Deductive vs Inductive vs Abductive Reasoning

[@ollie6133]

'Abductive reasoning' is also called 'inference from the best explanation'. Which is a lot easier to remember what it does, as it says it in the name!

[@spriksie]

I appreciate this video. It applies to college composition logic and rhetoric conversations.

[@EmpressTarotGabbyTurner]

which kind of reasoning am I using to conclude that you are triplets rather than the same person who has been edited to serve as three individuals?????

[@mahallati]

Good one! It would be a poor abductive reasoning; because although there is some evidence to support the former conclusion as being likely, the latter conclusion is highly likely.

You're using weed-smoking reasoning.

[@nfc14g]

Great vid! I feel this would be a little clearer if they used the same scenario in different ways to compare, rather than using a new scenario for each type of reasoning.

[@Fireguy65]

They as in the 3 of her

[@karebushmarebu233]

@@Fireguy65 lol you're so triggered by the word "they" you felt the need to clarify its usage, fucking snowflake

[@Fireguy65]

@@karebushmarebu233 why are you so mad? I was just saying its funny that he said they but its just one person

[@flamingfoxx]

@@Fireguy65 *They* pronoun US /ðeɪ/ UK /ðeɪ/ used as the subject of a verb to refer to people, animals, or things already mentioned or, more generally, to a group of people not clearly described used to refer to a person whose gender is not known or does not need to be mentioned used to refer to a single person whose gender is not simply male or female -Cambridge Dictionary

[@theroyalcat7010]

​@@flamingfoxx twas just a humor

[@yves2075]

Triplets look very similar, therefore, this video was done with triplet sisters.

[@alexoswald932]

@King Sama inductive. its more probable that the video is edited rather than there being triplets. triplets are way more rare then editing.

[@oi-nf9uz]

@@alexoswald932 why can't it be abductive reasoning with an incorrect conclusion?

[@cbebutuoy]

From the papers on the floor example, it sounds like abductive reasoning is a version of inductive reasoning: make an observation, then generate a hypothesis.

[@cbebutuoy]

I like that. Can a hypothesis ever be something other than the product of imagination? I have to think on that one.

[@brittanycollins4734]

Is anyone else still confused? Maybe I'm overthinking as usual, LOL! Good video, though, by the way!

[@naturegyrl3408]

LOL I thought I was the only one!

[@fardeenhoque]

I am the most

[@bradspitt3896]

Think of it in terms of cause and effects. Deduction starts with a true cause/premise and tries to identify conclusions. A+B=C Induction gathers data and draws conclusions to try and find the causal agent. (The video also didn't go into valid/invalid, sound/unsound arguments). ?+B=C or even ?+?=C It's gets more complicated obviously, see the problem of induction or problem or universals.

[@hyperduality2838]

Deductive is dual to inductive, reasoning is a dual process. Generalization is dual to localization. Deductive --> Generalization to localization Inductive --> Localization to generalization Kant:- rationalism (deduction, analytic) is dual to empiricism (induction, synthetic, measurement) Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic Alive (thesis) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis) -- Hegel's or Schrodinger's cat. Optimism is dual to pessimism, is the glass half full or half empty? Perspective or duality. Questions are dual to answers, truth is dual to falsity. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter!

[@treviaford8383]

Lol, yep, continuing to other videos, but this one was informative

[@setsemit777]

You and your twin sisters did a great job. Thanks.

[@nabeelausmanelnafaty8349]

I've watched this video more than ten times. And each time I understand it better. Though there is a part that I still don't quite get: The part of the hypothesis being true and not true; I'm happy I came across this video. Thanks so much.

[@joekiwi200]

The technical definitions are: Induction: Premises provide support for believing the conclusion to be true. However, a conclusion can still be incorrect event if you have a good inductive argument. Deduction: Premises imply conclusion is true. The conclusion must be true if you have made a good deductive argument. There is no way for the conclusion to not be true. Deductions can be valid/invalid and sound/unsound. A valid deduction is one where the premises really do imply the conclusion. The conclusion could still be wrong if the premises are not true. A sound deduction is one that is valid and has true premises. I recommend that you use these definitions rather than what you see in the video. The video actually did a good job of explaining deduction/induction but I think they made the definition too specific to the scientific method. Learn what the two types of logic mean by themselves. It is just as easy to understand the definitions and then you will be able to apply them to science and non-science subjects just as easily. If you only learn part of the definition (e.g. how they can be used in relation to hypothesis) you can end up confused when people use deduction/induction in different contexts. Inductions can be strong/weak and cogent/uncogent. A strong induction is one where the premises offer good support for believing the premise to be true. A cogent induction is one that is strong with all true premises. Now a test. You are driving along the road and see a speed sign saying "50". The logical conclusion is that the speed limit is 50 kilometers an hour because the sign says that is the speed limit. 1. Is this inductive or deductive? 2. Think about whether your conclusion is certain (deduction) or merely likely (induction). The answer is that this is actually a conclusion derived from induction. Specifically, an "Argument based on signs". It is possible for your conclusion to be wrong if someone put the sign up as a joke or if there has been a law change and the sign has not yet been removed. A deductive conclusion can never be wrong if the premises are valid and true. I hope this helps.

[@joshuasihombing8340]

Great video! I really appreciate the explanation, it's easy to understand

[@pauls7056]

Great video. Not only clear but put together in a novel way.

[@aestus187]

It's a great video. It's not only clear, but put together in a novel way.

[@justadityabist]

yooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,thank you so much.This 3 minute video helped me understand it much bettter than othe books/ppts.

[@radioaydin5875]

can I deduce that theme music isn't always a good idea?

[@jondeere5638]

Abductive is also a variant of Aristotelian logic. In his terminology he called it a 'SIGN' that something may be true.

[@睿-w1m]

Thank you! Great vids. I learned a lot today

[@streetwisepioneers4470]

Very well explained and demonstrated. You can deduce from this statement that I understood the perspective. Induce I learn when i understand. And abduce that I believe what I say. 👏🏿

[@KMDBirdFriend]

Loved this really upbeat video! Made sense! Thank you!

[@GreenHatemerald]

currently writing a research proposal! thank you for this! :')

[@AngelTaylorgang809]

awesome video, she did an excellent job explaining these concepts

[@LemCatOfficial]

Does "inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning" correlate then to the terms "common sense vs real truth?" It sounds like it.

[@justzacky5215]

What reasoning is used when solving a Truth-tellers and Liars logic Puzzle?

[@rauldavidsaavedramedina835]

I liked the video and I would suggest you to turn it down the volume just a little bit

[@alejandroromero1673]

If you use some logical operators in order to assimilate the most of the reasoning instead?!

[@sathishraj1]

What if black widow lost one leg or genetically imbalanced? How can it be concluded that black widow has 8 legs

[@froylangarduno9549]

That would be abductive reasoning?

[@MKermy]

Then one of the premsises is false

[@davidmurphy563]

You should have taught the terminology "sound" as well as "valid" - although you did introduce the concept to be fair.

[@lazywaysef1589]

Fairly comprehensive.. Although you forgot to speak about seductive reasoning. Or maybe you said it with your eyes...

[@hopefullife5145]

you could use some sentences so that people could see more examples and work out the meaning

[@austin3789]

I don't really see the difference between inductive and abductive. Both are conclusions derived from data.

[@furyberserk]

My guess is deductive is tests acknowledge factors. Inductive are acknowledged factors but untested, though can be. Abductive is acknowledged factors but cannot be tested or deduction cannot be tested. Inductive has a start point you can start with. Abductive has only conclusions and no clear testable start point. The papers could have been stacked or someone else's or etc.

[@malteeaser101]

A philosopher will tell you that inductive reasoning just means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is not necessarily true, deductive means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is certainly true and abductive reasoning is a subset of inductive reasoning, where you look at what inductively and deductively follow from some hypothesis, and then confirm that which follows to provide evidence for the hypothesis... The specific type of inductive reasoning where one gives from individual observations to general rules, is actually called scientific induction, and could be considered abductive because the general rule is the best explanation of the observations.

[@joekiwi200]

My thoughts exactly. There is a lot of confusion out there about induction and deduction. Ultimately it is the definitions provided by philosophers that are the most important because they seem to be the only definitions that have techniques behind them. If you use made up definitions then the techniques of logic won't apply.

[@RobertGuidry-f3f]

There was someone with the Avatar that claimed he was a Scientiist but refused to prove it. I kept asking him but he couldn't.

[@alibhutto8468]

Very amazing way of triplets ...😇😍

[@ryanio123]

Thanks so much. Best explanation of deductive and inductive reasoning that I've found on KZbin

[@satanshoe9172]

So abductive is a mix of the two?

[@clintlovewinds7525]

What about retroductive reasoning??

[@GreenisYellow]

How did they get 3 twins to do this video?

[@ivanronny01]

Real good explaination

[@dhanushprasaathmr1855]

This is the very useful video,i am searching in many websites but,the only clear explanation,I got here,thank you for clear explanation finally THE ENTRY OF ABDUCTIVE REASONGING IS EPIC😂

[@YongBaram]

Wouldn't the penny example be abductive, as it's working off an incomplete set of data? Still confused about inductive vs abductive.

[@brd8764]

Explanation based reasoning is where the plan is to not think. So there is no improvisation as there is already the likeliest explanation ready. I can relate to abductive reasoning in the sense of planned sloppiness as can be noticed when a person is in that state. It is the state of denial and acting as per the abductive plan. All one can say is that it is justified but not acceptable as sanity. It is clearly unwillingness to use mind in a given up manner caring too much for personal image in public in a way that any wrong behaviour can be justifiably passed. It is a social liability as opposed to being helpful to society.

[@loamette]

Beautifully explained!! Thank you!

[@Teallovesyouu]

So so so HELPFUL! Thank you.

[@apoorvadk9635]

Thank you! The examples worked wonders!

[@VL-uq9ug]

My Lecturer. Mr Ankrah from university of mines and technology brought me here.

[@code_kanga5390]

3:00 Awesome bassline!

[@abinjacob8322]

Very well explained, thanks!

[@fluxpistol3608]

Great video I come back to it often

[@NopeVS]

This video was so cool! thank you !

[@roboparks]

Talk about about confusing. She added in Basic logic advance logic and other things. DeDuctive- Starts with generalizations on subject and works its way down through examination to 1 conclusion . InDuctive = Is the Opposite Starts with 1 conclusion then through the process of examining evidence and ends up with many applications or possibilities. Abductive= Starting with general observations of a certain subject . Then through examination a plausible hypothesis is derived . BUT the hypothesis is incomplete because the Data that was used is what was known at the time . Then Verification. Abductive is the most common if you ever sit on a Jury Trial . You as a jury will be using Abductive reasoning. So her explanation of Abductive was pretty lame .

[@vaggelissid723]

Pay from the university ?

[@tiffanydevries8148]

This was very well done! Thank youu!

[@flpped906]

This is a great way of explaining the reasonings! I wanna make a video explaining them but using ALice in WOnderland.

[@schroonsjozef]

Thank you, this was great!

[@hyperduality2838]

Deductive is dual to inductive. Reasoning is a dual process! Deductive --> Generalization to localization Inductive --> Localization to generalization Rationalism (analytic, deductive) is dual to empiricism (synthetic, inductive). Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic Alive is dual to not alive -- Hegel's or Schrodinger's cat. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought.

[@jessicabartolotti781]

Very easy to follow and entertaining, too. Thank you.

[@josephm.6453]

So basically abductive reasoning is Occams rasor

[@slyericketson6780]

I love this! Great video!

[@samsouyave-murphy986]

Thanks. Quite informative.

[@DougieJR]

Pretty good boil-down of the three, but fuck me, could you have a less comfortable presenting style?

[@bigblackscaryguy]

lowkey gooning to this

[@sleepdeprived_seal]

This just saved my day! Thank you!

[@ladydredz92]

Very helpful and creative video. Thank you! :-)

[@scientificcommenter2830]

Deductive reasoning part is wrong. it has aspects of inductive reasoning. You can't include a generel statement in deductive reasoning, which is why it's ineffient to use another statement when the first statement is enough. If you know all spiders eat fish, then you don't need to deduce which type of spider it is. It has already been deduced that all spiders eat fish. The deductive reasoning part of the video include a reversed aspect of deductive reasoning trying to make the deduction untrue. Wrong example used in the video: Statement 1: All spiders eats fish (generel statement + It's already a deductive conclusion) Correction: 1.1: A dangerous type of spider dosn't eat fish Statement 2: A black widow is a spider (specific statement which is used for inductive reasoning) Statement 3: A black widow is a dangerous type of spider. Conclusion: it has already been deduced all types of spiders eats fish, therefore it's irrelavent to know which type of spider eachs the fish. Alternative conclusion (1.1 + 2) : It can be deduced that all spiders except dangerous types of spiders eat fish.

[@vatsalkachhia4322]

thank you this video is very helpful.

[@miguelaltamirano5834]

Thanks, I'll combine the Three

[@taoxinlyu7538]

You are so adorrrable~ huhhuh, insightful display with your effort, 👏 wow

[@samuelfreeman9578]

The hand gestures are a little distracting but still good video

[@Halo-lg7rq]

That window theory doesn’t work when you have evil siblings who are much more likely to knock your stuff over than the wind is

[@Klaus-Schwab_Dictator]

1:45 Example of False analogy.

[@worldrecords7969]

I listened to a few episodes of Life's Little mysteries. The girl Mindy? If she would slow down talking she wouldn't Repeat and Stutter her words so much.

[@michaelpesin946]

this is cute. thank you

[@mrnarason]

simp

[@MoinulHossain-rw2ry]

I like her movement and gestures when she speaks. So funny

[@raychel9562]

You look so much like Gina from Brooklyn 99

[@nnnn65490]

I just keep noticing the Badlands poster in the background

[@andmk1]

Thanks for this. There are 3 presenters. They all look the same. Therefore, they must be triplets. (Must be abductive reasoning!!)

[@smfknj6010]

Given that you all three are in the video at the same time, and that VIDEO NEVER LIE, I'm going to deduce the fact that you're triplets!!

[@3leon306]

trying to focus but thrown off by the Rob Halford belt ... shiny studs!

[@vatsalkachhia4322]

You remind me of Amy Farrah Fowler from big bang theory.

[@tairex1]

I love this funny and educative video

[@RocketMan12260]

Awesome video

[@LearningDevgarg]

I was not understand from this video as there was more acting & background music than understanding

[@TheSpiralnotebook]

I couldn't hear or understand what she was saying because of the music and the caffeinated jabbering way speaking. Are these robots?

[@AtheistEdge]

It's a well-known trick amongst KZbinrs to keep people's attention using hand gestures, but holy cow that was distracting.

[@ntchurchoffreethought6163]

This is not correct . Charles Sanders Peirce, the genius American philosopher who introduced the idea of abduction into philosophy, called it "guessing." See kzbin.info/www/bejne/nInOmHifqsuNacU Abduction is a not a method of argument.

[@brandicomeaux2910]

Thanks For The Video!

[@tubbakhan4376]

Mara focus tu unn par ha bajay info ka

[@alastairb2154]

I greatly appreciate the utilisation of 80s cheesy music (y)

[@leonvankammen7499]

Amazingly produced video. I'd put my money on miss abductive, the other 2 seem to be eachothers blind spot 🙂

[@julesanchez2010]

Thank you for this!

[@freethinker3083]

This such a cute video. Thank you! This was interesting!

[@jeffreyvega7260]

Deduction: 100% certainly Induction: 99% certainly and below Deduction ex: law of gravity Induction example: most swans are white but some are black.

[@sumayyamazhar3422]

Okay so i think i got it then again i'm confused and guess what? Today is my psychology exam.. bruh😣

[@DavidDepoe]

Anyone else too busy dancing to the royalty-free stock music funkin it up in the background instead of actually paying attention?

[@aaahhhhhhh]

Beautiful bass solo

[@alejandroromero1673]

I like it so much

[@hermine3480]

the charity: water ad before this video just made me cry wtf

[@oualidguerram3527]

Thank you

[@angelorivera6586]

Thanks Amy Farrah Fowler

[@nhi4861]

this helped thank you

[@Dave-um7mw]

Abductive reasoning = Bears are safer to go camping with than men.

[@globalgovind]

Deductive perspective on inductive

[@TheGuyWhoCantPickAName]

Deductive: black widows are spiders Spiders have 8 legs Conclusion: Black widows have 8 legs Inductive: Black widows have 8 legs Black widows are spiders Conclusion: Spiders have 8 legs