Induction, Deduction and UFO
Fundamental difference between deductive and inductive arguments: In deductive arguments the conclusion is TRUE, is VALID. An example of a deductive argument:
All men are mortal.(Premise)
Aristotle is a man.(Premise)
Therefore, Aristotle is mortal.(Conclusion)
The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal". The second premise states that "Aristotle" is classified as a "man" – a member of the set "men". The conclusion then states that "Aristotle" must be "mortal" because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a "man". However Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable.
90% of humans are right-handed.(Premise)
Joe is a human.(Premise)
Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90% (therefore, if we are required to guess we will choose "right-handed" in the absence of any other evidence).(Probable conclusion)
As a stronger example:
100% of life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist. (Premise)
Therefore, if we discover a new life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.(Probable conclusion)
Inductive vs. deductive reasoning Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true. A classical example of an incorrect inductive argument was presented by John Vickers:
All of the swans we have seen are white.(Premise)
Therefore, all swans are white.(False conclusion.)
UFO and Inductive reasoning.
This is the argument:
Six per cent of the Unidentified Flying Objects remain unidentified.
The nature of those Unidentified Objects is unknown.
Therefore, the UFOs must be Extraterrestrial crafts.
This inductive argument shows the characteristics of inductive reasoning: The conclusion is unreliable and unsustainable as valid evidence.
