Two main types of logical reasoning application processes can be distinguished, which both make use of critical questioning and thinking as foundation to…

- …identifying and forming initial
**premises**(*define and describe problems*). - …collecting and processing information in order to reach
**conclusions**(*troubleshooting process*). - …check, evaluate, measure and determine the
**validity**of conclusions reached.

…as a way to systematically, steadily and deliberately work towards an aha-erlebnis moment.

# Deductive Reasoning

Process of reasoning from one or more statements (*premises = undisputed facts*) to reach a logically **certain** conclusion. In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Theory/Fact → Observation → Pattern → Tentative Hypothesis → measurements & explore → Hypothesis → Observation → Confirmation/rejection. Deductive reasoning begins from the more general information to the specific. Often referred to as a “top-down” approach. Start at the top with a broad spectrum of information and then work step-by-step and logical down to a specific conclusion. Example: Everyday leave for work at 8 o'clock, Everyday it takes 45 minutes drive. Therefore when leaving for work 45 minutes before needed to be there, will be on time. Therefore, if leaving for work at 8 today, will be on time.

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. Example: “When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore: when it rains, the grass gets wet.” Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

# Inductive Reasoning

A method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying **strong evidence** for the truth of the conclusion (*i.e. disputed facts*). Observation → Pattern → Tentative Hypothesis → Theoretical-Match & explore → Hypothesis → Observation → Confirmation.
While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given. Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. It only deals in degrees to which, given the premises, the conclusion is credible according to some theory of evidence.
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observation to broader generalizations and theories. Often referred to as a “bottom-up” approach. Begins with specific observations and measures, start to detect patterns and regularities, formulate tentative hypothesis to explore and finally reach a general and probable conclusion. Example: Today, left for work at 8 o'clock. Arrive on time. Therefore, everyday that leaving for work at 8 o'clock, will most probably be on time for work.

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. Example: “The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains.” While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid, see the problem of induction. Science is associated with this type of reasoning.

# Comparison Table

Principle | Deductive Reasoning | Inductive Reasoning |
---|---|---|

Premises |
Stated as fact and general applicable principle, regardless context. | Based on observation made as related to specific cases. |

Conclusion |
Conclusions are more specific than the information that the initial premises provide. Conclusions are reached directly by applying systematical and logical rules to the initial premises. | Conclusion are more general than the information the premises provide. Conclusions are reached by generalizing the initial premises information. |

Validity |
If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. | If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true. |

Functionality |
More difficult to apply reliably (mainly with logical problems). Require facts which is definitely true and indisputable. |
Used mostly in daily life (fast, and easy and effective). Evidence, results & outcomes are used instead of indisputable facts. |

Archetype Dimensions |
Sourcing primarily from Sensing, Thinking and Judgment. | Sourcing primarily from Intuition, Feeling and Perception. |

Knowledge Structure |
Details and undisputed facts. | Bigger picture and disputed facts. |

Habitat Deployment |
Most efficiently applied in the Realistic, Methodical and Investigative habitats. | Most efficiently applied in the Social, Enterprising and Creative habitats. |