17. 06. 2011 TOK Essay 8. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning in relation to discovering new information and facts, and if there is a need for discovering other ways of thinking in order to gain more knowledge about what we already know. Introduction: The question I have decided to answer is what are the importance between the strength and weaknesses of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning? Definitions:
Deductive: a form of reasoning from the general to the particular Inductive: a form of reasoning from the particular to the general Informal reasoning: a group of fallacies often found in discussing Knowledge: is what you think you know, it’s information that’s been proceeded by the mind. The issues are whether our knowledge is reasonable knowledge or knowledge builds on the fallacies of the different ways of reasoning. Deduction giving is a more solid conclusion and little knowledge as induction giving us a more solid knowledge and a little conclusion, whereas informal reasoning is lying between both deduction and induction.
I’m going to approach by writing the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, after that I’m going to start my arguments from deductive to inductive to counterargument, which will blend into the conclusion. These learning approaches can be applied in this case will be a rationalist approach as our question is conserved about the different ways of setting knowledge through reasoning, which is also the rationalist ways of thinking. * Perception – the senses of thinking * Language- discussing Reason- different ways of reasoning. Areas of knowledge * Mathematics – the reason * Natural Science – inductive * Human Sciences – deductive/inductive * History – the facts. For an example we can use own generalization on Polish people, which may conclude to be non-criminal then other people on few examples. For an example: A polish man stands beside a care therefore he’s a thief. This is not true, because seeing one in evidence and not have seen other Polish people. | Deductive| Inductive| Informal reasoning|
Strength| Strong conclusions makes correct fallacies| A lot of new knowledge| A lot of new knowledge as more said conclusion| Weakness| Little new knowledge| Conclusion about fallacies| No conclusion compared to strength. A lot of fallacies. | Argument 1: Math uses deductive to conclude the facts that already are there, for an example 1+1=2. The proofs that we use to solve equations, is just what we use and we don’t question it because Math theories and proofs never changes. * An argument in which it is impossible for a conclusion to be false if its premises are true. The conclusion claims to follow necessarily from the premises The conclusion depends on a mathematical or geometric measurement. It has to be a deductive since it follows necessarily meaning there’s no room for it “probably” being right. Like the example above 1+1=2 it’s logic. There’s no room for a different answer by reevaluating the argument. 1+1 will always equal to 2. There is a difference between stating that a premise is untrue and stating that the logic of the argument is false. For an example: All Canadians are right handed All right handed are opticians Conclusion: Some opticians are Canadians.
Argument 2: Physics uses inductive because there is always a new theory being made. While deductive reasoning goes from the general to particular, inductive reasoning goes from particular to reasoning, the opposite direction. Here’s an example: Metal A expands when heated; metal B expands when heated; metal C expands when heated. Therefore all metals expand when heated. It’s more informative, but less certain than deduction. Its often we cannot rely on inductive reasoning, because we tend to make hasty generalizations and jump to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence.
For an example, if a tourist is served by a rude French waiter, he may conclude that all French people are rude; and if a female fighter pilot crashes a jet her male colleague may conclude that women are unfit to fly. As the Theory of Knowledge says, the evidence, and this justify neither of these conclusions kind of faulty reasoning can easily lead to racist or sexist attitudes. Counterargument: A deductively argument is valid when the conclusion is correctly deduced form the premises, whether premises are true or false. So just because the argument is valid, it does not follow that the conclusion is true.
And to be sure that the conclusion of an argument is true, you must be able to answer ‘yes’ to both of the following questions: 1. Are the premises true? 2. Is the argument valid? If you take the example I showed you about the deduction of Math. Math cannot be changed the proof is just the proof, no questions asked. But if that is so, what about outside of Math? For an example, we say that deductive reasoning is solid knowledge, which are true. What about this example: All birds have beaks. Octopuses have beaks. Therefore an octopus is a bird.
Does this mean octopus is a bird? Not really. Conclusion: This essay shows the different ways of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning. Mostly I have defined deductive and inductive reasonings. And this is something that takes place in the everyday life, every person uses these kinds of reasoning to either persuade. Importance of strength and weakness in deductive and inductive is: In physics both deductive and inductive is included and the math problem 1+1=2, because it’s a logical knowledge. So not everything we know is inductive its deductive as well..