Comparing Deductive Logical to Inductive

Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is when one uses a general principle to reach a specific conclusion. For example, if a person knows that all men are mortal and that person meets a man, then the person can deduce that the man is mortal. In other words, deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. The conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, provided that the premises are true.

Deductive reasoning is often contrasted with inductive reasoning, which employs facts or specific examples from which generalizations may be drawn (Heit & Rotello, 2010). Inductive reasoning is when you use specific observations to reach a general conclusion. For example, if one observes that a particular type of bird always builds its nests in trees, one might conclude that all birds build their nests in trees, or that birds of this type build their nests in trees. Inductive reasoning arrives at conclusions based on evidence, and deductive reasoning arrives at conclusions based on principles (Johnson, 1996).

While both types of reasoning are important in the field of logic, deductive reasoning is considered more airtight, as its conclusions follow necessarily from its premises. However, inductive reasoning may be more persuasive, as it employs specific evidence to support its conclusions. In either case, good reasoning depends on the ability to form clear and valid arguments.

I feel that most research uses a mix of both deductive and inductive reasoning, because a lot of research will look at specific observations to reach a general conclusion. But it will also use deductive reasoning, which is based on logical certainty, in the sense that it takes a principle or theory and applies it to the way the study is designed or approached.