is an example of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? ›

Inductive Reasoning: Most of our snowstorms come from the north. It's starting to snow. This snowstorm must be coming from the north. Deductive Reasoning: All of our snowstorms come from the north.

What is another name for an inductive argument? ›

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on current knowledge and predictions.

What do you mean by inductive reasoning? ›

Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.

How to tell if an argument is inductive or deductive? ›

Inductive reasoning involves starting from specific premises and forming a general conclusion, while deductive reasoning involves using general premises to form a specific conclusion. Conclusions reached via deductive reasoning cannot be incorrect if the premises are true.

What makes inductive arguments weak? ›

A strong argument is an inductive argument that succeeds in having its conclusion be probably true, given the truth of the premises. A weak argument is an inductive argument that fails in having its conclusion be probably true, even given the truth of the premises.

What makes an inductive argument valid? ›

Arguments where the goal (to achieve strong and reliable beliefs) is to provide the best available evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is unlikely that the premises are true and the conclusion false.

What is the fallacy of inductive reasoning? ›

Inductive fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that render an inductive argument weak or unreliable. These can be caused by a lack of evidence, biased sampling, or faulty generalization. Some of the most common inductive fallacies are hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and slippery slope.

Which are stronger deductive or inductive arguments? ›

Deductive reasoning is considered stronger than inductive reasoning in a specific sense: If a deductive argument's premises are factually correct, and its structure is valid, then its conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

Is inductive reasoning always true? ›

A conclusion is either strong or weak, not right or wrong. We tend to use this type of reasoning in everyday life, drawing conclusions from experiences and then updating our beliefs. Everyday inductive reasoning is not always correct, but it is often useful.

What is an example of an inductive argument in real life? ›

Inductive reasoning examples

Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick. Hypothesis: Colds are infectious. Data: Every dog I meet is friendly. Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.

What is an example of a deductive argument? ›

An example deductive argument that is both valid and sound is "All dogs are animals, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is an animal." Valid and sound argument: 'All dogs are animals, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is an animal.

What is an example of inductive reasoning for kids? ›

For example, let's say Billy loves building sand castles, playing in the ocean, and collecting sea shells. With these details, you could use inductive reasoning to conclude that Billy probably enjoys the beach. Your conclusion is pretty likely. However, some conclusions may not be true.

What is the word for inductive reasoning? ›

reasoning from detailed facts to general principles. synonyms: generalisation, generalization, induction.

What is the opposite of inductive reasoning called? ›

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, works in the opposite direction of inductive reasoning. It is a logical thinking process that uses a top-down approach to go from the more general to the more specific. It involves the use of general assumptions and logical premises to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Is an inductive argument a fallacy? ›

The fallacies of induction are all failures in reasoning about the messy world of cause and effect, contingent facts of the universe, and generalizations about kinds of things in the world. In each case, an argument is put forth using evidence incorrectly, or making bad predictions, or generalizing improperly.

What are the three types of reasoning? ›

Three methods of reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Foster Heidenreich CPA

Last Updated:

Views: 6144

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (56 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Foster Heidenreich CPA

Birthday: 1995-01-14

Address: 55021 Usha Garden, North Larisa, DE 19209

Phone: +6812240846623

Job: Corporate Healthcare Strategist

Hobby: Singing, Listening to music, Rafting, LARPing, Gardening, Quilting, Rappelling

Introduction: My name is Foster Heidenreich CPA, I am a delightful, quaint, glorious, quaint, faithful, enchanting, fine person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.