Thank you sir, you are the one who acually knows how to teach. it is very kind of you. I remain grateful to you. very helpful and understandable. love from pakistan
Wow, philosophers speak with a Southern Accent, Aristotle is a philosopher so Aristotle speaks with a Southern Accent, and since I speak with a Southern Accent, I'm as smart as Aristotle...Cool!
Grumbel Bumbel But he did not use inductive reasoning there. He used deductive reasoning but he just used it incorrectly. If he said something like "all southern speakers are as smart as each other, so I am as smart as Aristotle" he would have used deductive reasoning correctly but his conclusion is still wrong since his premises were wrong (i.e philosophers speaking with a southern accent is wrong and that all southern speakers are as smart as each other also wrong), I don't mean to go too deep into this but I'm just making sure I understand it.
Awesome video! I've watched dozens of youtube videos on inductive vs deductive reasoning and I started to get the sense that deductive thinkers rely on "facts" having "absolute" or "black/white" qualities to them. I tend to use inductive forms of reasoning most of the time, because there's always a chance that a past "fact" or occurrence isn't going to happen again tomorrow. Thus, it isn't really a "fact". You nailed it on the head to suggest that inductive thinkers rely more heavily on PROBABILITY as defining their interpretations of what "facts" are and how they could potentially behave. For example, in quantum tunneling, (a particle could suddenly manifest itself across the universe over billions of lights years) anything could disappear or manifest itself from one area to the other side of the universe. Quantum tunneling is a real phenomenon - it's how stars fuse most of their various atoms together to create heavier elements...stars aren't hot enough at their cores to fuse atoms. So in your example, there's a possibility that the sun may not rise tomorrow - there's a very tiny possibility that all the particles which make it up, quantum tunnel to another/other parts of the universe. Inductive thinkers are going to have problems with formal logic. Inductive thinkers will see formal logic as too rigid and narrow-minded. I had major problems with formal logic when I went to law school...I thought too abstractly and in terms of probability too much - nothing seemed to be a definite fact to me.
I don't think these are inherently related to each method. We can take either form of reasoning as absolute or not, its just that its less reasonable to take induction as truth! And i think that's part of it. Deduction can make claims of prediction but only within certain axiomatic limits and to a degree of probability too! But regarding Positivism, it actually uses induction to determine truths, at least according to Popper, who stated deduction was superior but couldn't be used to verify truths. Observation>inductive formulation of premise>deductive preditction derived from premise>experimental observation>inductive 'result' and truh by verification is what Positivism actually does.
"Deductive reasoning has been around a lot longer." Deductive and inductive reasoning have always been around; those specific words may not have been used to describe them, but they have always existed.
Good critique. Been written down and acknowledged a lot longer is a better conclusion. At least according to recorded history (available data points). Your premise is more sound since it's unlikely that discovery comes quickly after phenomena
Man cannot create laws of reasoning, we can only discover them, similar to the laws of nature ie gravity. Me thinks this comment is more like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter if this reasoning was used before or not, or who first started using them, but rather how each applies to science which is the subject of this video as well as defining each method. The "scientific" was first defined by Bacon and applied to science. How do we know? We have no evidence otherwise. Until you find someone specific who defined inductive thinking and used it for science, not debating the number of angels on the head of pin. :-)
@@garyking6888 Men do create the laws of reason or more accurately consciousness raised to a particular baseline capacity creates the laws of reason. The world is not reasonable the world is orderly. The distinction is subtle but significant. Reason is the utilization of selective observation formulated into laws to achieve particular ends. There is no such thing as reason without ends and the moment you change the ends the reason can become obsolete, that is, what was once true is no longer true. Newton's physics was true enough for its intended end but inadequate to Einstein's ends. Einstein's physics was true enough for its intended ends but inadequate to quantum mechanics. Science is never completely true it is only an adequate schematization for the ends it seeks to achieve. There is no reason to believe that there isn't indefinite potential inputs either. It seems as though information can be dissected indefinitely meaning no law of reason or at least no accessible law short of the ones consciously creates to achieve an intended end. Fundamentally, reason is a tool not an end. Tools are man made, consciousness made.
Excellent presentation and I was so happy to hear your conclusion 8:01 agrees with my thinking, that they are both the tools of science, and should be used alternately or as required for the purpose. I would add to your statement "They are both tools of science" that they are complementary tools of science, they require each other, just as addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, derivative and integral, are all required to operate in both directions.
my philosophy professor does not post lectures to teach his class. I need to watch lectures in order to properly absorb the information. I need to absorb the information in order to pass the class. Tom posts great lectures. Therefore, Tom will help me pass the class. bless up 😎
Wow, thanks. I’m studying college biology and this is the first time this concept was brought up and I was confused on the difference. Your examples really helped. Thanks! Also, I think there for I am is my favorite quote lol.
Thank you! I keep hearing: "Deductive reasoning can't be wrong". Thank you for showing that it can and has to be build on (perhaps well-founded) assumptions.
Greetings from Belgium! I'm a student in literature and spend my life reading books. I'm saying that in order to ensure you (if you would even need that ^^) that your videos have a good level of accuracy and I rarely find errors in your works on European history, which becomes more and more uncommon on other American channels... Anyway, I'm glad that I can sum up my readings by watching your nice videos with your lovely Southerner accent and, moreover, by doing this, improve my English! :D
I've read a lot of articles about deductive and inductive method and haven't understood any. This video is the first thing that made me understand these two methods. Thank you for posting this vid. Though I expected further explanation about inductive reasoning, well it was great.
I could not understand clearly the two concepts prior to watching your video lecture. But now, it's a piece of cake! I am thankful to you Sir for the creative video.
Thank you so much Tom. I watched a few other videos from other sources on Induction and it did not clarify it so much as your video. You basically nailed it for me. Thank you for the video. I have philosophy exams in a week and your video was spot on and helped me a lot.
This was smoother than I expected and nicely summed the topic. You also use English in the way i can easily understand what your talkin about. Good job.
I hope I'm not repeating myself, but I have watched this more than once before and find it awesome!! My channel is so Audio-Video, music, etc, but I have always loved these topics! Cheers!
Writing a comment to clarify this to myself. It seems like both systems concern models of something. A model consist of: * Some mapping of the real world into a model * Some system that makes predictions based on this model Deduction describes the reasoning within the model Induction describes the creations of new rules. The value of deduction is that it gives is predictions to test. Further we may use deduction to show how our model might be wrong. This means deduction is serving induction. Deduce something wrong, examine premises, change the minimal number of rules so nothing breaks. Of course there is a question of what induction even is. Well we might define more properties and things. Or we might posit a relationship between the things. In the triangle circle relationship what are we doing. Well we have a class C. We have instances of C. We wish to predict what other instances of C look like. How should we do this. Well we might posit simplicity in terms of the minimal amount of ink to describe C. This would likely be the circle (though it does complicate the model by having curves). Interestingly the circle is "simpler" only if we don't include the observations themselves in the language. I.e. We might introduce two languages a model language, an observation language and then mappings between them. The horrible complexity here is of course in the mapping itself. This ends up requiring some sort of sense data to test. I guess a complication is where the deduction exists if we are materialist. In practice it occurs on some material surface. Like a piece of paper or your brain. We can then describe the minimality constraints physically. Though one imagines the form of physical model then makes a difference in what minimality looks like. I am not sure how one justifies the separation of the model language from the observation language. Perhaps one needs to introduce a concept of forgetting. I.e. You remember your model language you forget your observations, remember the minimal amount. Of course none of this helps with remembering the names. Induction takes things in. Deduction deduces things. It draws things of (ductile).
Awesome explanation! I'm reading 'The Story of Philosophy' by 'Will Durrant' and I admit I was a bit lost on Francis Bacon, you've really simplified it for me, thankyou!
Surprisingly to the point and well-dosed historic perspective in regards of deduction & induction, thank you. I understand the point in some of the zealous comments below in favor of Aristotle and maybe Bacon is more rightly conceived as the pivot on which thinking and scientific method changed from rationalism to empiricism. Anyway, it's beyond question that Bacon by his titel "Novum Organum" referred to Aristotle's "Organon" (instrument, organ = brain) and thereby deliberately distanced himself to Aristotle's way of thinking.
Thanks for the Video. Some points that may need more precision: 1. Aristotle was 'fairly new' at Bacons time as his philosophy was only reactivated in the high middle ages and found its expression in scholasticism. With the formation of the modern university that awarded degrees Aristotle became popular. 2. It was Aristotle's method of observation that made more interesting than doctrines in scholasticism. 3. Especially the universities where places where beliefs were constantly challenged. Maybe it is therefore better to contrast the church doctrines and Bacon but not to use particularly Aristotle as the great enemy. Scholasticism's Aristotelanism itself was very revolutionary and questioned the doctrines of the Augustinian schools. 4. Aristotle's also possessed induction, I think the difference lies more in their particular method, which in case of Bacon is more advanced scientifically as it involves more a method of experimentation. However, I saw many other videos that contrast deduction and induction. There is something false about this. All forms of logical reasoning were known to the Greeks. Deduction and Induction are just different types of syllogism, which involves the arrangement of universals to particulars and individuals. All arrangements were already known and also Kant admits that logic has done no step forward since Aristotle. I hope the points foster some further thoughts, thanks for the video.
to cause toward an effect is to demonstrate a reliance upon inductive reasoning, so inductive reasoning is axiomatic to every debate, including the one on the validity of inductive reasoning. KEvron
I wish Blake all the best, but if he was to fail it would at least provide a very good example of the weaknesses of deductive reasoning. Thanks for the video! These concepts are much clearer now. I still can't get my head around abductive reasoning though.
Hardly so, Manifold. At th-cam.com/video/WAdpPABoTzE/w-d-xo.htmlm29s , he says that IF (IF, IF, IF) the conclusion is false, then one (or more) of the premises MUST be false, assuming it's a properly structured deductive argument. This is the way that scientists design experiments to test hypotheses.... by structuring them in the form of a deductive argument, where the hypothesis being tested represents one of the premises. If the conclusion is true then--in principle--you have proved that the hypothesis is true. In the real world, things don't actually work out quite so nicely.... so it turns out that deductive reasoning isn't actually of much practical use, other than in philosophy class. Certainly Sherlock Holmes never had any use for it! He mostly used ABDUCTIVE reasoning.... which is reasoning to the "best" explanation. Abduction is mostly based on an "educated guess"... and the reason Sherlock Holmes was right all the time, was that Conan Doyle made it that way.
Great video! Thank you for posting. I noticed a mistake in the description. As you state in the video, Descartes' famous phrase is a deduction. You referred to induction twice in that sentence when I think you meant to refer to deduction.
Tom Richey, you have revolutionised our learning experience. Your powerpoint and video have FINALLY made Bacon's scientific method make sense. We are eternally grateful to you, all the way from South Africa. Much love, a lot of hugs and possibly a crown xxx
Lol... that "you said bottom" caught me off guard 😂 Looking at the video because of the results of my latest cognitive test. On a test calobrated for IT Technical/Business Consultants. I scored in the 87 percenile on deductive reasoning. And scored in the 99 percentile on inductive reasoning. I litterally had no idea what that meant 😅 and so here I am
I believe that people have used both inductive and deductive reasoning for thousands of years, even without their realizing it. It is also possible to use both methods on an issue. On a side note: When people are burdened with the mundane things of life with little time to think in profound ways (such as slave labor all day long), then I believe that people naturally behave in a pattern of deductive reasoning. When people are challenged to problem solve on a regular basis, we should see more inductive reasoning than we would otherwise. That's my hypothesis.
+1Fireskull Yeah, I'd wager that the first humans had much more experience with inductive than deductive reasoning. They just wouldn't have had a name for it, but in a world where unobservant people die...
While Aristotle did employ deductive reasoning in his formal logic, he also used inductive reasoning as well. His writings on the reproduction patterns/categories of animals for example were made after well catalogued and meticulous observations of the natural world around him. Plato, and his "ideal forms" was (in my mind at least) more purely deductive. By using deductive and inductive reasoning, Aristotle sometimes gets the title of 'first scientist'.
...deduction and induction work together, playing off each other to produce adaptive reasoning and a dynamic narrative that maintains a reflection of the known actuals of the moment with a resetting list of probabilities with each new moment going forward. Deduction is present/past tense validation of (or correction for) what was predicted; Induction is forward facing prediction of what can be validated...
Deduction is dual to induction! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Hegel's cat:- Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat. Deduction:- Generalization to localization Induction:- Localization to generalization Generalization is dual to localization! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (increasing entropy).
@@hyperduality2838 ...deduction is a necessary inference; induction, any number of unnecessary inferences. So while deduction is using observation to identify a specific case from a definite set/general rule (your 'general to local' correlation), induction isn't quite the inverse of that, because it is more to guess at various possible conclusions one can derive from a specific case or cases - so any number of possible sets of general or encompassing definition (more of a 'local to multiple possible general' correlation). I'd say induction is central to invention and trial & error discovery for this reason... You may be thinking of abduction? - to derive the most probable/best of general conclusions from limited specific cases? In one sense you could say that induction creates the array of possibilities that abduction chooses from... ...in any case, I'm standing by my assertion that they all work together in a dynamic, complimentary and self-correcting manner - deduction isolates knowns from unknowns; induction/abduction focuses explanatory power on the unknowns & predicts new deductible outcomes in discovery and experimentation; deduction examines the results/revises the list of knowns/re-qualifies the unknowns; repeat... (synergized as adaptive reason, driving a dynamic narrative) ...also, upon reflection re: syntropy/entropy, I would say that 'will', as an attribute of life, is the inverse compliment to entropy...
@@PatJohnston You're asking the right questions. But I am trying to highlight the concept of duality within Philosophical thought as modern philosophy represents footnotes to Hegel's dialectic. I can do this because I understand the physics, here is a few examples:- Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics Note: Mainstream physics does not currently recognize the 4th law! Syntropy is the union, convergence or integration of information to form predictions, expectations to track targets, objectives, goals, intentions, teleology. Integration is dual to differentiation -- mathematics Entropy is the differentiation, divergence of information into new states. Convergence is dual to divergence Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, energy is inherently, implicitly dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter Space is dual to time -- Einstein Certainty is dual to uncertainty, the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry Electro is dual to magnetic -- Electromagnetic Waves are dual to particles -- Quantum duality etc, etc.. there is a very clear pattern of duality here! The conservation of duality is the 5th law of thermodynamics, energy is duality, duality is energy. Hegel, Einstein, Kant and many more scientists are using duality without realizing it. The time dependent, independent Hegelian dialectic is dual as there are two versions. The time independent version means that duality is being conserved forever and ever, this is also known as process philosophy -- Alfred North Whitehead. "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order" -- Alfred North Whitehead. Randomness (change) is dual to order, order is dual to randomness, duality. Duality creates reality, it is hardwired into the physics and philosophy! I repeat mainstream science does not recognize these two new laws of thermodynamics.
![Deductive Vs Inductive Vs Abductive [Reasoning in Research, Concept, Difference, Examples]](/img/n.gif)
Man, I did't know that Math Damon was so smart
meth damon
Didn't you see Good Will Hunting
@@bagelstruth9313 The Good Shepherd was by far his best and most intense role. ;D
Meth Demon
lol, Math Damon
Thank you sir, you are the one who acually knows how to teach.
it is very kind of you. I remain grateful to you. very helpful and understandable.
love from pakistan
+Haider Abbas Glad I can help!
Preparing for exams and watching your videos . Sir, you are truly a gem
Wow, philosophers speak with a Southern Accent, Aristotle is a philosopher so Aristotle speaks with a Southern Accent, and since I speak with a Southern Accent, I'm as smart as Aristotle...Cool!
LOL
lol
Grumbel Bumbel But he did not use inductive reasoning there. He used deductive reasoning but he just used it incorrectly. If he said something like "all southern speakers are as smart as each other, so I am as smart as Aristotle" he would have used deductive reasoning correctly but his conclusion is still wrong since his premises were wrong (i.e philosophers speaking with a southern accent is wrong and that all southern speakers are as smart as each other also wrong),
I don't mean to go too deep into this but I'm just making sure I understand it.
Rob Roy Rigler circular reasoning?
Try again Airistotoh.
The vagaries of the syllogism...
Flashback to those times at three am when you didn't understand a word of your Philosophy homework that was worth 50% of your overall grade.
Paris 54 flashback? its very real right now 😭
bro this is me right now lmfaoooo
So true.....omg
If I’d have had a teacher like this I’d have been a history professor. Awesome channel 🤘🏽
Awesome video! I've watched dozens of youtube videos on inductive vs
deductive reasoning and I started to get the sense that deductive
thinkers rely on "facts" having "absolute" or "black/white" qualities to
them.
I tend to use inductive forms of reasoning most of the time, because
there's always a chance that a past "fact" or occurrence isn't going to
happen again tomorrow. Thus, it isn't really a "fact". You nailed it on
the head to suggest that inductive thinkers rely more heavily on
PROBABILITY as defining their interpretations of what "facts" are and
how they could potentially behave. For example, in quantum tunneling, (a
particle could suddenly manifest itself across the universe over
billions of lights years) anything could disappear or manifest itself
from one area to the other side of the universe.
Quantum tunneling is a real phenomenon - it's how stars fuse most of
their various atoms together to create heavier elements...stars aren't
hot enough at their cores to fuse atoms.
So in your example, there's a possibility that the sun may not rise
tomorrow - there's a very tiny possibility that all the particles which
make it up, quantum tunnel to another/other parts of the universe.
Inductive thinkers are going to have problems with formal logic. Inductive thinkers will see formal logic as too rigid and narrow-minded. I had major problems with formal logic when I went to law school...I thought too abstractly and in terms of probability too much - nothing seemed to be a definite fact to me.
I don't think these are inherently related to each method. We can take either form of reasoning as absolute or not, its just that its less reasonable to take induction as truth! And i think that's part of it. Deduction can make claims of prediction but only within certain axiomatic limits and to a degree of probability too!
But regarding Positivism, it actually uses induction to determine truths, at least according to Popper, who stated deduction was superior but couldn't be used to verify truths.
Observation>inductive formulation of premise>deductive preditction derived from premise>experimental observation>inductive 'result' and truh by verification is what Positivism actually does.
i know this comment is late, but great job! I wish all teachers could be so informative and explain things in analogies like you do!
Smartest man with a southern accent i have ever heard.
“You said bottom” ... scary stuff
Well.... Kids are..
Smells like hes into pizza parties....
"Deductive reasoning has been around a lot longer." Deductive and inductive reasoning have always been around; those specific words may not have been used to describe them, but they have always existed.
Good critique. Been written down and acknowledged a lot longer is a better conclusion. At least according to recorded history (available data points).
Your premise is more sound since it's unlikely that discovery comes quickly after phenomena
Man cannot create laws of reasoning, we can only discover them, similar to the laws of nature ie gravity.
Me thinks this comment is more like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter if this reasoning was used before or not, or who first started using them, but rather how each applies to science which is the subject of this video as well as defining each method. The "scientific" was first defined by Bacon and applied to science. How do we know? We have no evidence otherwise. Until you find someone specific who defined inductive thinking and used it for science, not debating the number of angels on the head of pin. :-)
Justin Heubrock I believe he meant , not in terms of existence as such , but as a school of thought . Perhaps that’s what he meant
Aristotele also used inductive. This video is about scientific inductive reasoning, which is different from inductive reasoning.
@@garyking6888 Men do create the laws of reason or more accurately consciousness raised to a particular baseline capacity creates the laws of reason. The world is not reasonable the world is orderly. The distinction is subtle but significant. Reason is the utilization of selective observation formulated into laws to achieve particular ends. There is no such thing as reason without ends and the moment you change the ends the reason can become obsolete, that is, what was once true is no longer true. Newton's physics was true enough for its intended end but inadequate to Einstein's ends. Einstein's physics was true enough for its intended ends but inadequate to quantum mechanics. Science is never completely true it is only an adequate schematization for the ends it seeks to achieve. There is no reason to believe that there isn't indefinite potential inputs either. It seems as though information can be dissected indefinitely meaning no law of reason or at least no accessible law short of the ones consciously creates to achieve an intended end. Fundamentally, reason is a tool not an end. Tools are man made, consciousness made.
Excellent presentation and I was so happy to hear your conclusion 8:01 agrees with my thinking, that they are both the tools of science, and should be used alternately or as required for the purpose. I would add to your statement "They are both tools of science" that they are complementary tools of science, they require each other, just as addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, derivative and integral, are all required to operate in both directions.
And you just saved me from failing a quiz! Thanks from homeschoolers everywhere!
Thanks professor. We could say then , that deductive reasoning is what Aristotle called a : syllogism . You rock
Great summation...making humanity smarter one video at a time.
Wait a minute - I actually danced after watching this. Yay - assignment, I'm ready for you.
2:28 THAT SCARED THE CRAP OUTTA ME!
my philosophy professor does not post lectures to teach his class. I need to watch lectures in order to properly absorb the information. I need to absorb the information in order to pass the class. Tom posts great lectures. Therefore, Tom will help me pass the class. bless up 😎
Wow, thanks. I’m studying college biology and this is the first time this concept was brought up and I was confused on the difference. Your examples really helped. Thanks! Also, I think there for I am is my favorite quote lol.
Thank you! I keep hearing: "Deductive reasoning can't be wrong". Thank you for showing that it can and has to be build on (perhaps well-founded) assumptions.
Greetings from Belgium! I'm a student in literature and spend my life reading books. I'm saying that in order to ensure you (if you would even need that ^^) that your videos have a good level of accuracy and I rarely find errors in your works on European history, which becomes more and more uncommon on other American channels... Anyway, I'm glad that I can sum up my readings by watching your nice videos with your lovely Southerner accent and, moreover, by doing this, improve my English! :D
Loved the last line: Question is not who is better? it is just that it's different.
Its 3.29 am here.. and I'm watching it to do my home assignment. Thank you
Southern Matt Damon, you are excellent m8, thks for the pre-exam recap!
I've read a lot of articles about deductive and inductive method and haven't understood any. This video is the first thing that made me understand these two methods. Thank you for posting this vid. Though I expected further explanation about inductive reasoning, well it was great.
Thank you, Tom, for a most interesting explanation and demonstration of critical thinking skills.
I could not understand clearly the two concepts prior to watching your video lecture. But now, it's a piece of cake! I am thankful to you Sir for the creative video.
Love your explanation and Southern accent
Makes it so simple and easy to understand
man thank you so much. good quick video, give good examples, well spoken. and most of all go to the point with out fluff for the first half.
the accent makes this video a million times better. DEEEDUCTIVE
Brilliantly Done!!!
Splendid!!!
Thanks!
Thank you so much Tom. I watched a few other videos from other sources on Induction and it did not clarify it so much as your video. You basically nailed it for me. Thank you for the video. I have philosophy exams in a week and your video was spot on and helped me a lot.
This was smoother than I expected and nicely summed the topic. You also use English in the way i can easily understand what your talkin about. Good job.
Oh my god thank you so much. I’ve been struggling for days on this and I finally get it!! 10 hours to write my essay🙃
I hope I'm not repeating myself, but I have watched this more than once before and find it awesome!! My channel is so Audio-Video, music, etc, but I have always loved these topics! Cheers!
Writing a comment to clarify this to myself.
It seems like both systems concern models of something.
A model consist of:
* Some mapping of the real world into a model
* Some system that makes predictions based on this model
Deduction describes the reasoning within the model
Induction describes the creations of new rules.
The value of deduction is that it gives is predictions to test.
Further we may use deduction to show how our model might be wrong. This means deduction is serving induction. Deduce something wrong, examine premises, change the minimal number of rules so nothing breaks.
Of course there is a question of what induction even is. Well we might define more properties and things. Or we might posit a relationship between the things.
In the triangle circle relationship what are we doing.
Well we have a class C. We have instances of C. We wish to predict what other instances of C look like. How should we do this.
Well we might posit simplicity in terms of the minimal amount of ink to describe C. This would likely be the circle (though it does complicate the model by having curves).
Interestingly the circle is "simpler" only if we don't include the observations themselves in the language. I.e. We might introduce two languages a model language, an observation language and then mappings between them.
The horrible complexity here is of course in the mapping itself. This ends up requiring some sort of sense data to test.
I guess a complication is where the deduction exists if we are materialist. In practice it occurs on some material surface. Like a piece of paper or your brain. We can then describe the minimality constraints physically. Though one imagines the form of physical model then makes a difference in what minimality looks like.
I am not sure how one justifies the separation of the model language from the observation language. Perhaps one needs to introduce a concept of forgetting. I.e. You remember your model language you forget your observations, remember the minimal amount.
Of course none of this helps with remembering the names.
Induction takes things in.
Deduction deduces things. It draws things of (ductile).
First of all, what an accent, really loved that. Thanks so much for this video, you truly helped me with my math course project!
Awesome explanation! I'm reading 'The Story of Philosophy' by 'Will Durrant' and I admit I was a bit lost on Francis Bacon, you've really simplified it for me, thankyou!
First time explained that actually made sense!!!
You know a lot about this topic, You are a great speaker, therefore your video is great! ;)
Lmao. Nicely done
Surprisingly to the point and well-dosed historic perspective in regards of deduction & induction, thank you.
I understand the point in some of the zealous comments below in favor of Aristotle and maybe Bacon is more rightly conceived as the pivot on which thinking and scientific method changed from rationalism to empiricism. Anyway, it's beyond question that Bacon by his titel "Novum Organum" referred to Aristotle's "Organon" (instrument, organ = brain) and thereby deliberately distanced himself to Aristotle's way of thinking.
I applaud your presentation. It hit the mark for me. Thank you(from a magical thinker)
Great!!! Reality is not only ideal but empirical too.
Thanks for your most clear description
Thanks for the Video. Some points that may need more precision:
1. Aristotle was 'fairly new' at Bacons time as his philosophy was only reactivated in the high middle ages and found its expression in scholasticism. With the formation of the modern university that awarded degrees Aristotle became popular.
2. It was Aristotle's method of observation that made more interesting than doctrines in scholasticism.
3. Especially the universities where places where beliefs were constantly challenged. Maybe it is therefore better to contrast the church doctrines and Bacon but not to use particularly Aristotle as the great enemy. Scholasticism's Aristotelanism itself was very revolutionary and questioned the doctrines of the Augustinian schools.
4. Aristotle's also possessed induction, I think the difference lies more in their particular method, which in case of Bacon is more advanced scientifically as it involves more a method of experimentation. However, I saw many other videos that contrast deduction and induction. There is something false about this. All forms of logical reasoning were known to the Greeks. Deduction and Induction are just different types of syllogism, which involves the arrangement of universals to particulars and individuals. All arrangements were already known and also Kant admits that logic has done no step forward since Aristotle.
I hope the points foster some further thoughts, thanks for the video.
Absolutely fascinating.
Thank you for an excellent explanation.
The best explanation on youtube so far Danke schön
You are an amazing Professor! Now, I can apply Borel Cantelli Lemma in these two methods!
very precise and well-done. Thanks.
All thinking people are grateful for such a lecture. I am grateful for this lecture. therefore, I am a thinking person :)
to cause toward an effect is to demonstrate a reliance upon inductive reasoning, so inductive reasoning is axiomatic to every debate, including the one on the validity of inductive reasoning.
KEvron
Nice intro... The intro alone got you the sub. +1... And, some great content here... Well done, Sir...
Was a very good reference sir.... and you have used a very simple and basic method
Top stuff Mr Richey, your channel is one of my favourites
Thanks for coming through on this track! you are awesome
Excellent explanation. Thanks Keep. more coming. Subscribed
Tom, u literally posted this the day after my test on this chapter LOL
Excellent video, Tom. Thanks so much. Sharing with friends too.
This was beautifully taught. Thanks so much
Super helpful for my AP Seminar class! Thanks for the video!
Glad to be able to help AP classrooms in such an interdisciplinary fashion!
Thx ! :) Good video. Some people never came across this basic reasoning explanation....Aristotle cries every night :)
I wish Blake all the best, but if he was to fail it would at least provide a very good example of the weaknesses of deductive reasoning.
Thanks for the video! These concepts are much clearer now. I still can't get my head around abductive reasoning though.
HAMISH! Always great to hear from the TH-camr from Down Under! You have any good metal to recommend as of late?
And perhaps abductive is something I need to check out sometime... I've heard of it but have never had cause to look into it.
Hardly so, Manifold. At th-cam.com/video/WAdpPABoTzE/w-d-xo.htmlm29s , he says that IF (IF, IF, IF) the conclusion is false, then one (or more) of the premises MUST be false, assuming it's a properly structured deductive argument. This is the way that scientists design experiments to test hypotheses.... by structuring them in the form of a deductive argument, where the hypothesis being tested represents one of the premises. If the conclusion is true then--in principle--you have proved that the hypothesis is true.
In the real world, things don't actually work out quite so nicely.... so it turns out that deductive reasoning isn't actually of much practical use, other than in philosophy class. Certainly Sherlock Holmes never had any use for it! He mostly used ABDUCTIVE reasoning.... which is reasoning to the "best" explanation. Abduction is mostly based on an "educated guess"... and the reason Sherlock Holmes was right all the time, was that Conan Doyle made it that way.
Great video! Thank you for posting. I noticed a mistake in the description. As you state in the video, Descartes' famous phrase is a deduction. You referred to induction twice in that sentence when I think you meant to refer to deduction.
Tom Richey, you have revolutionised our learning experience. Your powerpoint and video have FINALLY made Bacon's scientific method make sense. We are eternally grateful to you, all the way from South Africa. Much love, a lot of hugs and possibly a crown xxx
Thank for your simple but accurate explanation
Lol... that "you said bottom" caught me off guard 😂
Looking at the video because of the results of my latest cognitive test. On a test calobrated for IT Technical/Business Consultants. I scored in the 87 percenile on deductive reasoning. And scored in the 99 percentile on inductive reasoning.
I litterally had no idea what that meant 😅 and so here I am
very good explanation, thanks!
Really Good Lesson great thank you for this video and for the knowledge 👍
that was a excellent way of explaining it.
Fantastic video! I truly enjoyed it.
+briangren Thank you very much!
I'm fascinated by your accent sir!
+JinglesDoFine I remain fascinated by it after 35 years of living with it!
+Tom Richey Video is wonderful as far as for someone beginner in Philosophy (Y)
I believe that people have used both inductive and deductive reasoning for thousands of years, even without their realizing it. It is also possible to use both methods on an issue. On a side note: When people are burdened with the mundane things of life with little time to think in profound ways (such as slave labor all day long), then I believe that people naturally behave in a pattern of deductive reasoning. When people are challenged to problem solve on a regular basis, we should see more inductive reasoning than we would otherwise. That's my hypothesis.
+1Fireskull Yeah, I'd wager that the first humans had much more experience with inductive than deductive reasoning. They just wouldn't have had a name for it, but in a world where unobservant people die...
Tom Richey Yep. It's amazing to think that "progress" might have a "dumbing down" effect.
While Aristotle did employ deductive reasoning in his formal logic, he also used inductive reasoning as well. His writings on the reproduction patterns/categories of animals for example were made after well catalogued and meticulous observations of the natural world around him. Plato, and his "ideal forms" was (in my mind at least) more purely deductive. By using deductive and inductive reasoning, Aristotle sometimes gets the title of 'first scientist'.
So amazing you'd put it so simple for me. Much appreciated.
Glad I can help!
Thanks, very brief and to the point..
Thank you Sir. Good explanation.
Clear and great explanation! Thanks!!
Perfect perfect perfect . Thank you
...deduction and induction work together, playing off each other to produce adaptive reasoning and a dynamic narrative that maintains a reflection of the known actuals of the moment with a resetting list of probabilities with each new moment going forward.
Deduction is present/past tense validation of (or correction for) what was predicted; Induction is forward facing prediction of what can be validated...
Deduction is dual to induction! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Hegel's cat:- Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat.
Deduction:- Generalization to localization
Induction:- Localization to generalization
Generalization is dual to localization!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (increasing entropy).
@@hyperduality2838 ...deduction is a necessary inference; induction, any number of unnecessary inferences. So while deduction is using observation to identify a specific case from a definite set/general rule (your 'general to local' correlation), induction isn't quite the inverse of that, because it is more to guess at various possible conclusions one can derive from a specific case or cases - so any number of possible sets of general or encompassing definition (more of a 'local to multiple possible general' correlation). I'd say induction is central to invention and trial & error discovery for this reason...
You may be thinking of abduction? - to derive the most probable/best of general conclusions from limited specific cases?
In one sense you could say that induction creates the array of possibilities that abduction chooses from...
...in any case, I'm standing by my assertion that they all work together in a dynamic, complimentary and self-correcting manner - deduction isolates knowns from unknowns; induction/abduction focuses explanatory power on the unknowns & predicts new deductible outcomes in discovery and experimentation; deduction examines the results/revises the list of knowns/re-qualifies the unknowns; repeat... (synergized as adaptive reason, driving a dynamic narrative)
...also, upon reflection re: syntropy/entropy, I would say that 'will', as an attribute of life, is the inverse compliment to entropy...
@@PatJohnston You're asking the right questions. But I am trying to highlight the concept of duality within Philosophical thought as modern philosophy represents footnotes to Hegel's dialectic. I can do this because I understand the physics, here is a few examples:-
Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics
Note: Mainstream physics does not currently recognize the 4th law!
Syntropy is the union, convergence or integration of information to form predictions, expectations to track targets, objectives, goals, intentions, teleology.
Integration is dual to differentiation -- mathematics
Entropy is the differentiation, divergence of information into new states.
Convergence is dual to divergence
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, energy is inherently, implicitly dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter
Space is dual to time -- Einstein
Certainty is dual to uncertainty, the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry
Electro is dual to magnetic -- Electromagnetic
Waves are dual to particles -- Quantum duality
etc, etc.. there is a very clear pattern of duality here!
The conservation of duality is the 5th law of thermodynamics, energy is duality, duality is energy.
Hegel, Einstein, Kant and many more scientists are using duality without realizing it.
The time dependent, independent Hegelian dialectic is dual as there are two versions.
The time independent version means that duality is being conserved forever and ever, this is also known as process philosophy -- Alfred North Whitehead.
"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order" -- Alfred North Whitehead. Randomness (change) is dual to order, order is dual to randomness, duality.
Duality creates reality, it is hardwired into the physics and philosophy!
I repeat mainstream science does not recognize these two new laws of thermodynamics.
Very fruitful video. Grateful to u, sir!
Great explanation! Thanks for the vid!
very well explained! thank you so much!
you are the best and you give the best explanation.++++++++++++++++++++++
Straight to the point 👍👍
This video helped my understanding so much. Thank you Tom!
I'm a fan. You're very good.
very precise,thank you so much
You are my favorite chanel
This was awesome!
I loved your video and I'm excited to share it with fellow students. Chopped full of fun info in a grate format. Thank you. I have subscribed. Tina
Loved this video thank you!
BOOM! There it is! Thanks!!
Its just now I understood. Thanks
Thank you! Great explanation 😊
Brilliant video.
Great video Sir! Understandable, clearly spoken, great presentation for some of us students!
You Make Videos, Your Videos are Great.
So You are Great.
Excellent video!!!!
Very clear, thank you for the video.
My pleasure!
Very well explained