Scientists use inductive reasoning, mathematicians use deductive reasoning, historians use abductive reasoning.
>>17057473>Scientists use reasoning>Mathematicians use logic>Historians make things up based on guessesLol.
>>17057505Doctors also use abductive reasoning. E.g.>you are coughing>you have a fever>you have the chills>your nose is runny>what is the best explanation for these observations?>you have the flu It's a valid form of reasoning.
>>17057508Sorry, patient inhaled anthrax and is now dead. Better luck next time doc.
>>17057526Abductive reasoning is inherently probabilistic.
>>17057473>Scientists use inductive reasoning>mathematicians use deductive reasoningReally, where did math axioms come from again?Math is more abstract but math and science use both inductive and deductive reasoning. Induction for the premise, deduction for the conclusion.
Your mum uses circular reasoning, even when she's not. Because she's fat.
>>17057542>induction for the premiseNobody comes up with axioms through induction lol wtf are you on about?
>>17057577>Nobody comes up with axioms through inductionSo how did they come up with those axioms?
>>17057702revealed in le dream
>>17057702>So how did they come up with those axioms?They just define them and that's it. Are you literally retarded?
>>17057745They define them based on inductive experience knowingly or unknowingly. That's why math derived from those axioms are so good at modeling reality.Or did you think mathematicians are gods who can arbitrarily "just define" something and then suddenly reality bends to their will?
>>17057777>inductive experienceAnd here we go with the schizophasia.
>>17057777ancient mathematicians would call something an axiom if they couldn't conceive of it being false (as in, the possibility was literally meaningless to them). if they offered justifications at all, those would fall under philosophy and be much more elaborate than inductive reasoning. modern mathematicians call something an axiom if it doesn't follow from anything else and they want to see what follows from it. inductive reasoning isn't involved in any of this. being inspired by experience is not inductive reasoning
>>17057526It’s lupus.
>>17057800and if you think about it, inductive reasoning isn't even trying to prove anything, it just functions to shift the burden of proof: the pattern has held perfectly so far so why wouldn't it continue to hold? it's a good question that stifles many a wannabe skeptic
>>17057533>Abductive reasoning is inherently probabilistic.Valid reasoning is inherently deterministic.
Mathematical induction is basically a well described step in a loop, it's precise (unless axiom of choice).
>>17057804You and I are immortal.Immortal idiots, but immortal.
>>17057473Electricians use conductive reasoning.
>>17057505Lol.
>>17057800>being inspired by experience is not inductive reasoningThey are both empirical generalization from past experiential patterns. The only difference is one is conscious the other is not.
>>17057830Mathematical induction isn't actually a form of induction though, that's just what it's called. It's still deduction.
>>17057832Everyone who's ever lived so far has died, thoughbeit.
>>17057919>They are both empirical generalization from past experiential patterns. The only difference is one is conscious the other is not.Mentally ill mongoloid take based on pure projection.
>>17057919It's literally not. Inductive reasoning begins with a specific principle, "the sun rose today, yesterday, and the day before" to a more general conclusion "the sun will rise tomorrow and every day after that." That's not how axioms work. Axioms are just statements of first principles. You're confusing induction with knowledge based on expereince. Not the same thing. Induction is empirical though. Mathematicians don't come up with axioms from reasoning about specific to general principles. They come up with axioms as basic foundational first principles that cannot be proved. Induction proves things. Axioms cannot, by definition, be proved.
>>17057972The mathematical generalization pattern is inductively experiential in the mathematician's subconscious trying to model an observer-relative reality by bending objective reality to his will. You just haven't reached this level of metagocnitive induction yet so you don't understand how your cognitive nucleus is deriving the empirically experiential patterns.
>>17057972>Induction proves thingsWhat are you talking about. Induction doesn't prove anything. That's what inductions are, abstract generalizations.>You're confusing induction with knowledge based on expereince. Not the same thing. Induction is empirical though.It's literally the same thing. And you literally just said that in the very next breath. "Induction is empirical". Which is correct. Empirical is pattern recognition knowledge via past experience.
>It's literally the same thing. Knowing a pattern is the same as reasoning that the pattern will hold forever because it did so far.
Here we fucking go. Another thread where retards cannot understand basic concepts. First they got filtered by irrational numbers, now they're getting filtered over not being able to understanding the difference between deduction and induction. Jesus Christ almighty, /sci/ has some stupid motherfuckers on it.
>>17057983>getting filtered over not being able to understanding the difference between deduction and inductionExample?
>>17057984DEDUCTION:Assume a general statement ASee that a particular statement B logically follows from AConclude that A implies BINDUCTION:Observe a series of O's in one sampleSee how this sample of O's can be generalized under principle IConclude that I holds for the same O's in all samples
>>17057994No, I mean what's an example of anyone getting filtered by this?
>>17057996This >>17057542 >>17057777>>17057702 >>17057975 >>17057979
>>17057979>Induction doesn't prove anything.So science doesn't prove anything is what you're saying?
>>17057998All of these posts are retarded but none of them are actually getting filtered by what you claim.
>>17057999Never heard of the Problem of Induction?Recognizing and predicting patterns through repeated observation does not mean you know why it exists or if it might change or have changed.That said, empirical generalization is heck of lot better than nothing, which is why we use it to order our lives to great effect. But it is not a proof of anything.
>>17057999I see what you're trying to argue but the word you're looking for is "justification", anon. 80 IQs can't just tell your colloquial usage from deductive proof based on the context. That would require understanding your point.
>>17058005>>17058006Inductive inferences are not the same as deductive inferences. Deductive inferences are guaranteed true as long as we accept the assumptions as true. Inductive inferences, on the other hand, aren't guaranteed to be true in the same way, but we have no reason to think they're false, and so we can only conclude that they are likely true or, at least, will continue to be true. The difference is the level of certainty we can have about our inferences. This is why we say that mathematical or logical proofs are **demonstrations**, whereas we do not do the same for inductive inferences. Inductive inferences certainly are proofs, but they're not demonstrative proofs. You can't absolutely guarantee them through demonstration in the way you can guarantee inferences made by deduction. So there are different classes of proofs, and proofs have premises, justifications, and conclusions, but they can take different approaches, so deduction can be thought of as top down, and induction is bottom up, and they also have varying degrees of epistemic certainty to them. I don't think any type of proof has 100% epistemic certainty to it, not even deductive proofs which are the most certain types of proofs, because obviously even though the conclusions are guaranteed, you still need to accept the premises as actually true in the first place, and this gets into things like formal validity and soundness. It all gets to the heart of the nature of truth itself.
>>17058031>Inductive inferences are not the same as deductive inferencesOk, retard. And?
>>17058031>I don't think any type of proof has 100% epistemic certainty to it, not even deductive proofs which are the most certain types of proofs, because obviously even though the conclusions are guaranteed>even though the conclusions are guaranteed [so long as the premises are true]I've got bad news for ya.
>>17057473Pretty good, I love learning something new
>>17057964but that doesn't mean we will. or all of us. it's just very likely based on past experience
>>17057999induction is useful for further probing or even opening up new doors where you start applying different reasoning. useful crutch, just don't lean too much on it, it sometimes breaks. and when it does, don't act all confused.
>>17058043That you're retarded?
