From the theory that all fish fly we narrow it down to collect observations to

From the theory that all fish fly we narrow it down

This preview shows page 140 - 143 out of 214 pages.

From the theory that „ all fish fly ‰, we narrow it down to collect observations to address the hypotheses of  all guppies are fish ‰ This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) that is „ all guppies fly ‰ which is our original theory. In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be must be must be true. However, we must take note that for deductive reasoning to be correct, the hypotheses or premises must be correct. 6.3.6 Inductive Reasoning Figure 6.4 igure 6.4 igure 6.4 igure 6.4: Inductive reasoning Source Source : Inductive reasoning works the other way around, moving from some specific observations about the world to broader generalisations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. In inductive reasoning, we begin
Image of page 140
trianglert TOPIC 6 CRITICAL THINKING AND REASONING SKILLS 128 a) What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? b) What are the key types of inductive reasoning? with specific observations and measures, we start to distinguish patterns and regularities, articulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. There are several key types of inductive reasoning (Parrish, 2018): 1) Generali Generali Generalised ed ed · Draws a conclusion from a generalization. For example, „All the swans I have seen are white; therefore, all swans are probably white.‰ 2) Statistical Statistical Statistical · Draws a conclusion based on statistics. For example, „95 percent of swans are white‰ (an arbitrary figure, of course); „therefore, a randomly selected swan will probably be white.‰ 3) Sample Sample Sample · Draws a conclusion about one group based on a different sample group. For example, „There are ten swans in this pond and all are white; therefore, the swans in my neighbourÊs pond are probably also white.‰ 4) Analogous Analogous Analogous · Draws a conclusion based on shared properties of two groups. For example, „All Aylesbury ducks are white. Swans are similar to Aylesbury ducks. Therefore, all swans are probably white.‰ 5) Predictive Predictive Predictive · Draws a conclusion based on a prediction made using a past sample. For example, „I visited this pond last year and all the swans were white. Therefore, when I visit again, all the swans will probably be white.‰ 6) Causal inference Causal inference Causal inference · Draws a conclusion based on a causal connection. For example, „All the swans in this pond are white. I just saw a white bird in the pond. The bird was probably a swan.‰ In inductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably probably probably probably true. ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING How do we know if we can think critically? There are several ways to assess our critical thinking skills. If you are a teacher or a manager, you could also use the same method to assess your students or subordinates’ critical thinking abilities. 6.4 SELF CHECK 6.2
Image of page 141
TOPIC 6
Image of page 142
Image of page 143

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 214 pages?

  • Spring '15
  • Skill, 21st century, Century Learner

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture