Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.
In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). It only deals in degrees to which, given the premises, the conclusion is credible according to some theory of evidence.
Examples include a many-valued logic, Dempster–Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule.
Complete induction is a type of masked deductive reasoning.
Although the use of inductive reasoning demonstrates considerable success, its application has been questionable.
For example: Note however that this is not necessarily the case.
Other events also coincide with the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. A classical example of an incorrect inductive argument was presented by John Vickers: The definition of inductive reasoning described in this article excludes mathematical induction, which is a form of deductive reasoning that is used to strictly prove properties of recursively defined sets.
Gambling, for example, is one of the most popular examples of predictable-world bias.People have a tendency to rely on information that is easily accessible in the world around them.For example, in surveys, when people are asked to estimate the percentage of people who died from various causes, most respondents would choose the causes that have been most prevalent in the media such as terrorism, and murders, and airplane accidents rather than causes such as disease and traffic accidents, which have been technically "less accessible" to the individual since they are not emphasized as heavily in the world around him/her.As a result, the argument may be stated less formally as: Another crucial difference is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.Given that "if A is true then that would cause B, C, and D to be true", an example of deduction would be "A is true therefore we can deduce that B, C, and D are true".