Inductive reasoning

(redirected from Inductive argument)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.
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 ?
So if you want to argue persuasively using this type of inductive argument, you must provide a great deal of evidence to make it a strong argument.
To apply the inductive argument to [G.sub.1], we form a pairing of [G.sub.1] as follows.
It should be noted that both the two cases and inductive argument types contributed to the growth rates.
Inductive arguments, which are based on the abstract principles of value rationale, enable conclusions along the lines that the rent for property X would be relatively low per square foot, because X is a larger property than the comparables, according to the principle of balance.
Similarly, if one wishes to object to the inter-level circularity found in inductive arguments for induction, the objection rests on the fact that a request for evidence that the conclusion of an inductive argument is justified can never be satisfied so long as one pushes the problem one level back by using an inductive form of argument to "defend" induction.
The relationship between the premises and conclusion of an inductive argument is characterized by probability, because some uncertainty is associated with the truth of the conclusion.
Horst is at his most pompous when ignoring the arguments of others, writing condescendingly, 'I applaud Papineau's intellectual honesty' (130) but he ingenuously offers no reply to Papineau's inductive argument that the causal closure of the physical is reasonable to believe since no science invoking a nonphysical force has had any empirical success.
This argument is intrinsically an inductive argument, as follows:
The former lacks textual support and is inconsistent with Hume's own use of induction; the latter cannot explain why Hume seeks to show that an inductive argument for the uniformity principle cannot work.
An externalist can agree with Fumerton that if I attempt to provide a justification for induction by presenting an inductive argument whose conclusion is that induction is reliable, then I will fail in my legitimating attempt.
It does not presuppose any particular position on the relation of induction to abduction, and it is unlike the old or new riddles of induction (see Goodman [1965]) because (i) it is empirical, not a priori, and (ii) in the limited form in which I defend it, the strength of the conclusion is not an invariant of the inductive argument form.
It outlines Hume's skeptical critiques which show the inductive argument form to be invalid, thereby generating the problem of induction.