I deduce that the class is a type of science class. For All classes that utilizes scientific terminology and discusses experiments are science classes. This class captured by video utilizes scientific terminology and discusses experiments. I was always taught that if you have to TEST or EXPERIMENT then you are using INDUCTIVE LOGIC. What you seem to indicate is the fact you use conditional statements make the reasoning deductive. The conditional statement is a statement of the form "If p then q." All reasoning can be put into "If p then q." This would make ALL reasoning deductive would it not (there would be no other type of reasoning)?
Yes, that’s right, but hypothesis testing with inductive reasoning is less “concrete” than with deductive reasoning. With inductive reasoning, you’re creating a hypothesis based on a probability of something occurring based on what you’ve observed (the hypothesis of deductive reasoning is more likely or certain than the hypothesis of inductive reasoning-and this due to the “path” that each takes). We also have to be careful with inductive reasoning hypotheses because we are basing our statements on our own observations or knowledge (this can be called confirmation bias). This is why inductive reasoning works best with Interaction theories and why generalization can be problematic. I hope this helps.
Debra Marshall I'm not so sure what you mean hypothesis testing with inductive reasoning is less "concrete". As long as I'm careful and rigorous with the experiment/testing, then based on the conclusion, i reject/accept the hypothesis. For e.g. - I observe *individual* cases where people taking a certain native plant are less prone to flu. So i form a hypothesis that a native plant helps to treat the flu. But then i need to test my hypothesis. So i set up an experiment --one group receives the plant treatment and the several other groups will act as control. I find the experiment is a success and the plant helps with the treatment. Is this a win for inductive reasoning? On the other hand i also could also do the same with deductive reasoning. Lets say that i start with the hypothesis that the plant helps treat their flu symptoms. I do the same experiment, test it and if it passes - i accept the hypothesis. Furthermore, you say "the hypothesis of deductive reasoning is more likely". Indeed, a valid and sound deductive argument usually starts off with a statement that is most likely true - e.g. "All men are mortal". However the Durkheim example you gave in the video doesn't sound very likely when he formed the hypothesis.
Zac Lim Yes, but remember, even if you conduct a most rigorous test of your hypothesis, it is still only based on what YOU have observed when using an inductive approach--I wouldn’t call this a win for inductive reasoning, rather, I might call it a strong probability of a specific outcome. You’re right--poor choice of words on my part :) Deductive reasoning is usually on a larger scale--Durkheim’s study is an example of this kind of reasoning, and his HYPOTHESIS was tested using a broad sample. The hypothesis of inductive reasoning is generally not a given at any particular stage of the process, whereas with deductive reasoning, it is. My inductive hypothesis may change as I progress in my research project (and technically, this is called a spiraling approach, and it can be argued that there are some problems with this approach) based on the observations I make as related to my hypothesis. With deductive reasoning, my hypothesis is not likely to change and once I collect my data I will work to prove or disprove it. Thus, deductive arguments can be said to be more (logically) certain than inductive arguments. Deductive reasoning is often used to clarify existing theories--to improve them based on the validity and reliability of the data and method (and often employs large data sets). Inductive reasoning is often used to create new theories and is often predicated on one set of data--it can be problematic to assume that our inductive observations will fit when we generalize. But, a deductive test properly done leads us to being able to generalize.
When you say that theories are just a starting idea, you sabotage peoples scientific understanding, regardless of how useful the information that follows. Theory/Theoretical: an idea supported by a body of claim and facts. As in "If all my math is correct, then in theory this should work." Hypothesis/Hypothetical: an idea with no immediate supporting facts. As in "what if we Hypothesize that Jim is the killer. I don't have any facts that say this. it's just a hypothetical scenario."
