This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |
| compai [2024/10/14 14:15] – [Conclusions] pedroortega | compai [2026/05/23 10:07] (current) – [Computation is deduction, pattern recognition is induction] pedroortega |
|---|
| **Deduction** is the method which yields inevitable conclusions based on given premises and rules. The archetypal example is that if you know "all humans are mortal" (premise) and "Socrates is a human" (premise), then you can unequivocally conclude that "Socrates is mortal" (necessary conclusion) through the use of a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism|categorical syllogism]] (rule). | **Deduction** is the method which yields inevitable conclusions based on given premises and rules. The archetypal example is that if you know "all humans are mortal" (premise) and "Socrates is a human" (premise), then you can unequivocally conclude that "Socrates is mortal" (necessary conclusion) through the use of a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism|categorical syllogism]] (rule). |
| |
| **Induction:** This method produces general hypotheses (rules & premises for instance) derived from specific observations. An example is observing that the sun has risen every day in recorded history and thus concluding that the sun will rise every day (a general rule, but not an absolute certainty). Another example would be to observe that "Socrates is mortal" and then conclude that this is because "all humans are mortal" and "Socrates is a human", although the credence attributed to this hypothesis is arguably quite low given the anecdotal data. Induction is often criticized because unlike deduction, it does not lead to a single conclusion, but multiple possible explanations. | **Induction:** This method produces general hypotheses (rules & premises for instance) derived from specific observations. An example is observing that the sun has risen every day in recorded history and thus concluding that the sun will rise every day (a general rule, but not an absolute certainty). Another example would be to observe that "Socrates is mortal" and then conclude that this is because "all humans are mortal" and "Socrates is a human", although the credence attributed to this hypothesis is arguably quite low given the anecdotal data. Induction is often criticized because unlike deduction, it does not lead to a single conclusion, but multiple possible explanations. Singling out any particular explanations thus //adds// information to the argument. |
| |
| <WRAP info> | <WRAP info> |