Inductive reasoning

(redirected from Inductive argument)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Wikipedia.
Related to Inductive argument: inductive reasoning, Deductive argument

Inductive reasoning

The attempt to use information about a specific situation to draw a conclusion.

Inductive Reasoning

A way of forming reasonable conclusions by gathering evidence and then forming principles based upon them. For example, if one wishes to find out how a stock will perform, one gathers as much evidence on that stock as possible and makes a conclusion based on that, regardless of one's feelings or suppositions beforehand. The advantage of inductive reasoning is that its evidence offers applicability to "real world" scenarios; however, a disadvantage is that one's evidence may be inaccurate or anecdotal. It is sometimes difficult to know how much evidence is needed to justify coming to a general conclusion. See also: Deductive reasoning, Analogy.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
The explanation of an inductive argument offered by students in the video was not articulated as clearly as was the Case 1 Argument and, thus, required more attentive listening to make sense of what the students were trying to say, as they elaborated on the pattern that they noticed and why it worked, to explain the doubling of the number of towers as their height increased by one.
What we loosely refer to as good judgment is, in fact, proficiency with inductive arguments gained through experience with value principles.
The ID inductive argument can therefore be restated as follows:
By distinguishing these different levels Groarke expands the notion of induction beyond the inductive argument form to include a form of induction that involves 'a non-discursive mode of intuitive insight or intellection' (19).
E McKenzie's "Printers of the Mind" (1969) and his challenge to the inductive arguments of the New Bibliographers, supported by documents reporting the work of actual compositors in real printing houses.
They consider competing views, make bottom-up inductive arguments from an array of facts and doubt the power of Big Ideas.