Understanding Deductive Reasoning from Aristotle’s Point of View

The attempt to find explanation for any given thing must be based on some form of reasoning; two of these notable mediums of understanding nature are deductive and inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning has served since it's "induction" by Aristotle as a form of logic based argument that rests on its premises, with the conclusion being directly implied in them. This makes any deductive argument valid and thus, truth preserving. While the premises themselves become the source of contradiction and disagreement, the truth of them will always guarantee the conclusion. For example, The Cosmological Argument asserts two premises: everything can be classified as either dependent or self existent and not everything is dependent. Regardless of the acceptance of these assumptions the argument rests on, if they were true, there must exist a self-existent being: one whose existence explains its existence. The relationship between the two forms of being describes the non-dependent one serving as, "a being that causes change in other things but is itself unchanging" (Rowe 25). So, all dependent beings are a result of the independent one/s, because an infinite chain of prior dependent events is incomprehensible and logically impossible.

All that a deductive argument claims or deduces, follows the acceptance of the premises, which seemingly makes it easier for one to arrive at a conclusion. This enables an argument to be based solely on these premises, because the relationship between the premises and conclusion is directly implied and never in contradiction.

Order custom essay Understanding Deductive Reasoning from Aristotle’s Point of View with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, is based upon premises that do not promise the truth of the conclusion but rather support it. There can be no absolute guarantee that the conclusion is true, even if the premises are, enabling the argument to transcend subjection to complete validity. The foundation of an inductive argument is an attempt to take what is already known and apply that knowledge to the unknown. This can be done from the known past to the unknown future, the particular to the general or from the observed to the unobserved phenomena. So then, the strength of the argument itself is based upon the subjective understanding of the relationship between the known and unknown, the seeming ability of the former to describe the latter. But the relationship itself will inevitably meet a bridge, as there is no direct implication from one to the other.

In The Argument from Design, an attempt is made to reconcile seeming universal purpose with a purposeful designer. While it would be impossible to conclusively observe that the universe has a purposeful designer from our position, since we're "stuck" in it, there are clearly examples of purpose found in one's everyday experience. This in the same sense that I may stumble upon an intricately complex watch and know for certain that some being had its existence in mind with the intention of it serving a purpose, that is a watchmaker enabling a device to tell time.

From this example, one may apply it in a broader manner and come to the assumption that clearly if the watch had a purpose, so too must everything else. One would furthermore explain their lack of understanding of this deeper purpose in the same sense that I know the watch has a purpose, but as to the inner workings of the watch I am simply unaware. And so this does not defeat purpose, but explain my inability to see it. And so long as I view the watch and watchmaker as such, I can voluntarily apply the same method of comprehension to non-understood phenomena, notably the universe itself to a designer of it. The soundness of this argument, or any inductive one, then lies in the personal ability to harmonize one example to the lot of them.

While both deductive and inductive reasoning help explain observed phenomena, they are disparate methods of reasoning. Being that a deductive argument's implications lie in the premises, it's a derivation of facts from facts, and no new knowledge is being provided. With inductive reasoning, however, there is an attempt to stumble upon new knowledge, by looking for patterns and trends that one can hopefully and reasonably assume will persist. So then, deduction does not appear to be a form of induction because deduction inevitably finds itself in a manifestation of circular logic, while induction sacrifices absolute validity for newfound understanding.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer