TOPIC INFO (CUET PG)
TOPIC INFO – CUET PG (Philosophy)
CONTENT TYPE – Detailed Notes (Type – II)
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. Inductive Logic and Reasoning
1.1. Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
1.2. The Problem of Induction
2. Analogical Reasoning
2.1. Structure of an Argument from Analogy
2.2. Evaluating Analogical Arguments
2.3. Fallacy of False Analogy
3. Causal Reasoning
3.1. Mill’s Methods of Experimental Inquiry.
3.2. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
3.3. Causal Fallacies
4. Probability
4.1. Interpretations of Probability
4.2. The Calculus of Probability
Note: The First Topic of Unit 1 is Free.
Access This Topic With Any Subscription Below:
- CUET PG Philosophy
- CUET PG Philosophy + Book Notes
Inductive Logic and Reasoning
CUET PG – Philosophy (Notes)
Inductive Logic and Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. It is a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of specific observations. Unlike deductive arguments, the conclusion of an inductive argument is not guaranteed to be true, even if the premises are. Instead, the conclusion is only probable. The strength of an inductive argument lies in the degree of probability it confers upon its conclusion.
The core characteristic of inductive reasoning is that it is ampliative. This means the conclusion contains more information than is already contained in the premises. We move from the observed to the unobserved, from the past to the future, from a sample to the entire population. This leap is what makes induction so useful for scientific discovery and everyday life, but it also introduces the problem of uncertainty.
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
To fully grasp inductive reasoning, it is crucial to contrast it with deductive reasoning. Deduction moves from general principles to specific instances, while induction moves from specific instances to general principles.
| Feature | Deductive Reasoning | Inductive Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Conclusion Conclusion | The conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true. | The conclusion is probably true if the premises are true. |
| Evaluation of Argument | The argument is valid or invalid. | The argument is strong or weak. |
| Information Content | The conclusion is non-ampliative; it is already implicitly contained within the premises. | The conclusion is ampliative; it goes beyond the information given in the premises. |
| Goal | To provide logical certainty and demonstrate proof. | To establish likelihood, probability, and make predictions. |
| Example | Premise 1: All men are mortal. | |
| Premise 2: Socrates is a man. | ||
| Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. | Premise 1: Every swan I have ever seen is white. | |
| Conclusion: Therefore, all swans are white. |
The Problem of Induction
The philosophical challenge associated with inductive reasoning is famously known as the Problem of Induction, most notably articulated by David Hume. The problem questions the justification for our belief in the uniformity of nature-the assumption that the future will resemble the past. Since we use past experiences (inductive reasoning) to justify our belief that induction will work in the future, the argument becomes circular. We use induction to justify induction. This fundamental problem means that, in a strictly logical sense, inductive conclusions can never be proven with absolute certainty. However, in practice, induction remains an indispensable tool for acquiring new knowledge about the world.