设为首页收藏本站|繁體中文

埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册

扫一扫,访问微社区

搜索
查看: 151|回复: 2

三种科学思维方式

[复制链接]
鲜花(133) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2018-6-14 08:33 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, people confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, and vice versa. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified.  V8 }, M1 q  c) S% r
6 d: L3 k5 n& q& Z( I3 e9 _
Deductive reasoning2 z. W6 P, B/ c- z! E2 i
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to California State University. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.+ P+ [3 i0 ]/ G! y0 U( y" g  P
2 b  r6 g% [9 S1 i" L! [
Deductive reasoning usually follows steps. First, there is a premise, then a second premise, and finally an inference. A common form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — reach a logical conclusion. For example, the premise "Every A is B" could be followed by another premise, "This C is A." Those statements would lead to the conclusion "This C is B." Syllogisms are considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to make sure the argument is valid.
  X) H2 M) A% q2 W! O; |  |, x  R- i: t1 f+ l; l2 f, F. ^
For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. 4 B$ a. [2 _9 m* U

! O: e+ y/ u. {( z% e8 l: |According to California State University, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.
* |7 j. L0 p% q% ?' b; ?, e$ D
2 {. N! |) S  J% I% ]* S- IInductive reasoning
3 i0 E/ i$ ?( [# DInductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. This is called inductive logic, according to Utah State University.
- t8 Q" r- F" L* |& |" W3 n4 M% Y% C: |1 T# Q
"In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science, there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."
  L1 n/ [9 w( z. v! i) d+ L
' h( r- c& W  d( t8 M' A0 G3 j3 Q) tAn example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."
6 ^) C; ~2 j" G9 B6 ]2 J5 w1 Q& k  U
Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.6 K+ K( x1 l$ N
8 R6 v- I. [& G5 W$ ]5 i
Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
" g, E+ K' C- |8 r+ X3 G) n" A, U
1 }0 K) n. e# }2 z6 M& j- pAbductive reasoning
; Q9 k& o: c" j$ E" oAnother form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations, according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.
# ^, E2 d0 y9 f$ a1 T! a( m8 m  p" l
3 r/ q0 u9 t5 V  `For example, a person walks into their living room and finds torn up papers all over the floor. The person's dog has been alone in the room all day. The person concludes that the dog tore up the papers because it is the most likely scenario. Now, the person's sister may have brought by his niece and she may have torn up the papers, or it may have been done by the landlord, but the dog theory is the more likely conclusion.
9 @5 i+ b" ?8 g) G0 y
$ M. _* N6 P: t8 V; X9 J* rAbductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.
鲜花(133) 鸡蛋(1)
 楼主| 发表于 2018-6-14 08:36 | 显示全部楼层
deductive 演绎
  H* v  |! F( r2 h! s8 d6 tinductive 归纳
- \! f7 B# @8 K& rabductive 溯因
鲜花(133) 鸡蛋(1)
 楼主| 发表于 2018-6-14 08:41 | 显示全部楼层
DEDUCTIVE, INDUCTIVE, AND ABDUCTIVE REASONING
* E; N, S- t# R6 o4 m6 O$ ^
9 Y- j: ~3 I; ~6 @" qReasoning is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations. Three methods of reasoning are the deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches.
; \- ^6 x; a. U0 W; o$ |
5 _, s4 j4 G! [/ ~1 x" B6 nDeductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed
/ F0 J! T+ S2 [& ]Deductive reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application: In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. For example, math is deductive:1 X* N) o/ ?; X( p* r

8 n! L  ^- Q1 n1 Q2 f3 y7 qIf x = 4% H, C. d, D0 ?& f& o
And if y = 1
% z' J/ X6 g8 _8 O1 SThen 2x + y = 9
! n& T' V0 P# |6 N- D$ C% @' b' w4 s  s3 |* M  G
In this example, it is a logical necessity that 2x + y equals 9; 2x + y must equal 9. As a matter of fact, formal, symbolic logic uses a language that looks rather like the math equality above, complete with its own operators and syntax. But a deductive syllogism (think of it as a plain-English version of a math equality) can be expressed in ordinary language:* S' d! J4 n1 R. x6 K( i, C3 H& `
. B: }* ^7 x: g2 }
If entropy (disorder) in a system will increase unless energy is expended,
3 Q- |3 t2 L8 [% P; ]$ eAnd if my living room is a system,/ b3 v4 P0 z3 l5 Y* I
Then disorder will increase in my living room unless I clean it./ J, ]" l1 |) |, D5 }. D; _) F5 d

! `, Q; ^6 W% C# F$ C. w# GIn the syllogism above, the first two statements, the propositions or premises, lead logically to the third statement, the conclusion. Here is another example:8 z4 q& v1 H7 `" l6 C* h
+ X% t% ]) _; N) \/ n; ]
A medical technology ought to be funded if it has been used successfully to treat patients.; K- }0 U# G1 @  K
Adult stem cells are being used to treat patients successfully in more than sixty-five new therapies.. j, h( K+ |& _2 y
Adult stem cell research and technology should be funded.9 G2 r( x- r8 Y7 F6 n# ?7 b! O
4 ]1 l* N* T6 ^: e. E( T9 y
A conclusion is sound (true) or unsound (false), depending on the truth of the original premises (for any premise may be true or false). At the same time, independent of the truth or falsity of the premises, the deductive inference itself (the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to conclusion) is either valid or invalid. The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false:
& K6 n. c6 f1 r3 J
+ a4 ^( u( T; x4 [0 P6 UThere is no such thing as drought in the West.
, k9 x/ B8 x1 O) d9 oCalifornia is in the West.- a% x) O9 |! S% ]) Z4 M! F! K
California need never make plans to deal with a drought.: r( S8 j) c/ d! l( ~7 q/ F! ~1 s" V
) O( R" M9 A- S, a$ l8 w* P
In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the conclusion is false because the premise, There is no such thing as drought in the West, is false. A syllogism yields a false conclusion if either of its propositions is false. A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it looks so very logical–it is, in fact, logical. But whether in error or malice, if either of the propositions above is wrong, then a policy decision based upon it (California need never make plans to deal with a drought) probably would fail to serve the public interest., I! A& X! y4 d5 \, O- `

* Q2 y! g7 i9 J" s3 wAssuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive reasoning can give you absolutely certain conclusions. However, deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge (it is nonampliative) because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies-statements that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while with deductive reasoning we can make observations and expand implications, we cannot make predictions about future or otherwise non-observed phenomena.
  v6 O: L' p4 Z$ L3 y
3 L6 J+ t' u4 m! M$ v8 gInductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
* \7 |7 _$ Z1 H( GInductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.2 _- r  U( b2 j
4 M8 z  T5 J, H4 [0 ~* u
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:
- D! U7 c- i2 X% u" o8 y& U2 G; K6 y! Z3 ]- K' R
What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors 。
0 V. v3 Z# a& j1 g$ M/ G5 t- {) @3 s+ b7 A$ u' _
Because inductive conclusions are not logical necessities, inductive arguments are not simply true. Rather, they are cogent: that is, the evidence seems complete, relevant, and generally convincing, and the conclusion is therefore probably true. Nor are inductive arguments simply false; rather, they are not cogent.  P9 s0 K! {& p. U5 |
9 g1 t- p9 X; C: I) A7 z; w5 m7 h6 N
It is an important difference from deductive reasoning that, while inductive reasoning cannot yield an absolutely certain conclusion, it can actually increase human knowledge (it is ampliative). It can make predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena.! h# M- O: W) H6 C( O7 F' m  m  j
/ U- p/ d. y- `, J% s/ ^
For example, Albert Einstein observed the movement of a pocket compass when he was five years old and became fascinated with the idea that something invisible in the space around the compass needle was causing it to move. This observation, combined with additional observations (of moving trains, for example) and the results of logical and mathematical tools (deduction), resulted in a rule that fit his observations and could predict events that were as yet unobserved.; n( b6 I! \4 h+ o
( U: i8 ~# i( e/ B4 v6 R, ^
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot, r8 u0 D/ N8 e; H
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete.
" o# Q( b9 s$ _) D4 k9 J  H! |( l9 B" P9 ]* [# G
A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them? Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case, they make their best guess based on what they know.
: H  l# Y: C* o! ?" t% k' a8 k/ v9 |
) P3 j' d5 O# ]) EWhile cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both. A patient may be unconscious or fail to report every symptom, for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the symptoms. Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can.1 q9 n% D% ^& b7 `' q9 x
; I4 Y/ P7 E8 u0 X8 |( y+ F# K
The abductive process can be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary.2 Einstein's work, for example, was not just inductive and deductive, but involved a creative leap of imagination and visualization that scarcely seemed warranted by the mere observation of moving trains and falling elevators. In fact, so much of Einstein's work was done as a "thought experiment" (for he never experimentally dropped elevators), that some of his peers discredited it as too fanciful. Nevertheless, he appears to have been right-until now his remarkable conclusions about space-time continue to be verified experientially.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网   

GMT-7, 2018-7-17 06:27 , Processed in 0.124485 second(s), 11 queries , Gzip On, Memcache On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表