Listen "679 Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning"
Episode Synopsis
<p>If any philosophy is to be taken seriously, it must be logically understandable. There are basically three kinds of logic: deductive, inductive, and abductive. Deductive reasoning follows three if-and-then steps, called a syllogism, in which two statements reach a logical conclusion, for example: all men are mortal, and you are a man, then you are mortal. Syllogisms require knowledge to determine truth.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">When you don't have any knowledge, use Inductive reasoning, which makes broad generalizations from specific observations; for example: the first three coin flips were heads therefore the next one will be. Unfortunately, we all knows how that turns out if you rely on the outcome. Though not a proof of truth, Inductive reasoning is useful for creating hypotheses which could be turned into Deductive reasoning.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">When you only have partial knowledge, Abductive reasoning is what doctors and lawyers use; for example, if a dog is alone in a room all day, a person might conclude that the dog ate the pie on the counter, but that's only the most likely scenario; maybe someone else ate the pie, or it was a mistake and the pie wasn't really there. Diagnoses uses this technique, and people in juries consider a preponderance of evidence, and personal anecdotes don't count. Faulty reasoning explains most of what's wrong with the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">When you don't have any knowledge, use Inductive reasoning, which makes broad generalizations from specific observations; for example: the first three coin flips were heads therefore the next one will be. Unfortunately, we all knows how that turns out if you rely on the outcome. Though not a proof of truth, Inductive reasoning is useful for creating hypotheses which could be turned into Deductive reasoning.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">When you only have partial knowledge, Abductive reasoning is what doctors and lawyers use; for example, if a dog is alone in a room all day, a person might conclude that the dog ate the pie on the counter, but that's only the most likely scenario; maybe someone else ate the pie, or it was a mistake and the pie wasn't really there. Diagnoses uses this technique, and people in juries consider a preponderance of evidence, and personal anecdotes don't count. Faulty reasoning explains most of what's wrong with the world.</p>
<p> </p>
More episodes of the podcast PRay TeLL, Dr. Hash
307 Healthcare Concepts
06/01/2026
306 Lowering Healthcare Costs
04/01/2026
305 NHS
02/01/2026
304 How the VA “Failed”
31/12/2025
303 Hospitals As Primary Care Providers
29/12/2025
302 A Quick Healthcare Fix
27/12/2025
301 The Irony of Universal Healthcare
25/12/2025
1500 Feminism Concepts
23/12/2025
1499 Pornography
21/12/2025
1498 Hypergamy, Polygamy & Polyamory
19/12/2025
ZARZA We are Zarza, the prestigious firm behind major projects in information technology.