Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing probable conclusions from patterns of data. It can be used in medicine and to predict future behavior, but it is inherently flawed and can be disproven. The fallibility of inductive reasoning encourages thorough testing and can lead to accurate scientific deductions.
Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing a probable conclusion from an emerging pattern of data. In its purest form, this type of reasoning occurs by analyzing unbiased observations and discovering common patterns. When patterns repeat over a long period of time, an analyst can logically predict that the patterns will continue to repeat. This inference, commonly known as a generalization, can produce scientific deductions so probable that they are widely accepted as fact. Any theory involving generalization, however, can be disproved by an instance of inconsistency.
One form of inductive reasoning is the application of certain circumstances to probable cause. A simple example of cause-and-effect inference would be the repeated discovery of dead cattle in an area where coyote tracks are also present. While it is theoretically possible that the animals died of natural causes, it is much more likely that their demise was the result of the actions of a coyote.
In medicine, this type of inductive reasoning can be a very powerful diagnostic tool. Since a specific disease often presents with a particular list of symptoms, it is reasonable to assume that a patient presenting with those indicators also has that disease. Most doctors recognize that these types of conclusions can be erroneous in some cases. In emergency medicine, however, far more lives can be saved by treating the probable condition than those lost to misdiagnosis.
Often, future behavior can be reasonably predicted by inductive reasoning. Logic says that an object that has always behaved a certain way will continue to behave as such. To simplify Isaac Newton’s work, barring interference, an apple that falls from a tree will always fall to the ground.
While inductive reasoning of this kind is natural, it is inherently flawed. For example, every day in the history of mankind, the sun has risen and it can be safely assumed that it will rise again tomorrow. Scientific evidence, however, shows that the life of a star is long but not unlimited. Therefore, there will probably come a day when the sun will not rise. In essence, the rising sun is not just a theory, but one that is liable to be disproven.
In many ways, the fallibility of inductive reasoning actually enhances its strength as a scientific method. Radical statements often encourage thorough testing. Any theory based on inductive reasoning is therefore likely to be repeatedly challenged. Those that survive can be expected to be accurate enough to be recognized as truth.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
