- Joined
- Jun 28, 2022
- Messages
- 5,025
Here is an explanation of deduction vs. induction vs. abduction.
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. (This is where our 'training from birth' comes in. We are, by and large, a people 'taught by the machine' what we are to think and believe on most issues and subjects. Therefore, our response to most situations, is deductive based on what we have been TAUGhT or told or conditioned to believe are 'the truth.' Most never question the foundations of their 'knowledge gained' which isn't really knowledge at all, but the flavor of the day and surmise as the machine wants it interpreted.)
If a beverage is defined as "drinkable through a straw," one could use deduction to determine soup to be a beverage since it can (mostly) be drank through a straw.
Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation. You can see the soup is pea soup. You like pea soup, so you induce that the soup is going to be tasty, going from the incidence to its larger application - especially if you observe some consuming it.
Abductive reasoning, or abduction, is making a probable conclusion from what you know. If you see an abandoned bowl of hot soup on the table, you can use abduction to conclude the owner of the soup is likely returning soon.
Separating the three, I could perhaps agree most of our thinking is 'abductive' (but not inductive and also not deductive) and I thank you. you see, the problem is with 'what we know.' and how we hold it. (Think The Religion of Opinion.)
I will continue pondering this - it bears significant weight and the chain of thinking needs to be clear.
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. (This is where our 'training from birth' comes in. We are, by and large, a people 'taught by the machine' what we are to think and believe on most issues and subjects. Therefore, our response to most situations, is deductive based on what we have been TAUGhT or told or conditioned to believe are 'the truth.' Most never question the foundations of their 'knowledge gained' which isn't really knowledge at all, but the flavor of the day and surmise as the machine wants it interpreted.)
If a beverage is defined as "drinkable through a straw," one could use deduction to determine soup to be a beverage since it can (mostly) be drank through a straw.
Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation. You can see the soup is pea soup. You like pea soup, so you induce that the soup is going to be tasty, going from the incidence to its larger application - especially if you observe some consuming it.
Abductive reasoning, or abduction, is making a probable conclusion from what you know. If you see an abandoned bowl of hot soup on the table, you can use abduction to conclude the owner of the soup is likely returning soon.
Separating the three, I could perhaps agree most of our thinking is 'abductive' (but not inductive and also not deductive) and I thank you. you see, the problem is with 'what we know.' and how we hold it. (Think The Religion of Opinion.)
I will continue pondering this - it bears significant weight and the chain of thinking needs to be clear.

