Inductive reasoning is still reasoning. We use it all the time. Instead of making its conclusion guaranteed and therefore sound as in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning makes it's conclusion "strong" or more likely or probable without actually necessitating it. — VagabondSpectre

What does that have to do with what I was saying though?

Inductive reasoning is still reasoning. We use it all the time. Instead of making its conclusion guaranteed and therefore sound as in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning makes it's conclusion "strong" or more likely or probable without actually necessitating it. — VagabondSpectre

If inductive reasoning works, then why don't scientists use it? If you think that scientists use induction, perhaps you could give an example of a theory that was induced, and how it was induced?

If inductive reasoning works, then why don't scientists use it? If you think that scientists use induction, perhaps you could give an example of a theory that was induced, and how it was induced? — tom

The scientific method is inductive in its entirety.

Only in deductive reasoning. Retroductive reasoning is valid when it produces an explanatory hypothesis that is capable of experiential testing. Inductive reasoning is valid when it proceeds in such a way that it will be self-correcting in the long run. — aletheist

With the understanding that retroductive reasoning is a type of inductive reasoning.

With the understanding that retroductive reasoning is a type of inductive reasoning. — Hanover

Not at all - retroduction (or abduction) is a distinct type of reasoning that provides explanatory conjectures for deductive explication and inductive examination. I prefer the term retroduction because it proceeds "backwards" relative to both deduction (consequent to antecedent) and induction (experience to hypothesis).

The scientific method is inductive in its entirety. — Hanover

Maybe you'd care to give an example of it at work? How about a rough idea of how general relativity was induced?

What we need are the repeated observations that Einstein made, from which he induced an explanation. Then the repeated observations he made to make general relativity more likely.

Not at all - retroduction (or abduction) is a distinct type of reasoning that provides explanatory conjectures for deductive explication and inductive examination. I prefer the term retroduction because it proceeds "backwards" relative to both deduction (consequent to antecedent) and induction (experience to hypothesis). — aletheist

Whatever you call it, it's still supposed to be a method of inference: theories from data. Science on the other hand is problem solving, and there's no method for that.

The observations were made prior to Einstein. Relativity theory involved the inductive conclusion that all motions are relative. Einstein took another inductive conclusion, that the speed of light is always the same relative to physical objects, and produced consistency between these two, with the special theory of relativity.

Maybe you'd care to give an example of it at work? How about a rough idea of how general relativity was induced? — tom

Einstein hypothesized it (retroduction), he and others worked out some of its experiential consequences (deduction), and then various scientists conducted further experiments and made observations to see whether those predictions were falsified or corroborated (induction).

Whatever you call it, it's still supposed to be a method of inference: theories from data. — tom

Not exactly; it is more like the formulation of a plausible explanation for an otherwise surprising observation on the basis of other background knowledge. It typically involves making connections that had not been recognized before.

Science on the other hand is problem solving, and there's no method for that. — tom

Engineering is problem solving, and there are all kinds of methods for that. The same basic pattern of retroduction (design), deduction (analysis), and induction (testing) is evident.

Relativity theory involved the inductive conclusion that all motions are relative. Einstein took another inductive conclusion, that the speed of light is always the same relative to physical objects, and produced consistency between these two, with the special theory of relativity. — Metaphysician Undercover

These were both retroductions (experience to hypothesis), not inductions (hypothesis to experience). Inductive experimentation requires a retroductive theory and its testable deductive predictions before it can even begin.

Einstein hypothesized it (retroduction), he and others worked out some of its experiential consequences (deduction), and then various scientists conducted further experiments and made observations to see whether those predictions were falsified or corroborated (induction). — aletheist

So, GR was not inferred from data. We know this to be historically true.

Einstein worked out some crucial tests - the classical tests of relativity. Putting the word (induction) is meaningless.

The crucial test is of central importance in the methodology of science. It pits two rival theories against each other in an attempt to render one of the theories non-problematic. The theories render each other problematic up to that point.

Not exactly; it is more like the formulation of a plausible explanation for an otherwise surprising observation on the basis of other background knowledge. It typically involves making connections that had not been recognized before. — aletheist

As I said, theory from data. Science on the other hand works from problem to solution, without method. The method solely deals with how the solutions are treated.

Back to general relativity, what was the surprising observation, and how was the explanation inferred from it?

Engineering is problem solving, and there are all kinds of methods for that. The same basic pattern of retroduction (design), deduction (analysis), and induction (testing) is evident. — aletheist

So you don't think the unification of GR and QM is a problem? Each theory renders the other problematic due to certain mutual inconsistencies. There has never been an observation, surprising or otherwise, that calls either into question.

The observations were made prior to Einstein. — Metaphysician Undercover

,

What observations?

Relativity theory involved the inductive conclusion that all motions are relative. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you claiming this is not true for Newton's Laws?

These were both retroductions (experience to hypothesis), not inductions (hypothesis to experience). Inductive experimentation requires a retroductive theory and its testable deductive predictions before it can even begin. — aletheist

Just to let you know, I don't agree with this. Induction is not "hypothesis to experience". It is a generalization derived from experience, such as a law in the sense of a law of physics, like Newton's first law of motion for example. It does not need a prior hypothesis, with experimentation, it only requires observation. So I don't believe that an inductive conclusion requires a retroductive theory. Nor do I believe that one can make such a clear distinction between a retroductive and inductive principle.

What observations? — tom

The observations I am talking about are the observations concerning the motions of bodies made by physicists prior to Einstein, such as Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, etc.. Relativity was developed by Newton and Galileo. The fact that the motions of the solar system could be described by either the geocentric or the heliocentric models, is an indication that motion is relative.

Are you claiming this is not true for Newton's Laws? — tom

No I'm not claiming any such thing, that's why it's called Newtonian relativity.

Einstein took another inductive conclusion, that the speed of light is always the same relative to physical objects — Metaphysician Undercover

What were the observations that led to that inductive conclusion?

So, GR was not inferred from data. We know this to be historically true. — tom

You are the one who insists on defining retroduction as "inferring from data." I describe it as "formulating an explanatory hypothesis," which is exactly what Einstein did.

Einstein worked out some crucial tests - the classical tests of relativity. — tom

That was deduction, and the actual testing was induction.

Science on the other hand works from problem to solution, without method. — tom

Claiming this over and over again does not make it true. There is no deterministic route from a perceived problem to a single "right" solution - not in engineering, and not in science.

Back to general relativity, what was the surprising observation, and how was the explanation inferred from it? — tom

I am not a historian of science, so you tell me - what motivated Einstein to develop his theory? What problem was he trying to solve? What reason did he have to doubt the theories that were already in place?

So you don't think the unification of GR and QM is a problem? — tom

What gave you that idea?

Each theory renders the other problematic due to certain mutual inconsistencies. There has never been an observation, surprising or otherwise, that calls either into question. — tom

How about the fact that each theory renders the other problematic due to certain inconsistencies? That seems rather surprising, hence the desire to find a way to unify them.

I obviously disagree, but I see no point in arguing about it. There is a reason why the scientific method is also called the hypothetico-deductive method. Newton's laws were just explanatory hypotheses (retroduction) until they produced testable predictions (deduction) that were subsequently corroborated by experiments and observations (induction).

Newton's laws were just explanatory hypotheses (retroduction) until they produced testable predictions (deduction) that were subsequently corroborated by experiments and observations (induction). — aletheist

Newton's laws were not written as hypotheses, to produce testable predictions in order to determine the reliability of the hypotheses. They were written as statements of fact, laws. These laws were intended to act as premises from which deductive reasoning could proceed. Since these laws were assumed to be true, the conclusions derived were also assumed to be true. To describe them as explanatory hypotheses is just a false representation.

How about the fact that each theory renders the other problematic due to certain inconsistencies? That seems rather surprising, hence the desire to find a way to unify them. — aletheist

Yes, a theoretical problem is discovered and solutions to the problem is sought. Just like general and special relativities. No observations were involved surprising or otherwise. The methods of science are employed once the theory is proposed.

CONSIDER YOUR ERRONEOUS EXAMPLE

You gave the 'lion in the rustling bush' as an example of a 'fallacy', which is a fallacy in itself - for you would not know if your guess was a fallacy or not until you were eaten or not, so you could not use 'fallacy' as a 'tool'. What your guess was in that situation was a PROBABILITY, which you COULD use as a tool.

FALLACY AS A TOOL

Yes, you can use fallacy as a tool - for causing action (or motivation). As such, even when false, it may lead to a desired outcome (and this is what you were questioning).

I'm not referring to the deliberate and deceptive use of fallacies. Rabble rousers and sophists have employed dubious tactics using fallacies from times immemorial. In this regard the term fallacy is apt.

My concern is that so-called fallacies may not be real fallacies at all. Like in my example a deer may be saved by committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent thereby endorsing it as a valid type of reasoning.

Like in my example a deer may be saved by committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent thereby endorsing it as a valid type of reasoning. — TheMadFool

And like I said, it is a valid type of reasoning - retroductive reasoning, rather than deductive reasoning. The conclusion is thus merely plausible at best, rather than certain.

Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning (TIP Sheet; Butte College)

Our natural modus operandi involves lots of "unsafe" reasoning (induction, abduction).
In fact, we wouldn't get far if we insisted on "safe" reasoning (deduction) only.
Yet another reason that justification (like evidence) is important in knowledge claims.

So, there's no such thing as fallacious reasoning then?!

So, no such thing as a fallacy then?

So, there's no such thing as fallacious reasoning then?! — TheMadFool

Where did I say that? I was addressing your specific examples, which are indeed fallacious as deductive reasonings, but valid as retroductive or inductive reasonings. It all boils down to the purpose of the reasoning. If you want to guarantee that you will only derive true conclusions from true premisses, then you go with deduction. If you merely want to formulate a plausible hypothesis, then you go with retroduction. If you want to test a hypothesis, then you go with induction, but only after deductively explicating it to derive experimental predictions.

So, no such thing as a fallacy then? — TheMadFool

There is. (See @aletheist's response, or look up examples, or I could post some I suppose, once time permits.)