Explain the difference between deductive and inductive logic?

Logic is separated into two counterparts, deductive and inductive. Inductive logic works by creating rules based on observations. An example would be “a pen fell when I dropped it, therefore all pens will fall when I drop them”. These statements are created based on the assumption that anything that has occurred previously will continue to occur. These statements come from the observations/experiences the created have witnessed within their life. As for deductive logic are a series of statements which form a conclusion. When conclusions follow logically from premises (which are accurate) then it is a valid argument. Deductive logic provides certainty and it is formed similarly to an equation (with 2 premises put together to form an outcome). An example is “All men are mortal”. This is proven to be correct because for example Johnny is a man, and Johnny is mortal, thus proving this conclusion to be valid. This form of logic focuses more on the structure rather than whether the conclusion is actually true.

What are the problems with each of these kinds of logic and what can we do to overcome some of these problems?

Although both types of logic are relatively valid, there are still issues regarding both of these types. For inductive logic, the biggest issue is that there is a lack of evidence which causes inaccurate assumptions to be made. The reason for these issues stems from the fact that the individual’s experience may be limited in some way. A person will assume something unless they have proof/knowledge that it isn’t true. An example of this is an individual who has never seen black swans (or never knew they existed) would believe that all swans in the world are white. The reason for this is because the individual didn’t know otherwise and swans are typically seen to be white. Another issue is we (as humans) assume that things are regular and will repeat. This is incorrect because some things will change. Therefore expecting something to repeat which may not, will give an incorrect point. However, if more trials and evidence is available to prove the point, then this form of logic is very useful. For deductive logic, the biggest issue is that the premises come from inductive logic which may be incorrect. Thus if the premises is inaccurate then the entire conclusion would be as well. As mentioned above, this form of logic focuses more on the structure of the argument, not whether the conclusion is true. An example of a conclusion being structurally correct but not true would be: Girls with brown hair cry every day; Danielle (me) has brown hair, therefore she cries every day. Although the structure is correct, this isn’t true because I don’t cry every day. Therefore there are issues concerning both of these forms of logic, however, the best way to overcome these issues is to be more aware of the situation and have more evidence to back up the claims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*