Reasoning involves performing a mental activity that requires some intellectual effort. In this sense, reasoning and thinking are similar terms but not exactly the same. We can think of something (for example, a certain object) but this does not mean that we are reasoning. All reasoning supposes a display of ideas ordered with a certain procedure or method. For this reason we speak of two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive.
The science of the seventeenth century was based on inductive reasoning
From a scientific point of view, inductive reasoning developed from the seventeenth century with the contributions of the philosopher Francis Bacon. This philosopher considered that general conclusions can be reached through tables in which data is collected in a systematic and orderly way about what is being studied.
The inductive method or reasoning
Broadly speaking, this form of reasoning is said to go from the particular to the general. Thus, from some particular cases a certain regularity is observed between them and that logic is what allows us to draw a general conclusion. In other words, specific events are observed in detail and, subsequently, a law is proposed that explains the regularity of such events.
Criticism of induction
Induction creates general laws from the observation of real events. Therefore, this is a generalization that could be false. Consequently, the conclusions or laws of the inductive method are probable and are only valid as long as no case appears that contradicts the generalization. Inductivism has been criticized as a valid reasoning strategy because it has a number of gaps.
We could raise certain criticisms that reveal the weakness of inductive reasoning
1) If it is about experimenting from concrete cases, we can ask ourselves how many cases should be part of an experimentation, a few, thousands or millions,
2) If the inductive analysis is based on the observation of the facts, we must not forget that the senses can deceive us,
3) Nothing can be observed in a rigorous way if mentally it is not part of a previous explanatory theory that allows observing reality, so that pure observation does not exist and, since it does not exist, it is not reasonable that it is an essential element in a investigation.
Photo: Fotolia - Neyro
