|
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to ''deductive'' reasoning or ''abductive'' reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is ''probable'', based upon the evidence given. Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage. The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). ==Description== Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. It only deals in degrees to which, given the premises, the conclusion is ''credible'' according to some theory of evidence. Examples include a many-valued logic, Dempster–Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule. Unlike deductive reasoning, it does not rely on universals holding over a closed domain of discourse to draw conclusions, so it can be applicable even in cases of epistemic uncertainty (technical issues with this may arise however; for example, the second axiom of probability is a closed-world assumption). An example of an inductive argument: : 90% of biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist. : Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist. This argument could have been made every time a new biological life form was found, and would have been correct every time; however, it is still possible that in the future a biological life form not requiring water could be discovered. As a result, the argument may be stated less formally as: : All biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist. : All biological life probably depends on liquid water to exist. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Inductive reasoning」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|