Last blog we looked into deductive reasoning, or the act of applying general principles to specific cases to make judgments about them. Today, we will look at inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is when one uses specific examples to form general conclusions. Because this reasoning has to be made on a limited set of examples, the conclusions one makes are always statements of probability. For example, there are various specific cases in which people who had a cold were sick for a week. So, when I catch a cold, I can say it will last about a week. However, I cannot say this with certainty because my particular cold might be an exception.
Because of this, reasoning from more than one example will always be more persuasive as the conclusions made will be firmer. However, you have to keep in mind that reasoning from examples requires you to show that they are analogous. In the example of the cold, if it turns out that the cases I was looking at were not a common cold but COVID-19, then the case in question is not analogous to the examples I have based my inference on.
One also has to keep in mind that arguments based on inductive reasoning are vulnerable to being challenged at all points. A person can say that the argument does not rely on a sufficient set of examples, that it made a false equivalency, or that it is contested because it cannot be perfectly certain. Despite these limitations, inductive reasoning works. These arguments can be successful depending on the relevance and credibility of their examples, and combine it with other persuasive methods, such as emotional appeals for example.
When making arguments, you may need to use “topics”, which are the subject of a composition that describe the rhetorical strategies with which an argument is made. It may sound confusing, but when I describe them to you, you may realize you have used them various times before.
Topics:
- Definition: When you attempt to use a situation as an example from which to make an inference about another situation, you will need to show that the situations are analogous. A good way to do this is to show that the terms mean the same things.
- Similarity: Establishing similarities for inductive arguments may be needed to show that the examples are analogous to each other.
- Difference: Stating a difference may be of utility to counter an inductive argument by showing that the examples are not analogous or that the terms used do not match the definition given for them in the argument itself.
- Cause and effect:
- One may need the topic of cause and effect for making an inductive argument for a particular action based on the outcome of similar actions because it must be shown in each example that the action was that probably caused the outcome.
- Terstiomy
- A person may find it useful to provide testimony as a way to present an example of an inductive argument.
- Statistics
- Statistics are a way of presenting a very large number of cases as examples for your argument.
Fallacies:
Just like in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning may contain fallacies that weaken a chain of logical reasoning. You may commit the following fallacies when making your inductive argument:
- Faulty generalization: If you move from a particular example to a larger case, but the examples are not analogous to the case, then the conclusion does not suit the examples (Ex. I got an F in my math class, I must be terrible at algebra!)
- Slippery slope: This fallacy occurs when you suggest that one action or event must lead to a sequence of related events. This fallacy may have some truth to it, but without establishing a direct causal link it is hard to say it will happen for certain. (Ex. I got an F in 3 of my finals this year, I will fail high school!)
Before I close off, I do want to clarify something I didn’t in the post of inductive reasoning. While fallacies may make a conclusion weak, they are not necessarily bad. For example, someone may say something along the lines of “Either you adopt this puppy or you hate animals!!”. This is an either-or fallacy as not adopting the puppy does not imply that I hate animals. But in this case, this fallacy is useful in appealing to pathos (emotions) and may make me reconsider my choice of not adopting the puppy.