Question

Explain inductive inference, and describe how it is different from an abductive inference.

a) Inductive inference involves drawing conclusions based on specific instances to make generalizations; abductive inference involves making a prediction from observed evidence.
b) Inductive inference involves predicting future events based on past occurrences; abductive inference involves forming a hypothesis from incomplete data.
c) Inductive inference involves deriving conclusions from premises, assuming they are all true; abductive inference involves selecting the best explanation among competing hypotheses.
d) Inductive inference involves validating conclusions through empirical evidence; abductive inference involves making assumptions based on deductive reasoning.

Answer 1

The correct option is a. Inductive reasoning uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion, while abductive inference involves offering explanations for accepted evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and analysis of a large amount of data. For example, in brain studies, researchers observe many live brains while people are engaged in a specific activity and then predict the part of the brain that 'lights up' during that activity to be the part controlling the response to the selected stimulus.

On the other hand, abductive inference involves offering explanations for accepted evidence. It is sometimes called 'inference to the best explanation'. Abduction deals with probability and focuses on selecting the best explanation among competing hypotheses based on the available evidence. Unlike inductive reasoning, abductive inference does not involve making generalizations or predictions from observed evidence.