Why is there a bias against inductive reasoning and in favor of deductive reasoning in the social sciences?
First, to establish there IS a bias:
It is OFTEN said (really as if it were a defining [damning] condition) that : induction or inductive inference is "made under conditions of uncertainly". Then, in describing deductive reasoning/inference there is typically NO SUCH mention of uncertainty. What? Just because one (or one and her associates) comes up with a hypothetico-deductive system of thought _THAT_ SOMEHOW REMOVES UNCERTAINTY??? This is NONSENSE -- YET this [at least] is a very real AND DESTRUCTIVE "Western" bias: that when you develop some system to think with/in from WHATEVER actual data, then you, simply because you are now thinking in/with that internally consistent system, you will develop clear hypotheses _AND_ (as the bias goes) THESE WILL LIKELY BE TRUE (as shown via their "testing" -- and, no matter what standard of "testing" you have com up with). (Descartes would have loved this.)
Now look at some of the TRUTH that shows this is VERY, VERY likely an VERY unwarranted bias and it is quite conceivable that the opposite is true: Decent Induction shows more clarity, reliability, predictably, and inter-observer agreements THAN almost all deductive systems.
If in certain circumstances/situations a behavior PATTERN(s) which can be specified and has a directly observable basis, then induction can show GREAT inter-observer agreements _and_ this is sure-as-hell just as strong (actually, likely stronger) a result (reliable, agreeable result/finding (discovery)) than most any p
In case you would also like to read another recent related post (though that post, an Answer is in another thread) : If interested, go to https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_there_a_weak_interest_in_qualitative_research_among_researchers
and look for my recent Answers there.
Better to follow https://quizizz.com/admin/quiz/5bae259a01a7c00019fa4d9d/review-of-inductive-and-deductive-reasoning and https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/e/deductive-arguments
P.S. I can refer you to my recent Answer to the Question, https://www.researchgate.net/post/why_people_take_hypothesis_in_research_as_facts
for more perspective (and more verbiage ).
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction : "Whereas in deduction the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the statements or facts considered ..., induction is a method of reasoning involving an element of probability." (end quote) Believing THAT statement (with its strong indication of "fact"), then any logical argument (syllogism) is true. And, about PROBABILITIES : What are all the p
I apologize for my 50 minutes of editing. First, I guess (at times) I am a lousy editor. And, also I wanted to squeeze more justified commentary into that essay -- to jolt some persons' thinking. [ You may be interested to know that when I post on topics I think are important, or neglected, or misunderstood, or about things to-the-detriment-of-science, MY SCORE GOES DOWN. My efforts for science are "punished". ]
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence