Inductive Reasoning: A Valid Argument
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning A valid argument is made to address a specific problem by offering a position and proving reasons to support that position. A valid argument is based on two key components, one or more premise and conclusion. A premise is fact and/or opinion and must be proven to be true or false. And a conclusion is the final statement of the position one is taking on an issue or question. In deductive reasoning, if the fact is true the conclusion must be true because the conclusion follows the premise. (p.24) Unlike deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning allows the possibility for the conclusion to be false, even if all premises are true. Inductive reasoning is the acceptance of the conclusion depending on the strength
…show more content…
209) He thought of God as a perfect substance and believed that such ideas of a perfect God could not be created in the mind of someone imperfect as himself because imperfection cannot create such perfection, like God. Rationalists believe that sensory experiences only give you opinions, not reasons. In Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one perfect ball shape and once the candle is lit and begins to melt it loses that perfect shape and turns into something completely different. This experiment proves that the best judgement one can make is by the mind and not by senses, hence why Descartes does not support inductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, it is believed that knowledge is gained by observation. John Locke was an Empiricist, he believed in sense perception, induction, and that there are no innate ideas. Empiricists believe that true knowledge comes from our direct sensory experiences. Locke explains that we are not born with ideas, because if we were then the idea of God should be innate too. However, since there is no universally agreed upon notion of God, we are not born with the idea of God. In fact the mind is a “Tabula Rasa”, it is like a blank tablet of white paper, void of all characters, or ideas and it is through that we gain
209) He thought of God as a perfect substance and believed that such ideas of a perfect God could not be created in the mind of someone imperfect as himself because imperfection cannot create such perfection, like God. Rationalists believe that sensory experiences only give you opinions, not reasons. In Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one perfect ball shape and once the candle is lit and begins to melt it loses that perfect shape and turns into something completely different. This experiment proves that the best judgement one can make is by the mind and not by senses, hence why Descartes does not support inductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, it is believed that knowledge is gained by observation. John Locke was an Empiricist, he believed in sense perception, induction, and that there are no innate ideas. Empiricists believe that true knowledge comes from our direct sensory experiences. Locke explains that we are not born with ideas, because if we were then the idea of God should be innate too. However, since there is no universally agreed upon notion of God, we are not born with the idea of God. In fact the mind is a “Tabula Rasa”, it is like a blank tablet of white paper, void of all characters, or ideas and it is through that we gain