Strengths and Weaknesses of Deductive, Inductive, and Informal Reasoning
17.06.2011
TOK Essay
8. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning in relation to discovering new information and facts, and if there is a need for discovering other ways of thinking in order to gain more knowledge about what we already know.
Introduction:
The question I have decided to answer is what are the importance between the strength and weaknesses of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning?
Definitions:
Deductive: a form of reasoning from the general to the particular
Inductive: a form of reasoning from the particular to the general
Informal reasoning: a group of fallacies often found in discussing
Knowledge: is what you think you know, it’s information that’s been proceeded by the mind.
The issues are whether our knowledge is reasonable knowledge or knowledge builds on the fallacies of the different ways of reasoning.
Deduction giving is a more solid conclusion and little knowledge as induction giving us a more solid knowledge and a little conclusion, whereas informal reasoning is lying between both deduction and induction.
I’m going to approach by writing the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, after that I’m going to start my arguments from deductive to inductive to counterargument, which will blend into the conclusion.
These learning approaches can be applied in this case will be a rationalist approach as our question is conserved about the different ways of setting knowledge through reasoning, which is also the rationalist ways of thinking. * Perception – the senses of thinking * Language- discussing * Reason- different ways of reasoning.
Areas of knowledge * Mathematics - the reason * Natural Science - inductive * Human Sciences - deductive/inductive * History – the facts.
For an example we can use own generalization on Polish people, which may conclude to be non-criminal then other people on few examples.
For an example: A polish man stands
TOK Essay
8. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning in relation to discovering new information and facts, and if there is a need for discovering other ways of thinking in order to gain more knowledge about what we already know.
Introduction:
The question I have decided to answer is what are the importance between the strength and weaknesses of deductive, inductive and informal reasoning?
Definitions:
Deductive: a form of reasoning from the general to the particular
Inductive: a form of reasoning from the particular to the general
Informal reasoning: a group of fallacies often found in discussing
Knowledge: is what you think you know, it’s information that’s been proceeded by the mind.
The issues are whether our knowledge is reasonable knowledge or knowledge builds on the fallacies of the different ways of reasoning.
Deduction giving is a more solid conclusion and little knowledge as induction giving us a more solid knowledge and a little conclusion, whereas informal reasoning is lying between both deduction and induction.
I’m going to approach by writing the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, after that I’m going to start my arguments from deductive to inductive to counterargument, which will blend into the conclusion.
These learning approaches can be applied in this case will be a rationalist approach as our question is conserved about the different ways of setting knowledge through reasoning, which is also the rationalist ways of thinking. * Perception – the senses of thinking * Language- discussing * Reason- different ways of reasoning.
Areas of knowledge * Mathematics - the reason * Natural Science - inductive * Human Sciences - deductive/inductive * History – the facts.
For an example we can use own generalization on Polish people, which may conclude to be non-criminal then other people on few examples.
For an example: A polish man stands