deductive logic vs inductive logic

[stargroup100]

It's not true because I redefined what you meant by "inductive logic."

Originally Posted by FoJaR

what is meaningful to one person might not be meaningful to another person

This is not true either. You redefined what I meant by "meaningful". I explicitly told you what I meant by meaningful when I wrote my post, something that is a matter of objectivity not subjectivity. And yet you discarded that and used an entirely different meaning, changing my point.

You are not intellectually honest.

[austin4evr]

I got something meaningful out of the discussion already. "Oftentimes intelligent people will use their intelligence to dodge needing to use it, and stretch their brains with the use of open ended (in this case extremely so) discussion." A discussion can be worth more than its parts much like a piece of art is worth more than the paint put into it. That being said, inductive and deductive reasoning is really the question of the chicken and the egg with fourth dimensional concepts.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Whether or not something uses deductive logic or inductive logic is also subjective and impossible to quantify, so your question is still pointless.

this is completely false.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

this is completely false.

This statement is completely false.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Even if it wasn't a malformed question, ultimately I think it's a meaningless one as well. The foundation of all sciences is inductive reasoning. However, the models we use to understand and use science must utilize deductive reasoning. Why do we care which one has done more? What practical real world advantage can we gain by knowing the answer to this question?

i think the problem here is that you dont understand what you're talking about.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

read the first paragraph and then maybe revise your opinion.

scientific models are inductive.

inductive logic is an extension of deductive logic, but once you make an inference, your logic is inductive.

if you're still having trouble, i'll put it this way: inductive reasoning can contain deductions, but it is still inductive reasoning. deductive reasoning cannot contain inferences, or it becomes inductive reasoning.

so really the question is valid as asked, though the "which has done more for humanity" was a little vague. but it was left vague for a reason, because the things that inductive and deductive reasoning have accomplished usually fall into different domains.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by austin4evr

I got something meaningful out of the discussion already. "Oftentimes intelligent people will use their intelligence to dodge needing to use it, and stretch their brains with the use of open ended (in this case extremely so) discussion." A discussion can be worth more than its parts much like a piece of art is worth more than the paint put into it. That being said, inductive and deductive reasoning is really the question of the chicken and the egg with fourth dimensional concepts.

The thing that you learned in this thread is not a result of the initial question being posed. There are other things we could discuss that would lead you to come to the same conclusion. Therefore, it is nothing to do with the initial topic of the thread.

And inductive/deductive reasoning doesn't work in the chicken/egg analogy. In the chicken/egg analogy, the chicken produces and egg, and the egg produces a chicken, in a cycle. Inductive reasoning does not produce deductive reasoning, and vice-versa.

Inductive and deductive reasoning are both concepts that almost all humans intrinsically use at almost any given point in their lives, if you want to break it down far enough. Almost no decision/thought can be explained or justified without some degree of both inductive and deductive reasoning, so trying to isolate them from each other is pointless.

I also have no idea what you mean by "fourth dimensional concepts".

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

This statement is completely false.

pretty sure it's not. see above.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i think the problem here is that you dont understand what you're talking about.

I don't think you understand that most of the my posts in this thread are not serious and are actually satirizing your faulty logic.

However, for once most everything you've said is mostly correct. No major problems until here:

Originally Posted by FoJaR

so really the question is valid as asked, though the "which has done more for humanity" was a little vague. but it was left vague for a reason, because the things that inductive and deductive reasoning have accomplished usually fall into different domains.

The problem is not that the question needs to be vague, it's that the question is not clear enough. As you already stated, inductive reasoning can utilize deductive logic. The problem is how you separate what each "accomplishes".

This is why this question doesn't make much sense to me. [Almost] all inductive reasoning requires deductive reasoning in order to be justified and made sense of. All deductive reasoning holds no real demonstrable significant unless applied to reality, which therefore utilizes inductive reasoning. Suppose inductive reasoning has done more. So what? It doesn't mean we need to use more inductive reasoning or less deductive reasoning. It doesn't change how we use either of them. So why does the answer to this matter in any demonstrable way?

[FoJaR]

so you think that purely deductive logic has done nothing?

i guess that is the real sticking point then

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

so you think that purely deductive logic has done nothing?

i guess that is the real sticking point then

If you twist my words that way, then pure inductive logic has done nothing as well.

You clearly already have a bias towards thinking that deductive logic is somehow inferior to inductive logic, so at this point you're not looking at my arguments rationally but simply looking to confirm your own biases.

You're not intellectually honest.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

If you twist my words that way, then pure inductive logic has done nothing as well.

inductive logic is deductive logic where you make inferences. there is no such thing as pure inductive logic as you are attempting to define it.

You clearly already have a bias towards thinking that deductive logic is somehow inferior to inductive logic, so at this point you're not looking at my arguments rationally but simply looking to confirm your own biases.

you are making some unfounded inferences. i think you would call that a strawman

You're not intellectually honest.

you're not intellectually honest.

i think i'm getting the hang of this...

no wonder nobody posts in this forum

[stargroup100]

In order to call out people for logical fallacies, you have to know what the fallacy is, the person actually has to be making that fallacy, and you have to explain why what they said/did is that fallacy.

If we could just assert people are making fallacies without justification then what's the point?

[FoJaR]

yeah that's what i did

[Syhto]

nice jerk off session guys

when do we start thinking critically

[BrokenKeysEverywhere]

In a literal sense, Induction. This would be due to induction meaning to add (there are other meanings, I know). And even in an non-literal sense, deduction isn't useful in living life besides reminding us that gravity is weighing people down rather than doom-and-gloom . . . That was a pun.
And besides, deductive mathematics isn't helping the natural world and is just burdening the society (the people), while building up the artificial world.