Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

A formal way to do inductive reasoning?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:01:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been using this method of reasoning more and more often. It's sortof a "backing into it" type of reasoning.

You start with something you know is true, which you label the conclusion.

P1: ???
P2: ???
C: Socrates is mortal

Then you try to determine what one of the premises is. For example: Why is "Socrates is mortal" true? Well we could argue that it is because "Socrates is a man."

P1: ???
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal

Then you fill in the missing premise to make it a logically valid syllogism.

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal

So the way that this is "inductive" is that we use a particular case, and have to inductively prove why it is true. That's when we find our first premise. The way it's deductive is that the missing premise follows with necessity.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 5:46:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 1:01:26 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've been using this method of reasoning more and more often. It's sortof a "backing into it" type of reasoning.

You start with something you know is true, which you label the conclusion.

P1: ???
P2: ???
C: Socrates is mortal

Then you try to determine what one of the premises is. For example: Why is "Socrates is mortal" true? Well we could argue that it is because "Socrates is a man."

P1: ???
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal

Then you fill in the missing premise to make it a logically valid syllogism.

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal

So the way that this is "inductive" is that we use a particular case, and have to inductively prove why it is true. That's when we find our first premise. The way it's deductive is that the missing premise follows with necessity.

Thoughts?

This is deductive reasoning, backing into the syllogism doesn't make it inductive reasoning.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 6:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 5:46:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/23/2014 1:01:26 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've been using this method of reasoning more and more often. It's sortof a "backing into it" type of reasoning.

You start with something you know is true, which you label the conclusion.

P1: ???
P2: ???
C: Socrates is mortal

Then you try to determine what one of the premises is. For example: Why is "Socrates is mortal" true? Well we could argue that it is because "Socrates is a man."

P1: ???
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal

Then you fill in the missing premise to make it a logically valid syllogism.

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal

So the way that this is "inductive" is that we use a particular case, and have to inductively prove why it is true. That's when we find our first premise. The way it's deductive is that the missing premise follows with necessity.

Thoughts?

This is deductive reasoning, backing into the syllogism doesn't make it inductive reasoning.

True, but the idea of saying "X is so because of Y" seems to use inductive reasoning...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."