The Significant Difference Between Deductive Arguments and Inductive Arguments

In this paper, I will be discussing Russell's principle of induction. I will begin by explaining deductive arguments and showing the main difference. Between inductive and deductive arguments. I will then explain Russell's principle of induction more thoroughly and relate the explanation. To the role of the principle of induction in inductive reasoning. Then, I will explain why induction cannot be justified on the basis of experience. Lastly, I will explain why I agree with Russell's claim that, "we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all our expectations about the future" (page 68).

There is a significant difference between deductive arguments and inductive arguments. A deductive argument is meant to be valid and each deductive argument is evaluated invalidity and validity. Evaluating a deductive argument invalidity and validity means. That it is impossible for the premises and conclusion to have different truth value in order for that argument to be considered valid. If the premises are true and the deductive conclusion is false, that argument is classified as invalid.

However, if all premises are true and the deductive conclusion is true, that argument. Is classified as valid because the conclusion and premises hold the same truth value. One example of a deductive argument would be to say that all dogs are mammals, a golden retriever is a dog, andthuse all golden retrievers are mammals. This is an example of a deductive argument that would be classified as valid because both premises are true and the conclusion is true as well.

Order custom essay The Significant Difference Between Deductive Arguments and Inductive Arguments with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Another example of a deductive argument would be to say that all golden retrievers are dogs. All dogs have four legs, and therefore all golden retrievers have four legs. In this case, the deductive argument is invalid because. While the premise that all golden retrievers are dogs is true. The premise that all dogs have four legs and the conclusion. That all golden retrievers have four legs is false because there exists some dogs, specifically golden retrievers in this case, are born with three legs due to a birth defect, making this deductive argument invalid and is therefore not an accurate deductive argument. Now, there remains the question of how one could justify the belief that all dogs are mammals, and this is when an inductive argument is used to justify a belief. An inductive argument is different from a deductive argument because an inductive argument is not meant to be valid, but an inductive argument is meant to make its conclusion more likely or more probable. One example of an inductive argument is to say, it has been observed that the sun has risen every day up to now, therefore it is probable that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Russell explains inductive reasoning when he says, "It is obvious that if we are asked why we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we shall naturally answer, 'Because it always has risen every day. We have a firm belief that it will rise in the future, because it has risen in the past" (page 61). Russell means that if there has been consistently observed evidence, such as the sun rising every day in the past, people will tend to believe and perceive that the sun will rise every day as a fact, rather than a prediction that could either be true or false. The role of the principle of induction in inductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning allows us to generalize and predict.

To generalize an inductive argument is to connect a reason from previously observed instances to the conclusion that applies to other instances. For example, a premise of a generalized inductive argument would be that all fish observed so far have gills, and the generalized conclusion would be that therefore all fish have gills. To represent a prediction as an inductive argument is to connect a reason from previously observed instances to a conclusion that applies to future instances. One example of an inductive prediction premise would be to say that all fish observed so far have gills, and the conclusion that the next fish observed will have gills is a prediction justified by inductive reasoning.

The principle of induction cannot be justified on the basis of experience. This is because it is possible for the premise to be true, such as that all fish observed so far have gills, and the conclusion to be false, such as the next fish observed might not have gills. The truth of the conclusion is never guaranteed by the premises, so inductive reasoning is uncertain. Russell states that, "It must be conceded that the fact that two things have been found together and never apart does not, by itself, suffice to prove demonstratively that they will be found together in the next case we examine.

The most we can hope is that the oftener things are found together, the more probable it becomes that they will be found together another time, and that, if they have been found together often enough, the probability will amount almost to certainty ... Thus probability is all we ought to seek" (pages 65-66). Russell is saying that even though inductive arguments are not guaranteed to be valid and do not guarantee the truth of their conclusion, inductive arguments serve the purpose of making their conclusions more probable or likely. For example, to say that all fish observed so far have gills may not guarantee that the next fish observed will have gills, but it does give a strong basis of experience to believe in the likelihood that the next fish observed will have gills,

Russell claims that, "we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all of our expectations about the future" (page 68). Russell means that unless an argument formulated based on the principle of induction is accepted based on consistently observed evidence, there is no possible way to make predictions about the future or generalize the future through inductive reasoning. I agree with this claim because in the case that an inductive argument is not accepted on the grounds of consistently observed evidence, inductive generalizations and predictions have no purpose or accuracy. Also, the entire foundation of an inductive argument is the belief that the premises, which are consistently observed as evidence, support the probability or likelihood that the inductive conclusion will be true. Another reason I agree with Russell's claim is because of the logic in Russell's pet example.

In Russell's pet example, Russell says the sun has risen every day up to now, then the more often some event has occurred in the past, the more probable it is that it will occur in the future. Therefore, it is probable that the sun will rise tomorrow. The principle of induction within the premise stating that the more often some event has occurred in the past, the more probable it is that it will occur in the future, allows you to infer something about the future on the basis of past experiences and consistent past observations. To believe an inductive conclusion as fact or that an inductive conclusion is likely is only possible through accepting the intrinsic evidence in the premises by the inductive principle. Russell would not be able to infer his conclusion in his pet example without accepting the principle of induction on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence. If Russell were to not accept the grounds of the intrinsic evidence he presents, the conclusion that it is probable that the sun will rise tomorrow and in the more distant future would need to be rejected.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer