Deduction, induction, abduction: The Differences

Get a FREE assessment of case interview abilities by going to managementconsultingjournal.co.... The sign up process takes less than a minute!
There are three logical ways to derive a logical conclusion: deduction, induction, and abduction. These are useful concepts to know for your case interviews.
Remember that:
- deduction = rule - case - result
- induction = case - result - rule
- abduction = result - rule - case

[@halftome]

Thank you, this helped me a lot while studying for my AI exams :)

[@fierturazilei]

I am a student at the faculty of Philosophy and no teacher was able to explain these things properly. They used different examples for each, instead of using the same example so you can really see the difference. It is also important I thi k to see that the Rules usednin deduction were aquiered generally through induction (maybe with abduction as well) Thank you!!!

[@pleasedtamaster7035]

Great video! Thanks for being informative : )

[@Biwso]

Thank you!

[@friday8091]

I am affraid, that is all wrong and very misleading. Please, see: “context of justification”-the stage of scientific inquiry in which we are concerned with the assessment of theories -for Peirce abduction had its proper place in the context of discovery, the stage of inquiry in which we try to generate theories which may then later be assessed. As he says, “[a]bduction is the process of forming explanatory hypotheses. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea” (CP 5.172); elsewhere he says that abduction encompasses “all the operations by which theories and conceptions are engendered” (CP 5.590). Deduction and induction, then, come into play at the later stage of theory assessment: deduction helps to derive testable consequences from the explanatory hypotheses that abduction has helped us to conceive, and induction finally helps us to reach a verdict on the hypotheses, where the nature of the verdict is dependent on the number of testable consequences that have been verified (Igor Douven, at: plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/peirce.html)

[@patrickdeala987]

this is very clear. thank you!

[@LordVictorHalgaard]

Its also wrong...

[@duyngo2370]

is deduction tactical thinking and abduction strategic thinking sir?

[@MorbidlyObeseCat_Ch]

my left ear is getting real smart

[@christophhaug]

I'm afraid this is misleading. Abduction is not about testing a hypothesis but about generating one.

[@lewisnostredame5605]

She is also very unclear.

[@ronanrox]

Do you, by any chance, have a hold of how it really works? I mean the real one.

[@christophhaug]

@@ronanrox Think of the way a detective thinks to solve a mystery. You observe something that you don't understand (e.g. you hear the sound of breaking glass in the middle of the night). In order to make sense of that observation, you apply some rule that makes sense in the current situation (e.g. when glass breaks during the night, it is often a burglary) and based on that you infer your hypothesis: there is a burglary going on nearby. What is special about this kind of inference is not that there isn't any obvious connection between the observation and the idea yo associate with it but it suddenly strikes you that such a connection might exist. - If you were looking for a more academic explanation, take a look at the works of Charles Sanders Peirce or the many who have written about his concept of abduction (e.g. the article by Gary Shank on "The Extraordinary Ordinary Powers of Abductive Reasoning").

[@ronanrox]

@@christophhaug Does it mean that my "guess" is an abduction?

[@christophhaug]

@@ronanrox I don't know what your guess is.

[@parizer1983]

yes, abduction explanation is wrong

[@NalakaGamage]

Explanation for induction is wrong..

[@6Uncles]

how so? Please explain

[@JoseHernandez-zh5tu]

You are wrong! Beat your face, roger?