The Three Major Forms of Inductive Reasoning

• uses specific examples to draw general conclusions. People use inductive generalizations to observe situational patterns which they project on new cases.

• In the 1950s, one out of five households in North Bay had a television set.

• In the 1970s, four out of five households in North Bay had a television set.

• In the 1990s, there were 1.5 television sets for every household in North Bay.

• The ratio of television sets to households has increased over time.

• The ratio of television sets to households will increase in the future.

• People in North Bay like watching television.

When p occurs, the most observed is q

p occurred

q will probably occur

I tidied my room this morning.

My parents will probably be happy

• It is similar to inductive generalization since it moves from specific cases to draw a general conclusion. The specific cases, however, are based on statistical information. Predicts something will happen with numerical probability

A is the population

B is the population of careful eaters with heart disease.

Some percentage of all A’s will become B’s.

A has x% chance of being a B.

Bill is a careful eater.

Bill has a 70% chance of avoiding heart disease.

Confirmation

• A hypothesis is suggested and certain observations must be made if the hypothesis is to be considered acceptable.

• The hypothesis is tested by observing if evidence exists to support it.

• Philosophers suggest theories about ethics, society and the universe, they then look for arguments and reasons to support or deny their hypotheses.

• The legal system relies heavily on induction by confirmation. A police detective hypothesizes that a suspect has committed a crime. The detective looks for evidence to support or deny that hypothesis.