DescentBB

Discuss.

You have a paper due soon? (Ha, now which reasoning did I use? )

Inductive.

Testi: No. I figured it would be good discussion material.

When I use one I get buzzed, when I use the other I get upset.

Gooberman wrote:When I use one I get buzzed, when I use the other I get upset.

hah!

where is this coming from? put the problem in context for us.

Again:

I figured it would be good discussion material.

dictionary.com wrote:Deduction
1. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
2. A conclusion reached by this process.

dictionary.com wrote:Induction 1. The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
2. A conclusion reached by this process.

Ferno wrote:Again:

I figured it would be good discussion material.

Without a context, nothing is worth discussing. The problem with this subject is that is really two comparions - the pros and cons of each reasoning method, as shown in the above definitions, both are complmentary to each other rather than opposing opposites.

Sherlock Holmes used both deductive and inductive reasoning to solve cases.

From the definitions given it seems to me everyone uses both depending upon the subject. Personally i tend to the inductive, but i'm to thick to know why.

I'd rather have sweaty sex than think about it too much.

One large con I can think of is most people seem to rely on inductive reasoning only. They have one expereince with one type of group, and without actually checking to see if the situation holds true in all aspects, they believe that their experience is what defines that group.

You should read David Hume and Karl Popper

The problem is Ferno, that most people do not have time for deductive decision making as madison ave. has trained people to make decisions based on emotions.

woodchip wrote:The problem is Ferno, that most people do not have time for deductive decision making as madison ave. has trained people to make decisions based on emotions.

a crying shame.

Productive reasoning is the important one. While I know descriminating between the two sorts is important in some fields, topic bombs probably isn't one of them.

I hereby deem this thread rather useless.

Phoenix Red wrote:I hereby deem this thread rather useless.

Agreed. The topic posed is abstracted from any problem context. Without a problem context, the topic is doomed to meander meaninglessly.

We could discuss our favorite recipes for buffalo stew.

that would be useful

dissent wrote:We could discuss our favorite recipes for buffalo stew.

Actually at one time I was famous for my porcupine stew. Emmmm...yummy.

i read in "all quiet on the western front" that horse meat is more tender if you boil it for a short time before frying it. i wonder if buffalo is the same.

MMmmm! Buffalo Burgers!

.... um, not quite as good as Moose Burgers.

Nope!!! Your all wrong. Ostrich burgers are by far the superior fare. With very little cholesterol, calories and fat, it's good for you as well as being t t t tasty.

If that's not good reasoning, then i'm a teapot.

does it really need a problem context, per se, for people to comment on?

I think not.

So I thought when I saw this thread title that, for once, Ferno had written an article on something. I looked forward to reading it. Maybe it would be funny. Maybe it would be insightful. Maybe it would be sardonic. Surely it would not be Yet Another Empty One-Liner. SURELY.

Heh. YAEOL strikes again. Oh well.

Ferno likes others to discuss things so he gets the opportunity to sprinkle in the one-liners. Since that seems to make him happy, I'll provide him another opportunity now -- if he wants to take it.


- Sirian

oops

shut up sirian.

you dig up an old thread just to take a swing. I can see you are truly this generation's einstien.

if you don't like it, don't post.

I didn't come to this thread looking to take a swing. That's a fact. I came out of curiosity as to what you had to say. I wasn't looking to take a swing at that, either. I just wanted to hear you out. Well... I did. You had absolutely nothing to say.

The thread title indicated that you would say something substantive for once. It was misleading. An accurate thread title would have been to add the words "Please Discuss the" to the front of what you actually posted. Minus the bait and switch, I'd have known what to expect and avoided the thread.


- Sirian

ok here goes:

"Pros and Cons of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning"

I am not familure enough with the termanology in my everyday life to know exactly what the difference is between Deductive and Inductive reasoning. In many threads that i read on forums i don't understand quite what is going on, but after reading the thread i soon understand the issue being discussed. The subject of Deductive vs Inductive reasoning is one such topic, i simply do not keep a clear cut destinction between logic termanology in my head (it's boring) - everytime someone mentions "strawman" or "ad-hominem" i have to look it up if i want to remind myself what they are talking about, and Deductive and Inductive reasoning is just the same.

Do you know what the universal response is to a question? "i don't know". To avoid this you have to feed people enough so that they feel that they DO know, otherwise they will just treat your comment or question as a non-sequitar annoyance. So it is YOU sir who have to do the leg-work to get people feeling that they understand your question enough to be interested in offering their input.

in summary: if your OP makes people feel that they do not understand the question, and therefore they may likely put their foot in their mouth when they answer - then they will just not answer, perhaps waiting for clarification.

for example you could verbally draw up a visual story for someone, full of colour and accessable imagery. then introduce your deductive vs inductive reasoning question, linking it in with aspects of your story.

without a background it really bares much similarity to trolling to be honest. your OP reads similar in aspects to if mobius posted this:
"Pros and Cons of Evolution Theory: discuss"
or if I posted
"Pros and Cons of Drug Legalisation: discuss"
or
"Spirituality vs Realism: discuss"

i wouldn't post an OP worded like that, everyone would just think i was trolling - waiting for them to stick their foot in their mouth in their answer so i could cut them down with my polarised opinion. it's effectively making people play russian roulette as in their answers they attempt to 'fill in the blanks' with assumptions on what your FULL question really is - will they guess correctly? or will they put their foot in their mouth?

if YOU are interested in discussing Deductive vs Inductive reasoning then please start. As your OP was worded it seemed more as a suggestion for OTHER people to start to discuss it - for your amusement.

you need to start the ball rolling. you.
other ppl will see your game and want to play along with you, by choice. but you can't just get a bunch of ppl, hand them a ball and command them "play together for my amusement!"

Interesting piece you've written Roid.

Why I titled the thread the way I did: I figured that it would give people a serious matter to talk about besides religion and politics for a change. A breather if you will.

Also, what's wrong with proposing a question and hearing other's opinions on the subject before jumping in yourself? nothing, imo

I think we all can appreciate a non polarized opinion on something and still have it turn out to be a productive discussion.

A simple case of pros and cons of inductive reasoning would be: Inductive reasoning is good if you have a hypothesis you want invesigated, but not good if you believe your hypothesis should be accepted as fact.

Pro and con of deductive reasoning would be: Using a hypothesis you've created and with extensive testing, you can propose your hypothesis (which can change into an argument) and have the facts which you have discovered to back it up. But it can also backfire on you if you don't construct your hypothesis properly, thereby misleading others. (EG: the moon is made of cheese and here's why...)

Ferno wrote:One large con I can think of is most people seem to rely on inductive reasoning only. They have one expereince with one type of group, and without actually checking to see if the situation holds true in all aspects, they believe that their experience is what defines that group.

That isn't really a pro or con of a method of reasoning, but of bad input and stupidity in general. Most people you observe probably don't do much problem solving at all, so their brains atrophy.

Most people don't really notice it, as it is instinctive, but say you start with deduction, reach a conclusion, then take that conclusion and use induction to arrive at something more applicative to the situation at hand, then rinse, lather, repeat. For the hell of it, you can start with induction then move to another round of induction or any successive combination of the two.

A proper discussion would exclude possible data, and then you are left with method, which is instinctive, and isn't much to disccus pros and cons about.

Ferno wrote:Why I titled the thread the way I did: I figured that it would give people a serious matter to talk about besides religion and politics for a change. A breather if you will.

That's reasonable.

People gravitate toward either current events or timeless questions. Logic is neither. Logic is fairly well defined and not at all controversial.


Even if most discussions are politics or religion, though, what ISN'T tied to one or the other?

We could discuss the space shuttle and our future in space, but that has potential implications for both politics and religion.

We could discuss the hurricane and its effects, but that slides down the slope in to politics and religion, again.

If people are bound to talk about politics and religion, there's no stopping them.

Even the subject of logic drifts toward examples of people NOT using logic, and guess where that leads back to?

All roads lead to Rome.


- Sirian