Scribd
Upload
10 views1 page

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Uploaded by

nizanator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views1 page

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Uploaded by

nizanator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Deductive Argument vs Inductive Argument

A deductive argument is an argument that is An inductive argument is an argument that is


intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, intended by the arguer merely to establish or
that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the increase the probability of its conclusion. In an
conclusion provided that the argument’s premises inductive argument, the premises are intended only
(assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would
also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the be unlikely that the conclusion is false. There is no
premises are intended to provide such strong standard term for a successful inductive argument.
support for the conclusion that, if the premises are But its success or strength is a matter of degree,
true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion unlike with deductive arguments. A deductive
to be false. An argument in which the premises do argument is valid or else invalid.
succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a
(deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every
has true conclusions, then the argument is said to time I’ve walked by that dog, he hasn’t tried to bite
be sound. me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won’t
try to bite me.
Here is a valid deductive argument: It’s sunny in
Singapore. If it’s sunny in Singapore, he won’t be If the author of the argument does not think that the
carrying an umbrella. So, he won’t be carrying an truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth
umbrella. of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that
their truth provides good reason to believe the
The difference between the two kinds of arguments conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.
does not lie solely in the words used; it comes from
the relationship the author or expositor of the Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging
argument takes there to be between the premises forms. Inductive arguments might conclude with
and the conclusion. If the author of the argument some claim about a group based only on
believes that the truth of the premises definitely information from a sample of that group. Other
establishes the truth of the conclusion (due to inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to
definition, logical entailment, logical structure, or evidence or authority or causal relationships. Here
mathematical necessity), then the argument is a somewhat strong inductive argument based on
is deductive. authority:

Because deductive arguments are those in which - Here is a somewhat strong inductive
the truth of the conclusion is thought to be argument based on authority:
completely guaranteed and not just made
probable by the truth of the premises, if the The police said John committed the murder. So,
argument is a sound one, then the truth of the John committed the murder.
conclusion is “contained within” the truth of the
premises; that is, the conclusion does not go - Here is an inductive argument based
beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly on evidence:
requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are
usually limited to inferences that follow from The witness said John committed the murder. So,
definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. John committed the murder.

John is ill. If John is ill, then he won’t be able to - Here is a stronger inductive argument
attend our meeting today. Therefore, John won’t be based on better evidence:
able to attend our meeting today.
Two independent witnesses claimed John
That argument is valid due to its logical structure. committed the murder. John’s fingerprints are the
If ‘ill’ were replaced with ‘happy’, the argument only ones on the murder weapon. John confessed to
would still be valid because it would retain its the crime. So, John committed the murder.
special logical structure (called modus ponens).
This last argument is no doubt good enough for a
If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows jury to convict John, but none of these three
necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is arguments about John committing the murder is
deductive by contemporary standards. strong enough to be called valid. At least it is not
valid in the technical sense of ‘deductively valid’.
A bad deductive argument is not an inductive However, some lawyers will tell their juries that
argument. these are valid arguments, so we critical thinkers
need to be on the alert as to how people around us
are using the term.

You might also like