Reasoning Vs Inductive Reasoning

1414 Words6 Pages
Reason is a form of human trait to give an explanation or a justification about a certain behaviour or event. It is also the ability of the human mind to think, understand and form judgements logically. There are 2 types of reasoning; deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive and inductive reasoning are based on logical arguments. A deductive argument is when both premises are true that provides strong support for its conclusion, which would then be illogical for the conclusion to be false while an inductive argument is when both the premises are true and are supposed to support the conclusion, it is debatable that the conclusion would be false. The truth here is a statement of fact while trust is a firm belief and reliance on the integrity…show more content…
An example would be that person A would claim that person B has invaded his country vice versa. The truth might be that person A attacked person B’s country or vice versa. This different perspective of accounts on events questions the validity and the evidence that historians have used to support their claims of a certain event in history. This could be called a logical fallacy in inductive reasoning, whereby the premises don 't give enough support for conclusion, as the argument for the premises is weak. An example of a logical fallacy in the inaccuracy of history that was believed in the past was the Flat Earth theory. Even till today, there is an organisation, called the Flat Earth Society, who still supports the claim from the Bible that the Earth is not a sphere but a flat disc. This society argued that all the photographic evidence of astronauts landing on the moon, the image of the Earth, the physics theory are all a hoax created by scientists and government to dupe the world for their benefits. They had shown evidence with the use of the Biblical context and religious beliefs. This was a historic fallacy that was revealed to be false after Christopher Columbus successfully sailed around the world without falling off the edges. Therefore, the reasoning of the Flat Earth theory was based on religious context of the…show more content…
This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent, where false theories can make true predictions. An example would be the Ptolemaic model, whereby scientists assumes that the Earth is the centre of the universe, while the Sun and other planets orbit around it. This was believed by many scientists then as all the prediction they made were true after experimenting. It allowed astronomers to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet, even more so compared to the Copernican theory, where it explains that the Sun is the centre of the universe, while the other planets orbit around it. There were 2 auxiliary hypotheses, which are assumptions, that scientists are making, that the Ptolemaic theory is true, while the Copernican theory is false, as scientists did not observe the angular difference in the stellar parallax. The 1st auxiliary hypotheses that the scientists made was the size of the Earth’s orbit. They assumed that the Earth’s orbit was large relative to the distance to the stars, but the Earth’ orbit that we see from the data NASA gave us was smaller compared to the assumption, which is why it was hard to detect the stellar parallax. The 2nd auxiliary hypotheses is that the scientists assumed that their telescopes where sensitive enough to detect the stellar parallax and it was not only in the 19th century where
Open Document