Inductive Reasoning

1

Induction:drawing conclusions about the whole from studying the parts.
Does induction (inductive reasoning) begin either knowingly or unknowingly with the assumption that everything about the “parts” is either known or not worth knowing?Or if we assume that there are parts or aspects of the whole that are unknown to us or cannot be fully known to us, how can we draw conclusions about the whole by examining the parts. Are we not starting out with a myopic perspective and really coming to the conclusion that we cannot really come to a conclusion or the full-knowledge of any issue?
For the materialist that is alright. For he knows that everything empirically ascertained is all that there is or at the least, all that is important. For the vitalist in the scientific realm or the theist in the theological realm that is not sufficient.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 1 comment

  1. Steve 03/05/2013, 5:30 pm:

    Hey Joe,
    Since we as chiropractors are concerned with the physical and the metaphysical, the concrete as well as the abstract, it may be best (in fact necessary) to use both methods. We identify a subluxation inductively, do we not? Things like misalignment, heat, muscle tone, nerve tracing, fixation, conduction loss, aura reading, etc. are the pieces we gather through analysis to, in conclusion, determine the location of the interference. Our purpose behind the adjustic thrust, removing that interference to the transmission of Innate Force however is understood deductively.
    Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” I would say, an enlightened philosopher can understand opposing views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *