Research Approach

John Dudovskiy

Research approach can be divided into three types:

The relevance of hypotheses to the study is the main distinctive point between deductive and inductive approaches.

Deductive approach tests the validity of assumptions (or theories/hypotheses) in hand, whereas inductive approach contributes to the emergence of new theories and generalizations.

Abductive research, on the other hand, starts with ‘surprising facts’ or ‘puzzles’ and the research process is devoted their explanation.

	Deduction	Induction	Abduction
Logic	In a deductive inference, when the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true	In an inductive inference, known premises are used to generate untested conclusions	In an abductive inference, known premises are used to generate testable conclusions
Generalizability	Generalising from the general to the specific	Generalising from the specific to the general	Generalising from the interactions between the specific and the general
Use of data	Data collection is used to evaluate propositions or hypotheses related to an existing theory	Data collection is used to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and patterns and create a conceptual framework	Data collection is used to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and patterns, locate these in a conceptual framework and test this through subsequent data collection and so forth
Theory	Theory falsification or verification	Theory generation and building	Theory generation or modification; incorporating existing theory where appropriate, to build new theory or modify existing theory

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor |

Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to California State University.

The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

Deductive reasoning usually follows steps.

First, there is a premise, then a second premise, and finally an inference. A common form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — reach a logical conclusion.

For example, the premise "Every A is B" could be followed by another premise, "This C is A." Those statements would lead to the conclusion "This C is B."

Syllogisms are considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to make sure the argument is valid.

For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal."

For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.

According to California State University, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue.

For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.

Deductive Reasoning

Joshua Schechter Brown University

Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which, roughly, the truth of the input propositions (the premises) logically guarantees the truth of the output proposition (the conclusion), provided that no mistake has been made in the reasoning. The premises may be propositions that the reasoner believes or assumptions that the reasoner is exploring. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning, the kind of reasoning in which the truth of the premises need not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. For example, a reasoner who infers from the beliefs.

(1) If the room is dark then either the light switch is turned off or the bulb has burned out;

(2) The room is dark.

(3) The light switch is not turned off; to the conclusion

(4) The bulb has burned out; is reasoning deductively. If the three premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

By contrast, a reasoner who infers from the belief (i) All swans that have been observed are white; to the conclusion (ii) All swans are white; is reasoning inductively. The premise provides evidential support for the conclusion, but does not guarantee its truth. It is compatible with the premise that there is an unobserved black swan. Deductive reasoning has been intensively studied in cognitive science, psychology, and philosophy.

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, and then conclusions are drawn from the data. This is called inductive logic, according to Utah State University.

"In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science, there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

An example of inductive logic:

"The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false.

Here's an example:

"Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories.

Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning or 'induction' is defined as reasoning based on detailed facts and general principles, which are eventually used to reach a specific conclusion.

Also known as inductive logic or the bottom-up approach, induction is basically a type of reasoning wherein the chances of the conclusion being false are significant even when all the premises, on which the conclusion is based, are true.

As opposed to deductive reasoning, which goes from general to specific, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general. In other words, it begins with a specific argument and arrives at a general logical conclusion. At times, induction is termed as strong, or weak, on the basis of the credibility of the argument put forth.

Example of Strong Inductive Reasoning

All the tigers observed in a particular region have black stripes on orange fur. Therefore all the tigers native to this region have black stripes on orange fur.

Even though all the tigers that were observed in this region sported black stripes on orange fur, the existence of a white tiger cannot be ruled out. Based on this, one can assume that the conclusion mentioned in this example is not certain. But then, the chances of coming across a white tiger are actually very rare, and that in itself makes this statement a good example of strong induction. In other words, a strong induction is the one wherein the conclusion is backed by the premises to a significant extent.

Example of Weak Inductive Reasoning

Joe always jumps the red light. Therefore everybody jumps the red light.

Unlike strong induction, in weak induction, the conclusion is not linked to the premises. Concluding that everybody jumps the red light just because one person does, is not an exercise of logical thinking. Simply put, weak induction is one which is backed by a faulty logic.

Categories

Inductive reasoning is further categorized into different types, i.e., inductive generalization, simple induction, causal inference, argument from analogy, and statistical syllogism. Given below are some examples, which will make you familiar with these types of inductive reasoning.

Inductive Generalization

All observed people are right-handed, therefore all the people are right-handed.

Simple Induction

All the dogs that have been observed, can bark, therefore all the dogs can bark.

Causal Inference

Joe leaves home at 08:30 in the morning and arrives late for work, based on which he concludes that he will be late for work every time he leaves at 08:30.

Argument from Analogy

John and Joe are friends. John likes to sing, write and read. Joe likes to sing and write. Therefore one assumes that Joe also likes to read.

Statistical Syllogism

John plays as a pitcher for his team. All pitchers pitch at an average speed of 90 MPH, therefore John pitches at an average speed of 90 MPH as well.

More Examples

The relationship between the premises and proposition forms the base of any inductive reasoning argument. Going through some examples of this form of reasoning will help you get a better understanding of the concept.

~Every time John eats shrimp, he gets cramps, and therefore he assumes that he gets cramps because he eats shrimp.

~John is an amazing athlete. So John's son too will go on to become an amazing athlete.

~When chimpanzees are exposed to rage, they tend to become violent. Humans are similar to chimpanzees, and therefore they tend to get violent when exposed to rage.

The woman in the neighboring apartment has a shrill voice. I can hear a shrill voice from outside. There is a high probability that the woman in the neighboring apartment is shouting.

~All the dogs which were subjected to routine diagnosis had fleas, so one concludes that all the dogs have fleas.

~The Philadelphia Falcons have won their last four matches in a one-sided contest, and therefore their fans conclude that the Falcons will win their fifth match as well.

~Every time you get a call from some unknown number, you find a telemarketer on the other side of the line. It makes you conclude that if it's an unknown call, it is most likely to be a telemarketer.

~You see a dog chasing a cat in your neighborhood a couple of times, and start believing that the two animals cannot be kept in one house.

~A few episodes of a particular sitcom make you laugh, and you conclude that the said sitcom is very funny.

~100 pens are kept in front of you. On checking the first 10 pens, you note that 5 had black ink and 5 had blue ink, and therefore you conclude that half of the 100 pens are black and half are blue.

To induce is to "bring about", and inductive reasoning is all about arriving at a conclusion on the basis of principle facts which guide you towards it. Comparing these examples of inductive reasoning with those of deductive reasoning will give you a better idea about the difference between the two. While we may not realize it, we resort to inductive reasoning for numerous day-to-day activities in our life. In fact, there are certain circumstances wherein you are left with no other option, but to rely on this form of reasoning -- even when you think it's unreliable.

Abductive reasoning

Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations, according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

For example:

· A person walks into their living room and finds torn up papers all over the floor. The person's dog has been alone in the room all day. The person concludes that the dog tore up the papers because it is the most likely scenario. Now, the person's sister may have brought by his niece and she may have torn up the papers, or it may have been done by the landlord, but the dog theory is the more likely conclusion.

· Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

Abductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning comes in various guises. It can be seen as a way of generating explanations of a phenomena meeting certain conditions. One handy way of thinking of it is as "inference to the best explanation". You move from some observations to the best explanation of those observations. The exact nature of abduction, and the principles for demarcating good and bad abduction, is still somewhat of a mystery. Though great strides are now being made, and formal models are starting to appear (particularly in the work of some excellent Belgian and Dutch logicians).

It is, in fact, one the most common types of reasoning, and it is hence really easy to think of examples. A few less interesting ones are:

· You hear your baby crying and notice a rather nasty smell. You abduce that the baby needs to have its poop dealt with in a suitable manner. This is the best explanation that comes to mind.

· You wake up in the morning, and you head downstairs. In the kitchen there's a plate on the table, and a bowl with a little milk left in it. You abduce that the explanation for this is that your housemate awoke before you, had their breakfast, and left.

The doctor hears her patients symptoms, including the regular shortness of breath on cold days and when exercising and abduces that the best explanation of these symptoms is that her patient is an asthma sufferer.

The scientist observes the test tube and sees the chemical turn purple. She abduces that either there is potassium in the sample or her colleague is playing yet another prank on her.

But by far the best example of abduction comes from Sherlock Holmes. Contrary to popular opinion - Sherlock Holmes rarely, if ever, deduces anything. He may occasionally induce something, but most of the time he infers the best explanation from his observations. For example,

· Holmes walks into the old second hand store and looks across the counter. The man standing there glances up before returning to his bookkeeping. Holmes turns to his companion and says, "That, my dear Watson, is the man we are looking for."
"But Holmes, how on Earth can you know such a thing? You've not even spoken to him!"
"Ah, but you see Watson, it is simple. I noticed that his beard is ragged and untrimmed, but its style implies that it is usually well kept. This means that he had little or no time this morning to undertake his usual particulars. He is wheezing slightly, showing that he was out of the shop this morning in the dense smog we have been having all over London. And, of course, he is wearing the stolen watch on a chain in his waistcoat."

Eee Gads Holmes, I just don't know how you do it!", exclaims Watson.

Holmes regularly abduces. He observes that the man has a tanned line on his finger, and abduces that he is or was married but has removed the wedding band. He notices that the footprints lead a certain direction, and abduces the best explanation for the criminal to elope over the fence rather than through the main gate.

Holmes is an expert abducer. He seems to always get it right, even though abduction is rather fallible. He sometimes induces too - noting the past behaviour of individuals to predict their future behaviours, or draws generalisations on the basis of past crimes. But what he is not is a regular deducer - though I have no doubt that he would be an expert at this form of inference also.

Why is abductive reasoning important?

Of the three types of reasoning, it is abduction that offers one the most extensive range of reference. Deduction is entirely analogical, or self-referential. It imparts no new information and refers only to what is found within the proposition under consideration. Induction, on the other hand is synthetic in nature, it does refer to objects that exist outside the proposition considered. Nevertheless, it is limited to conclusions that can be reached through repeated or prior experience.

Abduction, on the other hand, is able to introduce new ideas, to solve problems, and to lead one to new explanations of life and reality.

It is, as Peirce notes, "the only logical operation which introduces any new idea."

Furthermore, it is not dependent upon prior experience as is induction. Judged in terms of reference, abduction is clearly the most significant type of reasoning.

We must be aware that what abduction gains in terms of reference, it sacrifices in certainty. While abduction is the only type of reasoning that refers one to new information, it is also the least certain.

· Deduction applied properly yields a necessary conclusion-one that cannot not be true.

· Induction applied properly yields a probable conclusion-one that is to be preferred over all other possible answers taken together, not simply over any other single option, as is the case with abduction.

· Abduction, on the other hand, applied properly, yields only the most plausible conclusion. This means that the best available abductive solution might nevertheless be quite improbable-and thus likely to be mistaken. This is not to say that abduction is less important than deduction or induction.

It is to say that our listeners need not only a creative word, but also a certain word. After all, biblical prophets declared, "Thus saith the Lord," not "Divine judgment is the likeliest explanation for our present distress." We must therefore maintain balance in our reasoning. All three types of reasoning have their strengths and weaknesses, and they all have their place in our preaching.

· Deduction logic is using past knowledge and events to solve current problems- route used is algorithm and resolves specific problems- It is also known as top down- Underline Process-Existing theory identified-Hypothesis created-Hypothesis tested with specific empirical observations ;

· Induction logic on the other hand is Combining past events & current observations to drive influences; Its heuristic or exploratory in nature and follows a bottom up approach-here the researchers starts with making broad empirical observations the goal is to build the theory and not to test as the case in deduction- you also try and establish linkages or observe patterns by observing sufficient amount of observations- and build tentative hypothesis to explain the observations; based on the patterns they use a theory.

· Abduction logic or reasoning starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to make an educated guess for which there is no clear explanation. Its about Imagining & Visualizing a future that does not exist. Mainly used to uncover unknown and the mystery. Used by doctors , architects and design thinking fraternity

Abduction logic or reasoning

Jeff Wright, Life is a Mixed Metaphor

Abductive reasoning is a fancy word for the "educated guess". It's the only way to find new explanations and generate new theories. Deductive reasoning only turns the crank of what is already-known and well-formalized.

But the totality of knowledge extends beyond that to include observations whose significance is not yet known.

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations.

This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.

Abductive reasoning is different from deductive and inductive reasoning. It is pretty much exclusively used for reasoning about the cause or explanation for something. Abduction is similar to induction in that its conclusion is not certain, while deduction’s conclusion is always certain.

Basically, all three types of inference are based on a different ordering of cause/case, effect/result, and rule.

Deduction has the case (or cause) and rule as its premises, so a necessary result (or effect) follows as the conclusion.

1. All men are mortal. (This is the rule.)

2. Socrates is a man. (This is the case.)

3. Therefore, Socrates is a mortal. (This is the logical result.)

Induction has the case and result as its premises, so a probable rule is the conclusion. It is likely, but it is not entirely certain.

1. Many life forms have been observed on Earth. (This is the case.)

2. Only carbon-based life forms have been observed among them. (This is the result.)

Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that only carbon-based life forms exist on Earth. (This is the likely rule which follows from the relationship between case and result.)

Abduction has the result and the rule as its premises, so its conclusion is a possible case. It is also not certain, but it may be likely. I will try to come up with a good example:

1. All dead bodies at crime scenes were made to be dead through some means of dying. (This is the rule.)

2. On a particular body, there are several perimortem puncture wounds

1. On a particular body, there are several perimortem puncture wounds which are observable to detectives. (This is the effect from an unknown cause; what is the explanation?)

2. Therefore, it is possible that this victim was stabbed to death. (This is a possible cause for the effect under the given rule.)

Abductive reasoning is somewhat similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It might say something like this:

1. If A, then B. (Rule)

2. B. (Result)

3. So, potentially A. (Case)

This follows the formula for affirming the consequent, but it is not saying that it must be true that A. It is saying that there is potential for it to be true that A because it is a possible explanation for B which is known to be true.

Exercise helps the challenging skills of your to be honed to the sharpest of edges.

· Think hypothetically to be in the shoes of Sherlock Holmes and give some examples of abduction.

· Turn the crank of what is already well-formalized but as the totality of knowledge extends beyond that so include observations whose significance is not yet known.

· A lawyer has composed a letter of complaint against your client. You as a lawyer appear before a judge and present lines those demonstrate that the truth of the input propositions does not logically guarantee the truth of the output proposition. Write a letter of complaint and then mark out lines for presenting before a judge.

· Apply abduction to gain in terms of reference, and then apply deductive reasoning so that you need not to sacrifice in certainty.

· Apply deduction to yield a necessary conclusion but -one that cannot be true.

· Produce three sentences to show three types of inferences based on a different ordering of cause/case, effect/result, and rule.

· ‘John plays as a pitcher for his team. All pitchers pitch at an average speed of 90 MPH, therefore John pitches at an average speed’ Yes it is true but for that we need to prove that ……

· The John and Joe are friends. John likes to sing, write and read. Joe likes to sing and write. Therefore one assumes that Joe also likes to read.

This assumption can be true if we know that…..

· ‘All the dogs that have been observed, can bark, therefore all the dogs can bark’ this inductive generalization can be true if it is true that…

· Joe leaves home at 08:30 in the morning and arrives late for work, based on which he concludes that he will be late for work every time he leaves at 08:30. Conclusion of Joe can be wrong if he changes something or something changes. Explain.

· "The all suspected terrorists the Feds nabbed were Muslims. Therefore, the all terrorists in the city are Muslims." Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Add something so that conclusion must be true.

· Take some example of Strong Inductive Reasoning and make them Weak Inductive Reasoning

· For example, the premise "Every man with a beard is a terrorist" could be followed by another premise, "This man has a beard." Those statements would lead to the conclusion "This man is a terrorist." Challenge this conclusion.

Search This Blog

Dr Sohail Ansari

Research Assignment #17: Learn to negotiate the ticklish art of applying research approaches with finesse & do exercise that hones insight into a full fledged critique of reasoning and permits the free play of imaginations. For the Departments of English & Media Studies by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari