Arguments using inductive and deductive reasoning

The reasoning behind the empirical and rationalist approaches to gaining knowledge
also start from opposite ends of a spectrum. Although it is not possible to apply either
extreme in a practical way, it is useful to characterize the distinct differences in the two
opposing approaches. A more practical approach that goes a long way to overcome the
shortcomings of each is the hypothetico-deductive method, which uses the features
of each in a pragmatic way; in fact, this method is used in much scientific enquiry and
hence is also called ‘scientific method’.

Inductive reasoning – the empiricist’s approach

Inductive reasoning starts from specific observations or sensory experiences and then
develops a general conclusion from them. This simple example gives an indication of
the line of reasoning:

All the giraffes that I have seen have very long necks. (Repeated observations)

Therefore I conclude that all giraffes have long

(Conclusion)
necks.

Induction was the earliest and, even now, the commonest popular form of scientific
activity. We use it every day in our normal lives as we learn from our surroundings and
experiences. We come to conclusions from what we have experienced and then
generalize from them, that is, set them up as a rule or belief. The Elizabethan
philosopher Francis Bacon stated that one should consult nature, and not rely on the
writings of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle or on the Bible. The scientific
revolution in the seventeenth century was based on this approach, led by such
scientists as Galileo and Newton (remember the apple that fell on his head from the tree
that led to his theory of gravity? Nice story anyway!). Mendel’s discovery of genetics
and Darwin’s theory of evolution are perhaps the most famous generalizations in the
form of theories that are, even by them, claimed to be developed through inductive
reasoning.

However, there are problems with induction. The first is the question of how many
observations must be made before we can reasonably draw a conclusion that is reliable
enough to generalize from; and the second is how many situations and under which
conditions should the observations be made so that true conclusions can be reached?
These problems do not stop us from using inductive reasoning every day quite
successfully without even thinking about it. But we should be aware that what might at
first seem obvious may not be so reliable upon making further investigations.

Therefore, in order to be able to rely on the conclusions we come to by using inductive

reasoning, we should ensure that we make a large number of observations, we repeat
them under a large range of circumstances and conditions and that no observations
contradict the generalization we have made from the repeated observations.

In the social sciences, research based on this approach is referred to as grounded

theory, which uses collected data in order to evolve theory rather than to test or refine
an existing one.

Deductive reasoning – the rationalist’s approach

Deductive reasoning begins with general statements (premises) and, through logical
argument, comes to a specific conclusion. Again, a simple example will provide a guide
to how this works:

(General statement – first

All living things will eventually die.
premise)

This animal is a living thing. (Inference – second premise)

Therefore, this animal will eventually

(Conclusion)
die.

This is the simplest form of deductive argument, and is call a syllogism. As you can see
it consists of a general statement (called the first premise), followed by a more specific
statement inferred from this (the second premise), and then a conclusion which follows
on logically from the two statements.

Deduction, as with many philosophical ideas, was first discussed as a way of reasoning
by the ancient Greeks, in particular Plato. Enquiry is guided by the theory which
precedes it. Theories are speculative answers to perceived problems, and are tested by
observation and experiment. While it is possible to confirm the possible truth of a theory
through observations which support it, theory can be falsified and totally rejected by
making observations which are inconsistent with its statement. In this way, science is
seen to proceed by trial and error: when one theory is rejected, another is proposed and
tested, and thus the fittest theory survives.

In order for a theory to be tested, it must be expressed as a statement called a

hypothesis. The essential nature of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. This
means that it must be logically possible to make true observational statements which
conflict with the hypothesis, and thus can falsify it. However, the process of falsification
leads to a devastating result of total rejection of a theory, requiring a completely new
start.

Another problem with deductive reasoning is that the truth of the conclusions depends
very much on the truth of the premise on which it is based. For example, in the past
many conclusions about the movement of the planets were incorrect due to the premise
that the earth was the centre of the universe.

Hypothetico-deductive reasoning or scientific method

The hypothetico-deductive method combines inductive and deductive reasoning,
resulting in the to-and-fro process of:

 identifying or clarifying a problem;

 developing a hypothesis (testable theory) inductively from observations;
 charting their implications by deduction;
 practical or theoretical testing of the hypothesis; and
 rejecting or refining it in the light of the results.

It is this combination of experience with deductive and inductive reasoning which is the
foundation of modern scientific research, and is commonly referred to as scientific
method. It was only by the beginning of the 1960s that Popper formulated the idea of
the hypothetico-deductive method, even though it must have been used in practice for
decades before.

Of course, there are many problems posed by the complexity of testing theories in real
life. Realistic scientific theories consist of a combination of statements, each of which
relies on assumptions based on previous theories. The methods of testing are likewise
based on assumptions and influenced by surrounding conditions. If the predictions of
the theory are not borne out in the results of the tests, it could be the underlying
premises which are at fault rather than the theory itself.

There are certain assumptions that underlie scientific method that relate to a materialist
view of metaphysics and a positivist view of epistemology. These assumptions are:

 Order – the universe is an ordered system that can be investigated and

the underlying ‘rules’ can be exposed.
 External reality – we all share the same reality that does not depend
on our existence. We can therefore all equally contribute to and share
knowledge that reflects this reality.
 Reliability – we can rely on our senses and reasoning to produce facts
that reliably interpret reality.
 Parsimony – the simpler the explanation the better. Theories should be
refined to the most compact formulation.
 Generality – the ‘rules’ of reality discovered through research can be
applied in all relevant situations regardless of time and place.

However, these assumptions are not accepted by the opposite camp in metaphysics
and epistemology. Those with an idealist and relativist point of view insist on the
importance of human subjectivity and the social dimension to facts and their meanings.
This clash of viewpoints is unlikely ever to be resolved.

A brief review of history will show that this quest for what is reality and what are facts is
a constant preoccupation in the enquiry into our relation to existence.

Positivism, relativism, postmodernism and critical

realism
There is an important issue that confronts the study of the social sciences that is not so
pertinent in the natural sciences. This is the question of the position of the human
subject and researcher, and the status of social phenomena. Is human society
subjected to laws that exist independent of the human actors that make up society, or
do individuals and groups create their own versions of social forces? As briefly
mentioned above, the two extremes of approach are termed positivism and relativism.
These approaches differ in the paradigms on which they are based, expressed in the
combination of their ontology, epistemology and research methods. Again, as in the
case of ways of reasoning, a middle way has also been formulated that draws on the
useful characteristics of both approaches.

Positivism
The positivist approach to scientific investigation, or paradigm, is based on acceptance
as fact that the world around us is real, and that we can find out about these realities.
There is an order made up of atomistic, discrete and observable events. Knowledge is
derived using scientific method and based on sensory experience gained through
experiments or comparative analysis. It aims at developing a unique and elegant
description of any chosen aspect of the world that is true regardless of what people
think. By developing these scientific facts, knowledge is built up in a cumulative fashion,
despite some false starts. Science builds on what is already known; for example, even
Einstein’s radical theories are a development from Newton’s.

The approach to knowledge is reductionist in character, by maintaining that less

measurable sciences are reducible to more measurable ones. Sociology is reducible to
psychology, psychology to biology, biology to chemistry, and chemistry to physics.
Social sciences can therefore be value free and objective.

Relativism (also called interpretivism, idealism,

constructivism or even constructionism)
The alternative approach to research – relativism – has a paradigm based on the
philosophical doctrines of idealism and humanism. It maintains that the view of the
world that we see around us is the creation of the mind. This does not mean that the
world is not real, but rather that we can only experience it personally through our
perceptions which are influenced by our preconceptions, beliefs and values; we are not
neutral, disembodied observers but part of society. Unlike the natural sciences, the
researcher is not observing phenomena from outside the system, but is inextricably
bound into the human situation which he/she is studying. As well as concentrating on
the search for constants in human behaviour which highlights the repetitive, predictable
and invariant aspect of society, the researcher does not ignore what is subjective,
individual and creative – facts and values cannot be separated. The researcher
encounters a world already interpreted and his/her job is to reveal this according to the
meanings created by humans rather than to discover universal laws. Therefore there
can be more than one perspective and interpretation of a phenomenon.

Table 2.1 Comparison between positivist and relativist approaches

Issue Positivist Relativist

Idealism: the world exists but

Philosophical Realism: the world exists and
different people construe it in very
basis is knowable as it really is.
different ways.

The role of To discover universal laws To reveal different interpretations of

research and generalizations. the world as made by people.

Role of
Neutral observer. Part of the research process.
researcher

Rational, using inductive and

Theoretical Subjective, using inductive methods
scientific methods and value-
approach and value-laden data.
free data.

Surveys and observations with

Experiments or mathematical
qualitative analysis to seek
models and quantitative
Methods meaningful relationships and the
analysis to validate, reject or
consequences of their interactions.
refine hypotheses.
Analysis of language and meaning.

Search for order. Society is

Search for dynamics. Multitude of
governed by a uniform set of
Analysis of values leading to complex
values and made possible
society interactions. Society made possible
only by acceptance of these
by negotiation.
values.

Table 2.1 compares the alternative paradigms for interpreting the world. Just because
the differences of paradigm between positivist and relativist approaches are so radical,
don’t think that you need to espouse purely one or the other approach. Different aspects
of life lend themselves to different methods of interpretation.