Induction and Scientific Reasoning 

You cannot imagine the amount of confusion you just cleared in my mind o_0 This is amazing !!

This has clarified how I see science and how others try to create a problem with this form of reasoning . Thankyou!

Thank you! This really helped cleared the difference between the scientific and logical usage of the inductive arguments.

Need more videos like this. I wish these kinds of videos were more popular.

I think this is the only video on RU-vid that I found at least that gives a clear distinction in scientific and logical definitions. I was so confused for the past few days, trying to understand these concepts, because it would seem to be contradictory at times. Although I was starting to understand that the distinction between the two types of reasoning have to do with conclusion, whether it’s certain or probable, now that I know there are two distinct definitions it makes much more sense than it used to.

@ishwarrior Hey, thanks for the comment. On the point you make, I agree that as stated, it's a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. But your modification would make the final inference a deductive one, going from a general rule to a particular instance of that rule, and it would no longer be an example of an inductive argument. The question of what is necessary to make an inductive generlization strong is actually a deep one (I'm working on a tutorial course on this right now...).

This is so good! You should make videos for the MCAT! ": scientific reasoning and problem solving"

concise n clear....this helps in broadening the thinking faculties

This playlist helped alot, thanks!

You are a great help. Thank you so much.

These uploads are just great.Thank you so much

thanks so much for this tutorial series

Very nicely done!

Wonderful videos. Thank you.

What's meant by "strong" versus "valid"? What would be the difference between a "strong" argument versus say a weak argument? Is valid a logically consistent argument, whereas strong an argument that is highly likely to be true? "It follows from this observation that scientific reasoning is broadly inductive reasoning. That scientific arguments should aim to be strong rather than valid." Isn't the aim in conducting science to be both inductive and deductive? Isn't the use of statistics in science an example of deductive reasoning that must strive to be valid. The use of statistical hypothesis testing is a case where general rules (rules of probability) are applied to a particular case (the immediate study)? Similarly don't mathematical models also demonstrate vitally important areas of deductive scientific reasoning?

sry if it doesnt make sense but is it possible in the future to find some piece of iron which will not have the properties of iron we know today ? i mean we have make expiriments and find that iron when heated is expanding and we make the general statement that iron when is heated is expanding..but this is true bcs we havent find a piece of iron which doesnt expand when is heated? i mean the properties doesnt have relation with the definition of iron..am i right? sry for my bad english

thank you so much sir

@Heissenburger The problem is that few science majors have to take a course that explains proper inductive process, qualifications, criteria, etc. It would be nice if every science major had to take a Philosophy of Science & Inductive Reasoning course their freshman or sophomore years, but that happens at only a few universities. So when they grow up and have to present results of their research, they screw up the terms.

If you add the correct probability qualifier in the conclusion of an inductive argument does it then become a valid argument? and in fact a form of deductive reasoning?? e.g. Most A's are B's X is an A Therefore X is PROBABLY a B (instead of "X is a B")

Think of the many different heights from which an object can fall to ground. Each is a different case against which gravity has to be tested.

Yes thanks they need to change it.

Good thing that the world of known things is never infinite. Thus, in the world of known strength still applies.

true

The problem is that an inductive argument is strong because of its probabilistic strength. Now, generalizing from a finite set of cases to an infinite set, mostly a nonenumerable set, of possible cases, makes probability stagger. In fact, any finite set within a nonenumerable set has probability 0.

So... you're a John whose RU-vid username is Steve? :D

I had to watch this for science class, but I still don't really understand the topic that well.

Very clear, and very needed. It's now my favorite presentation of how to understand that scientific IS inductive reasoning, but not all inductive reasoning is SCIENTIFIC. Many people (who you would think would know better) make the mistake of equating the two, and then make erroneous remarks like, "Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general." That's just one part of inductive reasoning. Thank you!

we're lucky science is flexible. If they find something that contradicts their inductions, they may change their conclusions. Religion, in the other hand, stays stuck in the same place whether evidence supports it or not...

@Steve2323ZX YOU'RE THE CLOD! ...whatever that means *googling clod*

That is not true. Logic has to do with how anyone approaches anything.