Module 5
Module 5
Module 5
Logic:
Deduction
And
5
Inductive
Reasoning
ATTY. HERSIE A.
BUNDA
Module Content:
Imagine yourself as a primitive human, wandering around the plains of Africa millions of years ago. You come
across a new tree with rich, red fruit. You pick a piece of fruit; you eat it. An hour later, you become violently
sick. You make a mental note that this tree's fruit is poisonous.
A month later, you come across a tree of the same species. This time, you know to avoid the fruit. "It's
poisonous," you explain to the rest of your group.
This is an example of how inductive and deductive reasoning combine to help us learn about the world.
We all use both methods of drawing conclusions from the evidence around us, and from what we've already
learned. Induction and deduction represent the natural turn of human intellect.
Reasoning consists of drawing a conclusion from previously established premises. We can outline rational
arguments in a formula called "standard form," a logical outline consisting of a main idea (conclusion, bolded)
and its supporting ideas (premises, listed above):
Of course, we can't join just any old statements together; the statements must combine to support the
conclusion--they can't be irrelevant, they can't be repetitive, and every necessary logical step must be stated
aloud. Standard form reveals incoherent or incomplete arguments:
So: What are the different ways that we can combine premises to make conclusions?
The answer lies in the way our minds work. Human reason puts ideas together in two ways:
• By inferring general statements or principles from observation. We put evidence together, usually based on
our observations, and see if we can make any general conclusions.
• By applying these principles to new information. Now we have inferred a pattern or general statement about
ravens, we apply this information to any new ravens we see.
Look again at the opening example, in which you were a prehistoric human eating bad fruit.
• First, you ate some fruit and got sick. From this concrete and specific experience, you drew a conclusion not
just about the fruit you ate, but about all fruit of that kind. That was one kind of reasoning: "This piece of fruit
made me sick, therefore fruit of this kind will always make me sick."
• Next, you applied this information to other fruit. Even though you didn't even taste the fruit from the second
tree, you already felt you knew something about it based on your past experience. These two methods of
drawing conclusions are called induction and deduction. You may not be aware of doing these mental
operations, any more than you are aware of all the nerve endings relaying electric messages from your brain
when you walk. But you do both mental operations all the time; together, they form the essence of human
learning.
Deduction
Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing a conclusion based on premises that are generally assumed to be true.
Also called "deductive logic," this act uses a logical premise to reach a logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning is often
referred to as "top-down reasoning." If something is assumed to be true and another thing relates to the first
assumption, then the original truth must also hold true for the second thing.
Look again at this story. We see induction at work in the child's unspoken generalization that everything that
happens to Dad must happen to Mom as well. But note that she immediately uses this generalization to infer a
piece of information about her mother: that her mother, too, will have a heart attack. This is deduction--the
application of a general principle (my parents share all experiences) to a specific (my mom will have this
experience too).
Induction gives us general statements, principles and predictions based on what we know so far. With
deduction, we apply these principles to any new experiences. It helps us to make sense of them, and gives
us some information about them.
For example: I eat some grilled liver; it tastes like boots. Later, I eat it again; it still tastes like boots. I
conclude, through induction, that grilled liver always tastes like boots. The following week I am at a friend's
house, and she serves me a plate of liver. I groan inside: "This is going to taste like boots," I think sadly.
Now, how can I know something about a meal that I haven't yet touched? Through deduction. I have drawn
conclusions about liver in general, and now whenever I see liver on the menu, I assume that it must have all
the qualities that I have discovered in liver.
The key word is "must." Inductive reasoning, you remember, is always tentative. The premises to an inductive
argument may all be true, but your conclusion--however reasonable--may be wrong. However, deductive
reasoning produces conclusions that are true of necessity, IF the premises are true. If it is indeed true that
liver always tastes like boots, and if this quivering red mass before me is indeed liver, then it absolutely must
be true that it, too, will taste like boots. If it does not, then the general statement that I got through induction
must be false--or this isn't liver after all.
• It generates necessary conclusions. If the premises of the arguments are true--and remember, they may not
be--then the conclusion absolutely must be true. There is no room for other inferences.
• It puts together a general statement about a group and a statement establishing a member of that group,
and draws a conclusion about that member. The premises to the liver argument are thus: Grilled liver always
tastes like boots, and this is grilled liver. My conclusion: This, too, will taste like boots.
• It puts together a general prediction and a statement about a given situation, and draws a conclusion from
this. The premises establish what we know about a particular cause effect, and use these to draw conclusions
about a situation.
For example: If you drink milk, it will make you throw up. You are not throwing up. Therefore, you haven't
drunk milk.
1. Syllogisms
In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism. From the Middle
Ages onwards, categorical syllogism and syllogism were usually used interchangeably. This article is concerned
only with this historical use. The syllogism was at the core of historical deductive reasoning, whereby facts are
determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning in which facts are determined
by repeated observations.
Within an academic context, the syllogism was superseded by first-order predicate logic following the work
of Gottlob Frege, in particular his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script; 1879). However, syllogisms remain useful in
some circumstances, and for general-audience introductions to logic.
Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed,
something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." Despite this
very general definition, in Prior Analytics, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms that consist of
three categorical propositions, including categorical modal syllogisms.
The use of syllogisms as a tool for understanding can be dated back to the logical reasoning discussions
of Aristotle. Before the mid-12th century, medieval logicians were only familiar with a portion of Aristotle's
works, including such titles as Categories and On Interpretation, works that contributed heavily to the
prevailing Old Logic, or logica vetus. The onset of a New Logic, or logica nova, arose alongside the
reappearance of Prior Analytics, the work in which Aristotle developed his theory of the syllogism.
Prior Analytics, upon rediscovery, was instantly regarded by logicians as "a closed and complete body of
doctrine," leaving very little for thinkers of the day to debate and reorganize. Aristotle's theory on the
syllogism for assertoric sentences was considered especially remarkable, with only small systematic changes
occurring to the concept over time. This theory of the syllogism would not enter the context of the more
comprehensive logic of consequence until logic began to be reworked in general in the mid-14th century by
the likes of John Buridan.
Aristotle's Prior Analytics did not, however, incorporate such a comprehensive theory on the modal syllogism
—a syllogism that has at least one modalized premise, that is, a premise containing the modal words
'necessarily', 'possibly', or 'contingently'. Aristotle's terminology, in this aspect of his theory, was deemed
vague and in many cases unclear, even contradicting some of his statements from On Interpretation. His
original assertions on this specific component of the theory were left up to a considerable amount of
conversation, resulting in a wide array of solutions put forth by commentators of the day. The system for
modal syllogisms laid forth by Aristotle would ultimately be deemed unfit for practical use and would be
replaced by new distinctions and new theories altogether.
a. the premises consist of a generalization about a group (the kind of statement that you would get through
induction), and a statement that something belongs to that group;
b. the conclusion connects the quality of the group to the thing or person that is part of that group;
2. Hypothetical chains: This involves putting together a cause-effect statement (predictions arrived at
through induction) and a statement about a specific event, to draw a conclusion about that event.
a. the premises consist of a statement about a cause-effect relationship, another kind of generalization that
you would get through induction, and a statement describing a specific situation;
b. the conclusion is usually a statement about that specific situation;
c. the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
• If Grace Foods caused the pollution that made the families in Woburn sick, they are responsible for that
sickness.
Grace Foods did cause the pollution that made the families sick.
Therefore, Grace Foods is responsible for the sickness.
• If the families started to get sick before the earliest date that Grace Foods could have contaminated the
water, then Grace Foods is NOT responsible for their sickness.
The families did start to get sick before this date.
Therefore, Grace Foods is not responsible for their sickness.
[These last two arguments reflect the arguments put forward by opposing sides in a famous court case,
described in A Civil Action.]
References:
https://collegeofsanmateo.edu/writing/tutorials/Logical%20Method_Induction%20Deduction.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Activity 5.2
Instructions: Decide whether the following represent inductive and deductive patterns of reasoning.
Check your responses against the answer key.
REMEMBER:
• just because an argument begins with a general statement doesn't mean that it's inductive; deductive
arguments also contain general statements—
• just because an argument isn't necessarily true doesn't mean that it's inductive--many deductive arguments
are guesses;
• you are looking at the train of thought, not just the words on the page;
• some of these may be open to interpretation, so read the explanation carefully to make sure you made the
same choice for the right reasons!
1. I know Joe is a terrible cook, because I've eaten at his house three times and each time the food has been
awful.
2. Francois was French, so like all Frenchmen, we knew he would enjoy fine dining.
3. Having seen three of Jackie Chan's movies, I can testify that he's brilliant.
4. My cat must be angry with me for buying a kitten. He hisses every time I get near him, and he's started
spraying around the living room.
5. The car's battery provides power to the engine, so if the battery is dead, the car won't start.
Activity 5.2
Course No. ADGE Descriptive Title: Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
Checked by:
Recommending Approval:
Approved: