In the modern world there are very few topics that elicit as much debate and controversy as does induction reasoning. It can be argued that it is an approach to life that has become widely accepted, but with such controversy it is little used. The subject matter includes induction as applied to education, sales, science, medicine and even criminal justice. Yet the one area in which it is least used is in education.

The two types of inductive reasoning are deductive reasoning and inductive argument. A deductive argument is one that deducing a conclusion from the facts. In this sense it is a more formal form of inductive reasoning. Deduction is sometimes used in scientific studies where a conclusion is already established by the deductive reasoning about the laws of nature. Thus, deductive reasoning is used in order to establish a fact or a theory.

inductive reasoning is useful when a person wishes to infer certain generalizations from his experience and/or from his prior broad generalizations. In this way it is a way of “laying out” the broad generalizations in order to make the specific observations more specific. inductive reasoning uses a pattern of cause and effect that is reinforced over time as more observations are accumulated. This is why inductive reasoning often involves a “model of” a particular situation that is then used to support a conclusion. In other words, inductive reasoning works on a logical structure that is built on more observations than upon a single explanation.

The foundations of inductive reasoning allow a person to deduce an assumption, a conclusion, or a modification to a previously held conclusion. But there are limits to inductive reasoning. For instance, in order to deduce the existence of a proposition, it is not necessary to show that the existence of a proposition is dependent upon the existence of some other propositions. (inductive logic assumes the existence of all propositions; premises are used to support the deduction of a conclusion.)

inductive reasoning makes use of inductive techniques that are based on observations. An inductive argument is one in which an inductive principle is used to make a generalization. An example of such a principle is the law of probability. Probability is used to make predictions about events that have already occurred; therefore it is necessary to first observe an event, then make a prediction about its occurrence.

Another form of inductive reasoning uses a kind of rule of thumb called the rule of conditional probability. A hypothesis is a statement about a specific event. If this hypothesis is true, then the probable result is also a true result. If the hypothesis is false, however, then the probable result is false too.

Inductive reasoning does not assume that there is a single answer to all questions. It uses a combination of inductive and deductive methods to reach a reasonable answer. The premises to the inductive argument must be reasonable deductions from the premise. This is not the same as a mere supposition. A premise may be completely false, but the reasoning will still be valid, as long as all other premises are true.

inductive reasoning is a logical tool that can be used to support a number of different types of conclusions. For instance, it is widely used in the Bayesian model of the cognitive process. The Bayesian approach views adult stem rational thinking as having two basic stages: early intuition, which give rise to inferences about what the individual has observed; and late conclusion, which are guided by the results of subsequent reasoning. inductive reasoning helps us make sense of these two stages.