I was having a lot of trouble with understanding the concept of deductive and inductive logic but after watching this I believe i'm starting to get it. Thank you so much!
I’m trying to see the difference between addictive and inductive reasoning. They seem to be the same. You can use probability theory to infer premises from the conclusion, too, so what makes it an abduction and not induction?
Is it wrong for me to refute both concepts of logic and bring it down to "logic" as a singular and neutral term? Logic to me is any concept that can explain itself in simple terms?
the unresolved topic of inductive reasoning ''how high does the probability have to be before it's rational to accept the conclusion'' i believe i an resolve this rational meaning: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. reason meaning ( in context ) : the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically. possibility meaning: 1 a thing that may be chosen or done out of several possible alternatives. 2 unspecified qualities of a promising nature; potential. with those definitions out of the way here's my argument probability suggests that there are more then one potential conclusion/outcome so when dealing with a multiple possibilities it is reasonable to explore what is known to come up with possible conclusion, then when all that can be concluded has been, go though what is found and find the possibility that is most likely, if you are in a scenario that requires inductive reasoning which would suggest not all variables are known, it would be rational to accept the most likely scenario simply because its the best bet. therefore a rational conclusion given the fact not all variables are known. if you have a counter argument or see flaws in what was said i'd love to be challenged on this topic, and yes i see the slight irony in using inductive reasoning in attempt to solve the issue at hand. :)
You just restated what inductive reasoning is. The problem of the threshold is specifically where to draw the line between what is a strong and weak argument.
Because words can never convey the entirety of a thing perfectly, I think it's safe to always use inductive logic. Due to the limited scope of human perception it's always safe to say we could be wrong at any given moment, at least there is a slim chance of it. For the Socrates example, there are several problems. 1) Socrates could be fictional, there is no proof he existed. So as a fictional human he wasn't mortal. 2) If Socrates is currently human at all, he is human remains, so Socrates was mortal, not is. However, had the argument been inductive, it would have accounted for these marginal possibilities and still have been strong. imho
***** Let me say this another way, deduction is less accurate than induction for anything theoretical. In science everything is theory, and deductive conclusions are not reached.
***** For contrast, if you asked me how my computer program worked, I'd explain via deduction. Asking me how I'm going to make a new program, induction. Fair?
The Inductive Logic example here is false. With another example with the basket of apples where one concludes that all apples are ripe after checking 3 apples being ripe is more like it because of the assumption that they either come from the same tree or because it is harvest season. There is always a good reason to be inductive in logic and the chirality example here is not such a case. Claiming that John must be right-handed when probability is at 90% is literally an error in logic.
Indeed he is talking pretty common received nonsense. Probabilistic reasoning is still a mode of deduction, while, on the other hand, to learn what inductive reasoning actually is, just read P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory: the last 2 chapters are dedicated to inductive reasoning specifically, from how it is NOT probabilistic reasoning, to how it is in fact fundamental to ALL kinds of reasoning.
So when we are dealing with a problem that cannot be solve with deductive logic because of its complexity, we can only use deductive logic because it deals with probabilities and patterns. I understand! Thank you!
can we say all humans have brain , john was human so john had brain? i mean does time makes sense in logic or if we say that all a have b doesnt need to assume if it was past, pressent or future..thx in advandance
That is plain wrong, probabilistic reasoning is still a mode of deduction. To learn what inductive reasoning actually is, people can read P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory: the last 2 chapters are dedicated to inductive reasoning specifically, from how it is NOT probabilistic reasoning, to how it is in fact fundamental to ALL kinds of reasoning.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
So deductive "This is the answer" and Inductive "This is probably the answer"
Indeed, and then you should rather realize that at best he is talking nonsense.
I was having a lot of trouble with understanding the concept of deductive and inductive logic but after watching this I believe i'm starting to get it. Thank you so much!
believe me or not ! this was one of the BEST explanations that i have ever seen !
It was amazing !
best regards. :x
this was very well put - Thank you Kevin
Thank you for your contribution to the world. Very exciting.
Thanks you so much
I was having confusions on these deduc and induc s
Well put, said & understood
would the probability of getting two aces in the first two cards be
(4/52) * (3/51) ?
for the odds of the first ace times the odds of the second one?
I’m trying to see the difference between addictive and inductive reasoning. They seem to be the same. You can use probability theory to infer premises from the conclusion, too, so what makes it an abduction and not induction?
Thanks for a very clear explanation on this.
Is it wrong for me to refute both concepts of logic and bring it down to "logic" as a singular and neutral term? Logic to me is any concept that can explain itself in simple terms?
the unresolved topic of inductive reasoning ''how high does the probability have to be before it's rational to accept the conclusion''
i believe i an resolve this
rational meaning: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
reason meaning ( in context ) : the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically.
possibility meaning: 1 a thing that may be chosen or done out of several possible alternatives. 2 unspecified qualities of a promising nature; potential.
with those definitions out of the way here's my argument
probability suggests that there are more then one potential conclusion/outcome so when dealing with a multiple possibilities it is reasonable to explore what is known to come up with possible conclusion, then when all that can be concluded has been, go though what is found and find the possibility that is most likely, if you are in a scenario that requires inductive reasoning which would suggest not all variables are known, it would be rational to accept the most likely scenario simply because its the best bet. therefore a rational conclusion given the fact not all variables are known.
if you have a counter argument or see flaws in what was said i'd love to be challenged on this topic, and yes i see the slight irony in using inductive reasoning in attempt to solve the issue at hand. :)
are you philosphy student ?
@@waseemraza3669 no, just someone who thinks to much, why do you ask?
@@edwardgray7845 just need some help regarding philosophy.
@@waseemraza3669 i'm not a student of philosophy but if you would still like my help regardless i'd be happy to assist.
You just restated what inductive reasoning is. The problem of the threshold is specifically where to draw the line between what is a strong and weak argument.
Excellent video
Because words can never convey the entirety of a thing perfectly, I think it's safe to always use inductive logic. Due to the limited scope of human perception it's always safe to say we could be wrong at any given moment, at least there is a slim chance of it. For the Socrates example, there are several problems. 1) Socrates could be fictional, there is no proof he existed. So as a fictional human he wasn't mortal. 2) If Socrates is currently human at all, he is human remains, so Socrates was mortal, not is. However, had the argument been inductive, it would have accounted for these marginal possibilities and still have been strong. imho
+Henry Dickinson Induction uses deductive form.
***** Let me say this another way, deduction is less accurate than induction for anything theoretical. In science everything is theory, and deductive conclusions are not reached.
***** For contrast, if you asked me how my computer program worked, I'd explain via deduction. Asking me how I'm going to make a new program, induction. Fair?
Good explanation!!!
Great explanation
Thank you for the lesson.
The Inductive Logic example here is false. With another example with the basket of apples where one concludes that all apples are ripe after checking 3 apples being ripe is more like it because of the assumption that they either come from the same tree or because it is harvest season. There is always a good reason to be inductive in logic and the chirality example here is not such a case.
Claiming that John must be right-handed when probability is at 90% is literally an error in logic.
Indeed he is talking pretty common received nonsense. Probabilistic reasoning is still a mode of deduction, while, on the other hand, to learn what inductive reasoning actually is, just read P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory: the last 2 chapters are dedicated to inductive reasoning specifically, from how it is NOT probabilistic reasoning, to how it is in fact fundamental to ALL kinds of reasoning.
I can't play the video in 2x, why's the upload like that?
Very good, better than the lady who did three images of herself to explain it, though she deserves some credit
So when we are dealing with a problem that cannot be solve with deductive logic because of its complexity, we can only use deductive logic because it deals with probabilities and patterns.
I understand! Thank you!
Nope. Deductive logic usually starts with KNOWN facts or information. Kind of the opposite of what you are saying here.
Inductive logic is simply addressed thusly
It is NOT logic.
It is a fallacious countefeit of logic.
Thank you so much sir you helped me a lot
Thank u so much
Thank u
Thank you !
Science
Wrong
i like this, thanks
thanx sir
legend.
can we say all humans have brain , john was human so john had brain? i mean does time makes sense in logic or if we say that all a have b doesnt need to assume if it was past, pressent or future..thx in advandance
Yep since the premise is definitive
Sir please add with subtitle I can't understand the way you pronounce words
Read Karl Poppers' book "Objective Knowledge" to learn that there is no such thing as ''inductively valid''.
And then burn it as you would with any infective piece of garbage...
That is plain wrong, probabilistic reasoning is still a mode of deduction. To learn what inductive reasoning actually is, people can read P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory: the last 2 chapters are dedicated to inductive reasoning specifically, from how it is NOT probabilistic reasoning, to how it is in fact fundamental to ALL kinds of reasoning.
Ok Boomer
@@spaghettifries5204 P.F. Strawson is wrong! Read Karl Poppers' book " Objective Knowledge" to learn why "inductive logic" is wrong!
Popper indeed is yet another dog of this retarded empire. Your heroes...