归纳推理法.docVIP

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to individual instances. Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts. A well-known laboratory example of inductive reasoning works like a guessing game. The participants are shown cards that contain figures differing in several ways, such as shape, number, and color. On each trial, they are given two cards and asked to choose the one that represents a particular concept. After they choose a card, the researcher says right or wrong.[1] Though many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, this usage is outdated.[2] [edit] Description Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable. A statistical syllogism is an example of inductive reasoning: 90% of humans are right-handed. Joe is a human. Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90% (therefore, if we are required to guess we will choose right-handed in the absence of any other evidence). As a stronger example: 100% of life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist. Therefore, if we discover a new life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist. This argument could have been made every time a new life form was found, and would have been correct every time. While it is possible that in the future a life form that does not require water will be discovered, in the absence of other factors (e.g. if it were from another planet) then the conclusion is probably correct as it has been in th