What Is Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning | Deductive vs Inductive Arguments 

It's not the best idea to define inductive arguments as "bottom up" reasoning that moves from specific-to-general. Example: "Mary is nearly always late. So Mary will probably show up late today." This is inarguably *inductive*. But it sure doesn't appear to move from the specific to the general. Just the opposite! Same goes for deductive argument. "Top down" reasoning that moves from specific-to-general just doesn't cut it as a definition. Example: "Either Bill is going or Ted is going. Bill is not going. So Ted is going." This is straightforwardly *deductive*. But it looks to me like a specific claim about Bill and Ted, and a specific claim about Bill, leading to a specific conclusion about Ted! What's "general" about this argument?

I primarily think with deductive reasoning and I have a friend who primarily thinks with inductive reasoning. The issue is that she fails to realize her inductions are probabilities based on an educated guess. She mistakes her inductions to be true certainties. She has a lot of emotional biases from particular personal experiences that cause her to stereotype unfairly.

I love the examples used and the animation for it really pops out. Very appealing!

I can't thank you enough! This was clear and straight to the point. Love this!

I get this feeling that society often uses inductive reasoning while thinking it's deductive reasoning. You have to be absolutely certain of the premise in order to have a logical conclusion.

You explained this incredibly well. Thanks!

This was incredibly helpful for a research paper/study proposal I am writing about mixed methods research in the Library and Information profession. Thank you!

This was incredibly helpful. Thank you.

watched some videos, finally something that explains it well

thanks for the input, really led me in the right direction.

Wow..you really helped me with that inductive reasoning part...thanks

This is awesome thank you soo much!

Make more! Especially ones that will help in aptitude tests, please and thank you.

Thanks Sir

THANK YOU 😭😭😭

Thanks again for this great video! What if sometimes we want to do reasoning backward, such as from conclusion to premises or from effect to causes, does this type of reasoning still falls into inductive reasoning (as we just change the direction of the reasoning) or it's something called abductive reasoning? Thanks.

Helpful 👍

Makes alot of sense🤔

I love the topic and appreciate the time you put into this. I want to critique a little bit though. 1) Volume adjustments need to be made between the intro and the main content. The intro is much louder than the content. The outro is also louder and after turning up the volume to hear your voice, the outro was much too loud for my home. 2) In my opinion: the unicorn example is fun, but gets in the way of the topic of logic. Thank you. I subscribed to your channel.

I'm learning reasoning from someone who believes in unicorns >:3

Thanks for the video. Explaining the difference in terms of the level of certainty offered by the two methods helps to distinguish the purposes. Just an observation - the Venn diagram helps develop the understanding. However, it is a bit misleading. If all foxes are canines, then the circle for foxes would be inside the circle for canines. The blue shaded region in the foxes circle should not exist because that would indicate that there are some foxes that are not canines.

when scientist do experiments, are they using inductive or deductive reasoning? not forming a hypothesis but doing the actual experiments.

Could we draw a third circle for those foxes sleep on trees?

great explanation! but it's too silent

I can't hear you.

Very nice presentation - well done! However… I disagree with you that the distinction is merely a matter of intent - every argument, by definition, always argues for the truth of its conclusion - that, after all, is the whole purpose of an argument! So, the intent is always the same! The real distinction is in fact this… deductive arguments appeal to premises that are ACTUALLY TRUE, whereas inductive arguments appeal to premises that are only ever PROBABLY TRUE So, here’s my question… are you able to proffer a premise that is ACTUALLY TRUE? (Both your deductive examples fail the test for truth, rendering them in fact inductive) Since Truth (with a capital ‘T’) is beyond our reach (a ‘Blaue Blume’), I contend that the idea of a truly deductive argument, is nothing more than that - just an idea - nothing more…

If "All foxes are canines" then your Venn diagram is wrong from the very start; the "fox" circle would be a subset entirely within the canine circle

you are soy amazing and beautiful

Nice wee fox.

All Dingos are carnivores Babies are made of tender flesh Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Since nothing in life is certain deductive reasoning is bullshit.