Deductive vs Inductive vs Abductive Reasoning 

@King Sama inductive. its more probable that the video is edited rather than there being triplets. triplets are way more rare then editing.

@@alexoswald932 why can't it be abductive reasoning with an incorrect conclusion?

They as in the 3 of her

@@Fireguy65 lol you're so triggered by the word "they" you felt the need to clarify its usage, fucking snowflake

@@karebushmarebu233 why are you so mad? I was just saying its funny that he said they but its just one person

@@Fireguy65 *They* pronoun US /ðeɪ/ UK /ðeɪ/ used as the subject of a verb to refer to people, animals, or things already mentioned or, more generally, to a group of people not clearly described used to refer to a person whose gender is not known or does not need to be mentioned used to refer to a single person whose gender is not simply male or female -Cambridge Dictionary

​@@flamingfoxx twas just a humor

LOL I thought I was the only one!

I am the most

Think of it in terms of cause and effects. Deduction starts with a true cause/premise and tries to identify conclusions. A+B=C Induction gathers data and draws conclusions to try and find the causal agent. (The video also didn't go into valid/invalid, sound/unsound arguments). ?+B=C or even ?+?=C It's gets more complicated obviously, see the problem of induction or problem or universals.

Deductive is dual to inductive, reasoning is a dual process. Generalization is dual to localization. Deductive --> Generalization to localization Inductive --> Localization to generalization Kant:- rationalism (deduction, analytic) is dual to empiricism (induction, synthetic, measurement) Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic Alive (thesis) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis) -- Hegel's or Schrodinger's cat. Optimism is dual to pessimism, is the glass half full or half empty? Perspective or duality. Questions are dual to answers, truth is dual to falsity. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter!

Lol, yep, continuing to other videos, but this one was informative

Good one! It would be a poor abductive reasoning; because although there is some evidence to support the former conclusion as being likely, the latter conclusion is highly likely.

You're using weed-smoking reasoning.

I like that. Can a hypothesis ever be something other than the product of imagination? I have to think on that one.

It's a great video. It's not only clear, but put together in a novel way.

The technical definitions are: Induction: Premises provide support for believing the conclusion to be true. However, a conclusion can still be incorrect event if you have a good inductive argument. Deduction: Premises imply conclusion is true. The conclusion must be true if you have made a good deductive argument. There is no way for the conclusion to not be true. Deductions can be valid/invalid and sound/unsound. A valid deduction is one where the premises really do imply the conclusion. The conclusion could still be wrong if the premises are not true. A sound deduction is one that is valid and has true premises. I recommend that you use these definitions rather than what you see in the video. The video actually did a good job of explaining deduction/induction but I think they made the definition too specific to the scientific method. Learn what the two types of logic mean by themselves. It is just as easy to understand the definitions and then you will be able to apply them to science and non-science subjects just as easily. If you only learn part of the definition (e.g. how they can be used in relation to hypothesis) you can end up confused when people use deduction/induction in different contexts. Inductions can be strong/weak and cogent/uncogent. A strong induction is one where the premises offer good support for believing the premise to be true. A cogent induction is one that is strong with all true premises. Now a test. You are driving along the road and see a speed sign saying "50". The logical conclusion is that the speed limit is 50 kilometers an hour because the sign says that is the speed limit. 1. Is this inductive or deductive? 2. Think about whether your conclusion is certain (deduction) or merely likely (induction). The answer is that this is actually a conclusion derived from induction. Specifically, an "Argument based on signs". It is possible for your conclusion to be wrong if someone put the sign up as a joke or if there has been a law change and the sign has not yet been removed. A deductive conclusion can never be wrong if the premises are valid and true. I hope this helps.

That would be abductive reasoning?

Then one of the premsises is false

My thoughts exactly. There is a lot of confusion out there about induction and deduction. Ultimately it is the definitions provided by philosophers that are the most important because they seem to be the only definitions that have techniques behind them. If you use made up definitions then the techniques of logic won't apply.

My guess is deductive is tests acknowledge factors. Inductive are acknowledged factors but untested, though can be. Abductive is acknowledged factors but cannot be tested or deduction cannot be tested. Inductive has a start point you can start with. Abductive has only conclusions and no clear testable start point. The papers could have been stacked or someone else's or etc.

simp

I couldn't hear or understand what she was saying because of the music and the caffeinated jabbering way speaking. Are these robots?