#inductive reasoning

[danshive]

I read a paper from 1878 that was the precursor to the acknowledgement of abductive reasoning—Deduction, Induction and Hypotheses.

It included a hypothetical in which aliens took pictures of Napoleon.

[cugzarui]

Commentary

For the record, Ellen isn't coming up with these on the spot. These are things she's been told. What she's doing is organizing them into arguments.

(Which is still an impressive thing to do on the spot like that.)

LOGIC!

Upon realizing I was confused about the distinctions between inductive and abductive reasoning, editing this page turned into a speed run to learn about philosophical reasoning.

Napoleon and space aliens got involved.

The cause of my confusion turned out to be this: Not everyone acknowledges abductive reasoning.

There are plenty of videos that treat deductive and inductive reasoning as a dichotomy. It took me a while to realize that, and it affected how I interpreted what I was hearing. The line between inductive and abductive reasoning started to blur, and I wondered why abductive reasoning was even a thing.

So I read a paper by Charles Sanders Peirce from 1878.

Titled Deductions, Inductions, and Hypotheses (and read by me in a collection called The Essential Peirce, Volume 1), it argued for the necessity of hypotheses and how they differed from induction (it read like an early case for what would become known as abductive reasoning).

It also claimed that Napoleon existing was a hypothesis.

Numberless documents and monuments refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed. Hypothesis again.

And I wasn't kidding about space aliens. From later in the paper:

Now, the facts which serve as grounds for our belief in the historic reality of Napoleon are not by any means necessarily the only kind of facts which are explained by his existence. It may be that, at the time of his career, events were being recorded in some way not now dreamed of, that some ingenious creature on a neighboring planet was photographing the earth, and that these pictures on a sufficiently large scale may some time come into our possession, or that some mirror upon a distant star will, when the light reaches it, reflect the whole story back to earth.

I’ll say this for the Napoleon examples: I will never forget them.

ANYWAY! I felt significantly less confused after I read that, and I changed Ellen's induction example. My earlier confusion had, in fact, resulted in the original actually being abductive reasoning.

Hooray for reading and hypothetical Napoleon being photographed by aliens!

@danshive i hope you dont mind me reposting this to tumblr because i feel the people need to see this this is like the best guide ive come across to the different kinds of reasoning and i didnt even know about abductive reasoning

[pratchettquotes]

Samuel Vimes dreamed about Clues.

He had a jaundiced view of Clues. He instinctively distrusted them. They got in the way.

And he distrusted the kind of person who'd take one look at another man and say in a lordly voice to his companion, "Ah, my dear sir, I can tell you nothing except that he is a left-handed stonemason who has spent some years in the merchant navy and has recently fallen on hard times," and then unroll a lot of supercilious commentary about calluses and stance and the sate of a man's boots, when exactly the same comments could apply to a man who was wearing his old clothes because he's been doing a spot of home bricklaying for a new barbecue pit, and had been tattooed once when he was drunk and seventeen and in fact got sea-sick on a wet pavement. What arrogance! What an insult to the rich and chaotic variety of the human experience! [...]

The real world was far too real to leave neat little hints. It was full of too many things. It wasn't by eliminating the impossible that you got at the truth, however improbable; it was by the much harder process of eliminating the possibilities. You worked away, patiently asking questions and looking hard at things. You walked and talked, and in your heart you just hoped like hell that some bugger's nerve'd crack and he'd give himself up.

Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

[medsocionwheels]

Sociological Theory and the Canon

It's Sociology Sunday! Today we're talking theory.

What is sociological theory?

Sociological theory is a set of interrelated ideas that allow for the (1) systematization of knowledge of the social world (2) the explanation of that world, and (3) predictions about the future of that world, and which are falsifiable through empirical research.

Theory provides a possible answer to questions like, “why did this happen?” or, “why did they do that?” This means theory is speculation, not fact, but unlike “ideas” generally, theory is speculation driven by a more formal, systematic, process, which incorporates the work of previous theorists and research findings.

The Sociological Canon

Some theories are more popular than others. Some theories, while unpopular, are considered “pivotal” to the foundation of sociology. The “sociological canon” helps us identify the “popular” and “pivotal” theories.

The sociological canon is defined as the theories, ideas, and texts that are widely considered as the most important in the field of sociology (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018) 

“I’m not a regular mom theory, I’m a cool mom theory!”

The canonized theories are sort of like the “cool mom” in Mean Girls (oshowing my age here, the original 😘) – others exist, but these are the ones we tend to think of first when we think of “the mom in Mean Girls” (or, in this case, “sociological theory”).

Critics of the canon argue that the canon is not a neutral construction; rather, it is affected by power and the politics of the theory. To some degree, they are right.

The field of sociology has historically privileged theories that have testable hypotheses, known as “positivist” theories, and theories produced by white men faculty. In this, we can see that the canon, and relatedly, the field of sociology,  have tended to reflect power structures in society more broadly. Which means that, yes, technically the canon is full of theories created by old white dude philosophers in Europe in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Nowadays, though, most sociologists agree that the canon includes much more than Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. 

Meaning the canon is now considered to  include theories from other classical theorists writing during the same time as Mark/Weber/Durkheim, like W.E.B. DuBois and Ida B. Wells. The canon has also expanded in the last 40 or so years to include contemporary theories, such as emancipatory, feminist, and queer theories. These expansions were important steps towards accounting for the reality of the field as it presently exists, and to correctly reflect the field’s foundations which expand far beyond whiteness, masculinity, and western imperial culture. Presently, women make up the (quantitative) majority of sociology faculty, and while this women majority was historically white, the number of women, including and especially women of color, in sociology continues to grow, substantially outpacing white men. 

Sociological Theory and Empirical Research

Empirical research is rooted in theory.

Sometimes these theories are the driving force behind research, constituting the research question for an empirical study. You begin with the possible answer to the question, the theory, and you investigate to see if it holds up–your results may call into question some or all of the theory’s propositions. This is called “deductive reasoning.”

Theory is not always the starting point of research, though. Sometimes theory is generated from research. This process is called “inductive reasoning.” In this case, you begin with observations, draw conclusions, and from those conclusions, generate new ideas about the social world. 

Deductive reasoning is often linked with quantitative research. Quantitative researchers usually have some idea of theory before forming their research question, and some quantitative research is constructed with the goal of testing (falsifying) theoretical propositions.  Qualitative research, in contrast, often uses inductive reasoning, beginning with observation and developing theory as part of the study’s conclusions. This is not always the case with qualitative research, though. One approach to creating contemporary sociological theory assumes the “best” theory is constructed via inductive reasoning, and thus, begins with observation, absent of pre-existing ideas. This is known as a “grounded theory” approach, because it produces theory that is “grounded” in observation of tangible facts instead of based upon pre-existing abstract ideas. The sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss are often credited with popularizing the “grounded theory” approach, which they outlined in their 1967 book “The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research”.

Other approaches to qualitative research, like content analysis, may start with theory or observations.

Summary:

It’s Sunday, so let’s talk sociology. Today’s topic: defining sociological theory. #SociologySunday #sociology #KeyConcepts #lessons #Professor #Sociologist #StudyTok #learning #college #SociologyMajor #theory #PhDTok #science #ScienceTok #SocialScience #education #HigherEducation #university #college #UndergraduateEducation

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Dr. Heather Sue M. Rosen (@medsocionwheels)

Watch full lecture:

What is Sociological Theory

What is sociological theory? How is it used in Empirical research? Explore the sociological canon...deductive...inductive...qualitative...qu

[ijustsmackedmynewtattoo]

Logical Reasoning

I should have made this a looooong time ago but I didn’t so we’re doing it now. Welcome to the different types of logical reasoning. 

Deductive Reasoning

This is a general principle applied to a specific conclusion. This is cause to effect reasoning using fact, rules, and definitions so that your conclusion must be true. This one takes a lot more thought and practice overall but the payoff is consistent correctness. Think math, if you’re doing the right formula your answer will always be correct.

Inductive Reasoning

This is the type of deduction or logical reasoning Sherlock actually uses. This is observation xyz are used to assume a general conclusion, the reversal of deductive reasoning. Your answer is probably true but there’s always outliers and inconsistencies. I you’re looking for fast and easy day to day ways to play ball this is what you and your favorite deductionists are using. 

Abductive Reasoning

Much bad. Abductive reasoning uses an incomplete observation to draw a best prediction of the situation. In other words its an assumption that might be true but might not and the type of reasoning s lot of beginner’s fall victim to.

Thanks for reading the blurb

-Graham

[sleuth2k7]

hot take: deduction is sort of a pseudoscience. 1/?

[important vocab lesson: deduction = that thing Sherlock Holmes does]

I have many, many thoughts on how (and why) deduction is framed a specific way in the deduction community, and how that framing both gatekeeps and misses the point of what deduction actually involves. For now though, I want to start with an idea that I’ve been considering since I was introduced to the concept of “ways of knowing” a few months ago.

I’ll preface my explanation with this: In this context, pseudoscience doesn’t equal fake/not reliable. Deduction is a real thing that people can (and have!) learned to do. But - my idea here is that viewing it as a pseudoscience (specifically ordinary human inquiry) is a useful way to think about deduction.

Now, the “ways of knowing” concept that I mentioned:

There are lots of ways that we “know things.” These “ways of knowing” can be loosely divided into three categories.

1. Scientific - this is the scientific method, which can be done through:

deductive reasoning: theory, hypothesis, observations, generalizations

inductive reasoning: observations, generalizations, theory, hypothesis

Sherlock Holmes’ deduction is inductive reasoning, yes? So while deduction follows a scientific method structure, deduction is a lot more layered and in the moment than scientists in a lab, or researchers conducting a study, who are focusing on a small piece of a larger puzzle. A social scientist might be observing in a coffee shop to determine what ages order various drinks, while a deductionist could sit in the same coffee shop and work on developing entire profiles of people - deductionists do not (and cannot) spend months on finding and analyzing one piece of the puzzle. Deductionists find the pieces and construct the puzzle on the spot. It’s improv, not a research study. Thus why I hesitate to place deduction 100% into this first “way of knowing,” since it is looser and not as definite. 

2. Non-scientific - this includes learning from personal experience, common sense, ideologies, and the media.

Personal experience and common sense, while not scientific, play a role in deduction, though neither should ever be the primary factor fueling your deductions.

3. Pseudoscience - this includes tradition & authority, and ordinary human inquiry. 

Tradition and authority can provide a deductionist with contextual information that would be helpful in making deductions, though what I want to focus on here is ordinary human inquiry. 

There are a few “limits” to ordinary human inquiry - and these limits are why I made the connection to deduction when I learned about this “ways of knowing” framework.

Limits: inaccurate observations, overgeneralizations, selective observations, and illogical reasoning. 

If someone who doesn’t know anything about deduction goes out into the wild and tries to “figure things out” about someone, the list above outlines the sorts of mistakes they will definitely make. Deduction, however, is all about observing well, not generalizing or jumping to conclusions, and using logical reasoning. 

In conclusion: deduction is the act of trying to become less shit at ordinary human inquiry (because as humans, we start out as shit at it - that’s why it’s considered a pseudoscience). 

Can a deductionist become so good at avoiding the limits of ordinary human inquiry that it is no longer a pseudoscience? I don’t think so!

Those four things can always happen to a deductionist, no matter how good you are. Thus why, while deduction dabbles in all three “ways of knowing,” it is for the most part ordinary human inquiry.

Now, I did mention that viewing deduction this way is useful - why?

Well, you have a framework of what to work on now:

1. In terms of observations, you want to avoid inaccurate observations, and selective observations. Observing well is a priority - step one to becoming a deductionist, to be honest, as observations are the base for deductions. 

2. Generalizations are useful in deduction, but only to a point. It’s important to keep in mind that there are exceptions to everything, and generalizations are not definite. Context is also vital when generalizing. 

3. While I dislike the idea that deduction is pure logic, your reasoning does need to be logically sound. So: what causes illogical reasoning? Lots of things, but the most relevant one here is bias - we are all are own unique combination of biases. One of the biggest hurdles in learning deduction is ignoring those biases as much as you can.

Final note: The idea that deduction falls into the pseudoscience “ordinary human inquiry” is a theory of mine (and part of my own personal framework of deduction). I am in no way saying that these are set in stone facts and that I am Right. Looking at deduction (especially the learning of deduction) through this lens is just neat! 

[rosy-cheeked-girl]

on the application of inductive reasoning to transitivity

it’s perfectly reasonable not to believe them when they say tomorrow will be better. better than today. perfectly reasonable to be so stuck in your downward spiral of everything you have yet to do, congealing into that all-too-familiar lump in your throat. you barely even choke on your hesitation anymore, on your own insecurity, not for a lack of it or even a dwindling supply but simply from a tolerance built up over time. that’s perfectly reasonable, you know. what they will tell you is that tomorrow will be better, better than today, but what they mean is transitivity can be established from a single reference point. the existence of one better day implies the existence of others. there have been better days, so there will be better days. they will say: tomorrow will be better than today. you will think—perfectly reasonably—that maybe it won’t be. this time, though you will know that the better days might seem out of reach they will never quite be out of sight.

[er-cryptid]

Patreon | Ko-fi