Originally posted by Coletti Many people do not know the difference between deductive and inductive. Do you?

P.S. Be honest, did you look it up before you replied? ðŸ˜‰

P.P.S. Feel free to post short quotes with a reference - but please don't cut and paste whole pages of information. ðŸ˜›

A Deductive argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion will necessarily be true. The conslusion adds nothing beyond what is contained in the premises.

An inductive argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion will probably be true. The conclusion adds more to the argument than what is strictly contained within the premises.

I might have been able to give a coherant definition without looking it up, but I did anyway just to be on the safe side.

Great fun can be had by proving a premise is true just by strongly insisting it is true. Repeatedly saying it loudly and/or with arm gestures increases the effectiveness of proving said deductive arguement.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate Repeatedly saying it loudly and/or with arm gestures increases the effectiveness of proving said deductive arguement.

Unless conversely, your antagonist has still louder, more shrill objections accompanied by greatly sweeping arm motions (with involuntary muscle control for added effect). ðŸ˜€

Originally posted by rwingett A Deductive argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion will necessarily be true. The conslusion adds nothing beyond what is contained in the premises.

An inductive argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion will probably be true. The conclusion adds more to the argument than what is strictly contained within the premises.
...[text shortened]... give a coherant definition without looking it up, but I did anyway just to be on the safe side.

Is rwingett the only heathen on this site who understands induction and deduction?? ðŸ˜²

I figure bbarr would chip in.

How about this: what does "necessarily true" mean for deductive logic?

Does anyone have any problems with rwingett's previous answer? So far it seem like no one else has a clue. (*dig dig) ðŸ˜µ

Originally posted by rwingett A Deductive argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion will necessarily be true. The conslusion adds nothing beyond what is contained in the premises.

An inductive argument is if the premises are true then the conclusion will probably be true. The conclusion adds more to the argument than what is strictly contained within the premises.
...[text shortened]... give a coherant definition without looking it up, but I did anyway just to be on the safe side.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate Great fun can be had by proving a premise is true just by strongly insisting it is true.

For a proof of this claim, observe the popularity and form of the debates in Spirituality.

I maintain that yet even more fun can be had by proving a premise true by strongly insisting that the premise itself strongly insists that it is true. (Ref. "Why is the Bible true? Because it says it is.", Coletti et al.)

A (valid) deductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. The conclusion may be false if one or more of the premises is false, even if the argument (inference) is logically valid.

An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the evidence. For example: “Since the sun has risen in the east every day of my life, I conclude that it will do so tomorrow.” However, there could conceivably be some cataclysmic event tonight that destroys the earth, or throws it out of its orbit, or whatever—and then the conclusion would be false. That is why Rob was correct about the conclusion being, at best, probably true. Inductive reasoning is what Sherlock Holmes used (despite the fact that he called it “deductive&rdquoðŸ˜‰.

I did this without looking it up, so it may be riddled with errors or omissions. I look forward to being corrected.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles For a proof of this claim, observe the popularity and form of the debates in Spirituality.

I maintain that yet even more fun can be had by proving a premise true by strongly insisting that the premise itself strongly insists that it is true. (Ref. "Why is the Bible true? Because it says it is.", Coletti et al.)

That's not a fair assessment of my position. I do not offer a proof - only that the Bible is self attesting. It would be illogical to believe the Bible is true if it contradicted this assertion.

Back to logic. Maybe bbarr could address abduction.