Inductive Reasoning: A Valid Argument

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning A valid argument is made to address a specific problem by offering a position and proving reasons to support that position. A valid argument is based on two key components, one or more premise and conclusion. A premise is fact and/or opinion and must be proven to be true or false. And a conclusion is the final statement of the position one is taking on an issue or question. In deductive reasoning, if the fact is true the conclusion must be true because the conclusion follows the premise. (p.24) Unlike deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning allows the possibility for the conclusion to be false, even if all premises are true. Inductive reasoning is the acceptance of the conclusion depending on the strength
of the premises, in which the premises does not prove but supports the conclusion. (p.28) Inductive and deductive reasoning applies the systems of Descartes and Locke because they each argued their beliefs differently. Descartes used deductive reasoning and believed in innate ideas and Locke used inductive reasoning to prove his belief that knowledge comes from experience, not innate ideas. Rene Descartes was a rationalist, because of his confidence in the powers of reason. Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God through deductive reasoning to prove certainty rather than reason. In “Meditation III” he stated, “I exist. (as a thinking thing) (Premise) God exist. (because I could not exist without him)”. (p.
209) He thought of God as a perfect substance and believed that such ideas of a perfect God could not be created in the mind of someone imperfect as himself because imperfection cannot create such perfection, like God. Rationalists believe that sensory experiences only give you opinions, not reasons. In Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one perfect ball shape and once the candle is lit and begins to melt it loses that perfect shape and turns into something completely different. This experiment proves that the best judgement one can make is by the mind and not by senses, hence why Descartes does not support inductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, it is believed that knowledge is gained by observation. John Locke was an Empiricist, he believed in sense perception, induction, and that there are no innate ideas. Empiricists believe that true knowledge comes from our direct sensory experiences. Locke explains that we are not born with ideas, because if we were then the idea of God should be innate too. However, since there is no universally agreed upon notion of God, we are not born with the idea of God. In fact the mind is a “Tabula Rasa”, it is like a blank tablet of white paper, void of all characters, or ideas and it is through that we gain
knowledge. (p. 213) Locke further argues that if there were indeed innate ideas, they would immediately be expressed in children. And if children were born with such knowledge, why do they need to learn to walk and talk? Locke believed that only with experiences could one form simple ideas, which could then be combined into complex ideas. This concludes how inductive and deductive reasoning apply to the systems of Rene Descartes and John Locke and explains why each used different reasoning in their theories.