I have watched a lot of videos to fully understand the differences between deductive and inductive arguments, but this one is the most helpful. Thank you very much!
I like how you're to the point without a bunch of fluff. I also like how you use the same example for both deduction and induction so I could compare. There's a lot of long-winded videos out there that don't help you understand the difference.
Thank you alot, precise clear and understandable. believe me so far I have watched two videos of yours I have never understood from any teacher at anything the way I have understood from you. Thank you again.
heck of a lot better than trying to read all this again. Reading about this stuff gets Pedro sleepy. Pedro is sleepy. Pedro just finish reading. D or I? Thank you Sir, for the great content.
1. Deductive argument begins with general principle and ends with specific provision. In inductive argument we begin with specific provisions or observations and we end with general principles. 2. In deductive argument the conclusion is necessarily certain given that the premises are true, while in inductive argument the general statement is probably true even if the premises are true.
Thanks, sir, but I still have a question. Suppose that I want to understand the process of expert judgement in clinical medicine and through a critical literature review, I consider that this process can be explained from the perspective of knowledge. However, this is my understanding rather than an existing theory. Can I based on it to do deductive research in clinical medicine?
Hi doctor, I have these questions, this statement is inductive or deductive (abortion is wrong, because all human life is sacred). And the other one (jon will proably be promoted soon, since he is working here for longer time than the others). I will be appreciated if you answered
Saying that deductive arguments' conclusions are necessarily true if premises are true is, in itself, an inductive argument that is probably true but not certainly true. Therefore, you can't say deductive arguments necessarily lead to true conclusions.
It is like relationships between a scientist and an engineer A scientist finds the laws of nature by inductive reasoning Then by this natural laws which are discovered by scientists,engineers utilities them via deductive reasoning by expectations of validity of this laws in case if results was false it means that inductive reasoning failed and it needs to be corrected again by scientists
Example at world war 2 When German were building v2 rockets to hit London they use Newtonian laws of physic But the results was failure problem was they didn't consider aerodynamic laws which affect on speed and range of the rockets
but if induction isn't valid, then deduction can't be valid. if one can't come to the conclusion that all men are mortal, there is not way to come to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.
THANK YOU. You have no idea how much I appreciated this.
Thank you for helping a 71 year old.
Short, to the point and good examples - this is great for all ages not just A level! Thank you!
Hats off for u sir..
You helped me a lot
Glad it was useful
deductive argument can only be valid or invalid. Inductive argument can be strong or weak.
What the fuck are you saying 😂
😊😊😊😊thank you !!!
Very helpful! Would highly recommend. Clear and crisp for beginners without too much confusing theory.
Very helpful and straight to the point
I ntiyiso MuHlave. Na mina ndzi n'wi kumea hlamusela Swi twala.
I like this explanation - so clear, brief and treat the viewers proportionally. Great Thanks
Great Work Highly Appreciate
You have amazing teaching skills, Thank you🎉🎉
I have watched a lot of videos to fully understand the differences between deductive and inductive arguments, but this one is the most helpful. Thank you very much!
Glad it helped! Thanks for the feedback
This is good I have been fumbling about these arguments
This is the best example that I have found and I have searched and searched, thanks a lot!
structure and the strength of conclusion...thank you lecturer for the kind help
Something very complicated explained in very easy way. Thanks.
I like how you're to the point without a bunch of fluff. I also like how you use the same example for both deduction and induction so I could compare. There's a lot of long-winded videos out there that don't help you understand the difference.
Pretty clear and adds on to what i got from my lecture this week. Thank you.
Thank you alot, precise clear and understandable. believe me so far I have watched two videos of yours I have never understood from any teacher at anything the way I have understood from you. Thank you again.
Can you explain why the God exist example is not Inductive please?
My wig needed this and you did a great job of explaining it.
thanks sir, its very effective and usefull..very clear concepts thanks u
THANK YOU THAT WAS THE BEST VIDEO ON THAT TOPIC!!
Great video! They differ in structure and the strength of conclusions.
Out standing 🔥🔥🔥
Thank you so much for the video!!! You made this simple and easy to understand. Thumbs up for you!!!!!
very nice.. u are master in teaching.....
This was very good. Better than my math book. Thank you.
very understandable, thank you so much
Great way to explain , well done , Thank you
You are the best , you made it very clear. Thank you
Using both methods simultaneously leads to madness. Welcome to the world of focused A.D.D.
heck of a lot better than trying to read all this again. Reading about this stuff gets Pedro sleepy. Pedro is sleepy. Pedro just finish reading. D or I? Thank you Sir, for the great content.
I think your first example is inductive because it follows patterns and leads to an inference.
u are so fantastic please teach us informal fallacy
Very informative description..... 👍
Wow thx so so much for this info
thank you for this video, Mr. Moffat
Thank you for your clear explanation, great voice!
Thank you! This explanation makes so much sense.
Thank you! Very clear without jargon that I cannot understand.
Thank you for this...now I know.
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH(no homo). YOU'VE SAVED MY LIFEEE MAN.
Nigga had to throw the no homo in there 🤣🤣
Easy to understand. Thanks a lot
Thanks for this. I have an exam tomorrow.
armyyy
just what i needed for my revision. thank you so much
Love you sir well explained ❤️😘
Good job bro
I loved it...thank you so much sir.
Thnx sir i understood 100 percent thnx alot
explanation is good
1. Deductive argument begins with general principle and ends with specific provision. In inductive argument we begin with specific provisions or observations and we end with general principles.
2. In deductive argument the conclusion is necessarily certain given that the premises are true, while in inductive argument the general statement is probably true even if the premises are true.
nice speech
Great lesson, thank you!
Thanks sir, how easily u explained us this topic
Thank you very much sir 😊
Thanks for uploading/producing this. Am I right in saying that, at 5:30 in your vid, Mr Moffat might not have gone to work at all on Friday?
Yes. Or worn different colour shoes
Wonderful! But there is/are deductive arguments that go from particular to general and inductive arguments that proceed from general to particular.
Any relation to Steven Moffat? Great Video!
Nice , Dear sir, please make videos on this topic"Effects of inductive method in learning process at secondary level"
thanks you are an amazing instructor
Thank you! It has helped me with my assignment! :D
How can we explain Deduction and Induction in Metaphysics?? Like with the example of God you've given
precisely described.Thanks
Thanks very much
wow!!
thanks for this video really helped me understand
Thanks, sir, but I still have a question.
Suppose that I want to understand the process of expert judgement in clinical medicine and through a critical literature review, I consider that this process can be explained from the perspective of knowledge. However, this is my understanding rather than an existing theory. Can I based on it to do deductive research in clinical medicine?
All scientific knowledge is inductive. You accumulate more and more evidence in order to make the truth of conclusions more and more probable.
Thanks so much 🙏
Really nice sir.
1. DNA is the same for identical twins.
2. Identical twins are not always the same sexual orientation.
C. DNA does not determine sexual orientation.
6:32 If you had seen your friend's swan, wouldn't that make it a deductive argument?
Thank you sir
You are awesome.
Great video. thanks much!
This helped me a lot.
Thank you for your nice video.
Can some one summer use in there own words how the differ ? TIA
Hi doctor,
I have these questions, this statement is inductive or deductive (abortion is wrong, because all human life is sacred). And the other one (jon will proably be promoted soon, since he is working here for longer time than the others). I will be appreciated if you answered
Both are deductive as premises are general statements and results are specific.
what about the premises and conclusion??
The first deductive argument can be shown to not be necessarily true in real life. It doesn’t guarantee a future occurrence.
Thank you so much sir! ✨
Deductive argument can be either valid or invalid while inductive argument can be either cogent or uncogent
this is very good.
thank you sir you help me a lot
👍👏👏
thank you!
Awesome thank you soo much
I watched this entire video.
Saying that deductive arguments' conclusions are necessarily true if premises are true is, in itself, an inductive argument that is probably true but not certainly true. Therefore, you can't say deductive arguments necessarily lead to true conclusions.
It is like relationships between a scientist and an engineer
A scientist finds the laws of nature by inductive reasoning
Then by this natural laws which are discovered by scientists,engineers utilities them via deductive reasoning by expectations of validity of this laws in case if results was false it means that inductive reasoning failed and it needs to be corrected again by scientists
Example at world war 2
When German were building v2 rockets to hit London they use Newtonian laws of physic
But the results was failure
problem was they didn't consider aerodynamic laws which affect on speed and range of the rockets
I think the probabilistic outcomes of inductive reasoning are evidence of the existence of everything.
Good dude, thanks you
4:06 it won't "equally could be false",it is more likely to be true then not.But yes,it is not certain.
A tad pernickety, but yes it is not 50/50 so point taken. Thanks for watching
Perfect !
Thank you so much!!!!
You're welcome!
Thank you
I'm having a hard time believing that the one with God is deductive
...????
He might work on Saturday or Sunday.
superbly explained!! but in this video Speaker pronunciation for word "often" wasn't correct. :)
Be A'man: look up ethnocentrism
A.B Guruji oh my goodness, really. Reaching
thanks sir
I have some mistakes, gotta relearn. Thank you!
but if induction isn't valid, then deduction can't be valid. if one can't come to the conclusion that all men are mortal, there is not way to come to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.