DOCSLIB.ORG

Scientific Reasoning: a Solution to the Problem of Induction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scientific Reasoning: a Solution to the Problem of Induction International Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS Vol:10 No:03 49 Scientific Reasoning: A Solution to the Problem of Induction Wilayat Khan and Habib Ullah COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, 47040, Wah Cantt, PAKISTAN Abstract— reasoning is an important part of many fields like computer scientist for long period, one may become a logic, artificial intelligence, philosophy of science, and so on. computer scientist or engineer, for example, but not, of course, Reasoning can either be deductive (deduction) or it can be a medical doctor. Induction and deduction are one of the inductive (induction). The decisions based on induction are very attractive areas of different fields like artificial intelligence, helpful in research but some times they produce uncertain and logic and philosophy of science. The problem of induction is unreliable results upon which no reliable decision can be made. among one of the problems being faced which needs This is known as the problem of induction. In this paper, after concentrative studies. Before going deeper into this problem, giving deep introduction of induction and deduction, we explain we need to define and explain deduction and induction. views of different scholars about the problem. These scholars, unfortunately, do not agree at a single point. At the end of this II. DEDUCTION discussion, we come up with a solution to the problem and Deductive reasoning or deduction consists of arguments conclude it. In our solution, we disagree with the strict decision where if the premises are assumed to be true, then it is of either to accept or reject induction. Instead, we are in favor to impossible for the conclusion to be false. Using deduction, deal induction in a probable manner. there is a formulation of specific conclusion from a general truth [1, 2]. For example: Index Term— Scientific reasoning, induction, deduction, problem of induction All the teachers in COMSATS are good researchers; Mr. Anwar is a teacher. I. INTRODUCTION Reasoning or argumentation is a process to look for Therefore reasons. Reasoning uses arguments which are sets of statements or propositions each consists of premises and Mr. Anwar is a good researcher. conclusion. Conclusions are derived from the statements (premises). Reasoning can either be deductive (deduction) or it The conclusion drawn using deduction is reliable. One can can be inductive (induction). In an argument, for the trust the truth of result (truth preserving). In the example assumption that the premises is true and it is impossible that above, if we assume the premises that “all the teachers in the conclusion is false, the argument is deductive, but if the COMSATS are good researcher“ and “Mr. Anwar is a truth of conclusion is probable then it is inductive argument. researcher“ true, then the conclusion drawn “Mr. Anwar is a One can believe the conclusion if the premises are justified and good researcher“ based on the premises is always true. It is there is a proper connection between the premises and impossible for this conclusion to be false (assuming the conclusion of the argument [1]. The connection between the premises is true). conclusion and the premises is very important, because, Conclusions are derived from a new idea – an anticipation, a otherwise, the reasoning will lead us to a false conclusion. For hypothesis, or a theoretical system, using logical deduction. example, if we say: These derived conclusions are compared in themselves and with other statements (if there are any other relevant Mr. Anwar, a computer scientist, has been teaching us statements). A logical relation like whether they are equivalent computer science for the last two years. to each other (equivalence), compatible with each other or not (compatibility or incompatibility) and so on, is found. Therefore A theory can be tested either by logical comparison of the We will become medical doctors. conclusions with each other, investigating the logical form of the theory (to find out whether it is empirical or scientific), This does not make sense, because being student of a comparing it with other theories or by testing the theory using the way of empirical applications of the conclusions derived from it. The last test finds out how far the new results or 105303-9595 IJBAS-IJENS © June 2010 IJENS I J E N S International Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS Vol:10 No:03 50 consequences derived from the theory fulfill the demands of particular or individual. But the conclusion is not certain. The practice, no matter whether they are raised by scientific result above may be false. There may be illiterate people in experiments or by practical technological applications. The COMSATS. It can be certain if, by some means, the statement procedure of testing theory by this way is deductive. Some „there is at least one illiterate person in COMSATS‟ is proved singular statements or predictions are deduced from the theory false. This is a proof by falsification [5]. Weak induction, on with the help of other previously accepted statements. The the other hand, induce conclusion from the premise, but it is statements which are not derivable from that theory and which not the correct one. There is no proper link between the are contradicted by the theory are selected. Now these and premise and the conclusion. Like: other derived statements are compared with the results of practical applications and experiments and a decision is made. I always put the book on table. If the singular conclusions are verified, that is if they are acceptable, then currently the theory has passed its test. But Therefore on the other hand if the conclusions are falsified then the theory from which those conclusions were drawn, is also All the books are on the table. falsified [4]. You may be in the library studying the Philosophy of III. INDUCTION Science book and then you put it on the table after reading it. As defined in [2, 3, 4], inductive reasoning or induction is Based on this premise, you draw a conclusion that all the the process of reasoning in which it is believed that the books are on the table just because you have put the book on premises of an argument support the truth of conclusion, but table. This will lead to generalization based on the certainty of they don‟t ensure its truth. It is true even for a good argument, premise. This conclusion will be wrong. This does not make where it is quite possible that there will be false conclusion sense to link the conclusion with the premise. The link between even if the premise is true. An inference is said to be inductive the two is very weak. If we use our knowledge from other inference if it passes from singular statements to universal sources, we can see that the conclusion drawn is wrong. There statements or theories. That is to say that induction leads from is no guarantee that all other students put their books on the specific truth to general truth (knowledge expanding). table in the library after reading. They might return the book to Inductive inferences that we draw from true premises are not the librarian, who put the books in the book boxes in the 100% reliable, because they may take us to the false result from library, or the students borrow the books and put it in their true premises. Induction takes individual instances and based bags (instead on table), or they put the book on table outside on those instances, some generalization is made. For example: the library, and so on. Only you put the book on the table but most of the books are already in the vertical cupboards of the Students A, B, and C in the library read. library, some are with students for reading, and so on. The conclusions drawn by this way are actually Based on the above premise, a general conclusion is drawn overgeneralizations [3]. as following. Scientific laws and theories are actually universal generalization which surpasses the finite number of All the students in the library read. observations and experiments, on which the theory is based, by a great margin. These theories are confirmed by evidence Many scholars, historically, like David Hume, Karl Popper using induction. This confirmation makes these scientific and David Miller have discouraged inductive reasoning. They theories reliable, trustworthy and justifies our belief on have rejected and disputed its existence. theories. If there was no inductive confirmation, science would Inductive reasoning has been divided in two categories be just like a „blind guess‟. Induction leads to creative based on the strength of its effect; strong induction and weak inference where new theories are formulated from the evidence induction [3]. In strong induction the truth of a premise would (logic of discovery). After the new theories are formulated, make the truth of a conclusion probable, but not confirmed. In then induction does confirmation by connecting evidence to other words, the truth of a premise can make the conclusion those theories (logic of justification). more likely to be true, but it can‟t guarantee its 100% truth. Although inductive reasoning exists everywhere in science Consider the argument: but it is philosophically controversial. There are problems to describe the general principles to follow in inductive reasoning All observed people in COSMATS are literate. (problem of describing) and to justify the inferences or Therefore conclusions (problem of induction) [6]. IV. THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION All people in COMSATS are literate. As we mentioned earlier that induction leads to universal or Here we actually induce the general or the universe from the 105303-9595 IJBAS-IJENS © June 2010 IJENS I J E N S International Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS Vol:10 No:03 51 general truth from specific truth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Locke's Historical Method
    RUCH FILOZOFICZNY LXXV 2019 4 Zbigniew Pietrzak University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland ORCID: 0000-0003-2458-1252 e-mail: [email protected] John Locke’s Historical Method and “Natural Histories” in Modern Natural Sciences DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/RF.2019.038 Introduction Among the many fundamental issues that helped shape the philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, one concerned the condi- tion of philosophy and scientific knowledge, and in the area of our inter- est – knowledge about nature.1 These philosophical inquiries included both subject-related problems concerning human cognitive abilities and object-related ones indicating possible epistemological boundaries that nature itself could have generated. Thus, already at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, from Francis Bacon, Galileo, and 1 These reflections are an elaboration on the topic I mentioned in the article “His- toria naturalna a wiedza o naturze” [“Natural History vs. Knowledge of Nature”], in: Rozum, człowiek, historia, [Mind, Man, History], ed. Jakub Szczepański (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2018); as well as in my master’s thesis: The Crisis of Cognition, the Crisis of Philosophy (not published). It is also a debate over the content of Adam Grzeliński’s article entitled “‘Rozważania dotyczące rozu- mu ludzkiego’ Johna Locke’a: teoria poznania i historia” [“John Locke’s ‘An essay on human understanding’: cognition theory and history”], in: Rozum, człowiek, historia, ed. Jakub Szczepański, (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2018), as well as some of the themes of the author’s monograph Doświadczenie i rozum. Empiryzm Johna Locke’a [Experience and reason. The empiricism of John Locke] (To- ruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • 1.2. INDUCTIVE REASONING Much Mathematical Discovery Starts with Inductive Reasoning – the Process of Reaching General Conclus
    1.2. INDUCTIVE REASONING Much mathematical discovery starts with inductive reasoning – the process of reaching general conclusions, called conjectures, through the examination of particular cases and the recognition of patterns. These conjectures are then more formally proved using deductive methods, which will be discussed in the next section. Below we look at three examples that use inductive reasoning. Number Patterns Suppose you had to predict the sixth number in the following sequence: 1, -3, 6, -10, 15, ? How would you proceed with such a question? The trick, it seems, is to discern a specific pattern in the given sequence of numbers. This kind of approach is a classic example of inductive reasoning. By identifying a rule that generates all five numbers in this sequence, your hope is to establish a pattern and be in a position to predict the sixth number with confidence. So can you do it? Try to work out this number before continuing. One fact is immediately clear: the numbers alternate sign from positive to negative. We thus expect the answer to be a negative number since it follows 15, a positive number. On closer inspection, we also realize that the difference between the magnitude (or absolute value) of successive numbers increases by 1 each time: 3 – 1 = 2 6 – 3 = 3 10 – 6 = 4 15 – 10 = 5 … We have then found the rule we sought for generating the next number in this sequence. The sixth number should be -21 since the difference between 15 and 21 is 6 and we had already determined that the answer should be negative.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning
    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Treatise on the Connection of Scientific Reasoning
    mathematics Review A Philosophical Treatise on the Connection of Scientific Reasoning with Fuzzy Logic Evangelos Athanassopoulos 1 and Michael Gr. Voskoglou 2,* 1 Independent Researcher, Giannakopoulou 39, 27300 Gastouni, Greece; [email protected] 2 Department of Applied Mathematics, Graduate Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, 22334 Patras, Greece * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 4 May 2020; Accepted: 19 May 2020; Published:1 June 2020 Abstract: The present article studies the connection of scientific reasoning with fuzzy logic. Induction and deduction are the two main types of human reasoning. Although deduction is the basis of the scientific method, almost all the scientific progress (with pure mathematics being probably the unique exception) has its roots to inductive reasoning. Fuzzy logic gives to the disdainful by the classical/bivalent logic induction its proper place and importance as a fundamental component of the scientific reasoning. The error of induction is transferred to deductive reasoning through its premises. Consequently, although deduction is always a valid process, it is not an infallible method. Thus, there is a need of quantifying the degree of truth not only of the inductive, but also of the deductive arguments. In the former case, probability and statistics and of course fuzzy logic in cases of imprecision are the tools available for this purpose. In the latter case, the Bayesian probabilities play a dominant role. As many specialists argue nowadays, the whole science could be viewed as a Bayesian process. A timely example, concerning the validity of the viruses’ tests, is presented, illustrating the importance of the Bayesian processes for scientific reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath
    Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath Some of the most important questions we face in public health include what policies we should follow, which programs and research should we fund, how and where we should intervene, and what our priorities should be in the face of overwhelming needs and scarce resources. These questions, like many others, are best decided on the basis of arguments, a word that has its roots in the Latin arguere, to make clear. Yet arguments themselves vary greatly in terms of their strength, accuracy, and validity. Furthermore, public health experts often disagree on matters of research, policy and practice, citing conflicting evidence and arriving at conflicting conclusions. As a result, critical readers, such as researchers, policymakers, journal editors and reviewers, approach arguments with considerable skepticism. After all, they are not going to change their programs, priorities, practices, research agendas or budgets without very solid evidence that it is necessary, feasible, and beneficial. This raises an important challenge for public health writers: How can you best make your case, in the face of so much conflicting evidence? To illustrate, let’s assume that you’ve been researching mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in a sub-Saharan African country and have concluded that (claim) the country’s maternal programs for HIV counseling and infant nutrition should be integrated because (reasons) this would be more efficient in decreasing MTCT, improving child nutrition, and using scant resources efficiently. The evidence to back up your claim might consist of original research you have conducted that included program assessments and interviews with health workers in the field, your assessment of the other relevant research, the experiences of programs in other countries, and new WHO guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Mill's Conversion: the Herschel Connection
    volume 18, no. 23 Introduction november 2018 John Stuart Mill’s A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and the methods of scientific investigation was the most popular and influential treatment of sci- entific method throughout the second half of the 19th century. As is well-known, there was a radical change in the view of probability en- dorsed between the first and second editions. There are three differ- Mill’s Conversion: ent conceptions of probability interacting throughout the history of probability: (1) Chance, or Propensity — for example, the bias of a bi- The Herschel Connection ased coin. (2) Judgmental Degree of Belief — for example, the de- gree of belief one should have that the bias is between .6 and .7 after 100 trials that produce 81 heads. (3) Long-Run Relative Frequency — for example, propor- tion of heads in a very large, or even infinite, number of flips of a given coin. It has been a matter of controversy, and continues to be to this day, which conceptions are basic. Strong advocates of one kind of prob- ability may deny that the others are important, or even that they make Brian Skyrms sense at all. University of California, Irvine, and Stanford University In the first edition of 1843, Mill espouses a frequency view of prob- ability that aligns well with his general material view of logic: Conclusions respecting the probability of a fact rest, not upon a different, but upon the very same basis, as conclu- sions respecting its certainly; namely, not our ignorance, © 2018 Brian Skyrms but our knowledge: knowledge obtained by experience, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons of the proportion between the cases in which the fact oc- Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychology 205, Revelle, Fall 2014 Research Methods in Psychology Mid-Term
    Psychology 205, Revelle, Fall 2014 Research Methods in Psychology Mid-Term Name: ________________________________ 1. (2 points) What is the primary advantage of using the median instead of the mean as a measure of central tendency? It is less affected by outliers. 2. (2 points) Why is counterbalancing important in a within-subjects experiment? Ensuring that conditions are independent of order and of each other. This allows us to determine effect of each variable independently of the other variables. If conditions are related to order or to each other, we are unable to determine which variable is having an effect. Short answer: order effects. 3. (6 points) Define reliability and compare it to validity. Give an example of when a measure could be valid but not reliable. 2 points: Reliability is the consistency or dependability of a measurement technique. [“Getting the same result” was not accepted; it was too vague in that it did not specify the conditions (e.g., the same phenomenon) in which the same result was achieved.] 2 points: Validity is the extent to which a measurement procedure actually measures what it is intended to measure. 2 points: Example (from class) is a weight scale that gives a different result every time the same person stands on it repeatedly. Another example: a scale that actually measures hunger but has poor test-retest reliability. [Other examples were accepted.] 4. (4 points) A consumer research company wants to compare the “coverage” of two competing cell phone networks throughout Illinois. To do so fairly, they have decided that they will only compare survey data taken from customers who are all using the same cell phone model - one that is functional on both networks and has been newly released in the last 3 months.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Induction
    The Problem of Induction Gilbert Harman Department of Philosophy, Princeton University Sanjeev R. Kulkarni Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University July 19, 2005 The Problem The problem of induction is sometimes motivated via a comparison between rules of induction and rules of deduction. Valid deductive rules are necessarily truth preserving, while inductive rules are not. So, for example, one valid deductive rule might be this: (D) From premises of the form “All F are G” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion of the form “a is G” follows. The rule (D) is illustrated in the following depressing argument: (DA) All people are mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. The rule here is “valid” in the sense that there is no possible way in which premises satisfying the rule can be true without the corresponding conclusion also being true. A possible inductive rule might be this: (I) From premises of the form “Many many F s are known to be G,” “There are no known cases of F s that are not G,” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion can be inferred of the form “a is G.” The rule (I) might be illustrated in the following “inductive argument.” (IA) Many many people are known to have been moral. There are no known cases of people who are not mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. 1 The rule (I) is not valid in the way that the deductive rule (D) is valid. The “premises” of the inductive inference (IA) could be true even though its “con- clusion” is not true.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a Bayesian Analysis of Some Forms of Inductive Reasoning Evan Heit
    1 A Bayesian Analysis of Some Forms of Inductive Reasoning Evan Heit University of Warwick In Rational Models of Cognition, M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Oxford University Press, 248- 274, 1998. Please address correspondence to: Evan Heit Department of Psychology University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom Phone: (024) 7652 3183 Email: [email protected] 2 One of our most important cognitive goals is prediction (Anderson, 1990, 1991; Billman & Heit, 1988; Heit, 1992; Ross & Murphy, 1996), and category-level information enables a rich set of predictions. For example, you might not be able to predict much about Peter until you are told that Peter is a goldfish, in which case you could predict that he will swim and he will eat fish food. Prediction is a basic element of a wide range of everyday tasks from problem solving to social interaction to motor control. This chapter, however, will focus on a narrower range of prediction phenomena, concerning how people evaluate inductive “syllogisms” or arguments such as the following example: Goldfish thrive in sunlight --------------------------- Tunas thrive in sunlight. (The information above the line is taken as a premise which is assumed to be true, then the task is to evaluate the likelihood of the conclusion, below the line.) Despite the apparent simplicity of this task, there are a variety of interesting phenomena that are associated with inductive arguments. Taken together, these phenomena reveal a great deal about what people know about categories and their properties, and about how people use their general knowledge of the world for reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Statistical Models of Inductive Reasoning
    CORRECTED FEBRUARY 25, 2009; SEE LAST PAGE Psychological Review © 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 116, No. 1, 20–58 0033-295X/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014282 Structured Statistical Models of Inductive Reasoning Charles Kemp Joshua B. Tenenbaum Carnegie Mellon University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Everyday inductive inferences are often guided by rich background knowledge. Formal models of induction should aim to incorporate this knowledge and should explain how different kinds of knowledge lead to the distinctive patterns of reasoning found in different inductive contexts. This article presents a Bayesian framework that attempts to meet both goals and describe 4 applications of the framework: a taxonomic model, a spatial model, a threshold model, and a causal model. Each model makes probabi- listic inferences about the extensions of novel properties, but the priors for the 4 models are defined over different kinds of structures that capture different relationships between the categories in a domain. The framework therefore shows how statistical inference can operate over structured background knowledge, and the authors argue that this interaction between structure and statistics is critical for explaining the power and flexibility of human reasoning. Keywords: inductive reasoning, property induction, knowledge representation, Bayesian inference Humans are adept at making inferences that take them beyond This article describes a formal approach to inductive inference the limits of their direct experience.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Treatise of Universal Induction
    Entropy 2011, 13, 1076-1136; doi:10.3390/e13061076 OPEN ACCESS entropy ISSN 1099-4300 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy Article A Philosophical Treatise of Universal Induction Samuel Rathmanner and Marcus Hutter ? Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University, Corner of North and Daley Road, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia ? Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]. Received: 20 April 2011; in revised form: 24 May 2011 / Accepted: 27 May 2011 / Published: 3 June 2011 Abstract: Understanding inductive reasoning is a problem that has engaged mankind for thousands of years. This problem is relevant to a wide range of fields and is integral to the philosophy of science. It has been tackled by many great minds ranging from philosophers to scientists to mathematicians, and more recently computer scientists. In this article we argue the case for Solomonoff Induction, a formal inductive framework which combines algorithmic information theory with the Bayesian framework. Although it achieves excellent theoretical results and is based on solid philosophical foundations, the requisite technical knowledge necessary for understanding this framework has caused it to remain largely unknown and unappreciated in the wider scientific community. The main contribution of this article is to convey Solomonoff induction and its related concepts in a generally accessible form with the aim of bridging this current technical gap. In the process we examine the major historical contributions that have led to the formulation of Solomonoff Induction as well as criticisms of Solomonoff and induction in general. In particular we examine how Solomonoff induction addresses many issues that have plagued other inductive systems, such as the black ravens paradox and the confirmation problem, and compare this approach with other recent approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations Between Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning
    Journal of Experimental Psychology: © 2010 American Psychological Association Learning, Memory, and Cognition 0278-7393/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018784 2010, Vol. 36, No. 3, 805–812 Relations Between Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning Evan Heit Caren M. Rotello University of California, Merced University of Massachusetts Amherst One of the most important open questions in reasoning research is how inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are related. In an effort to address this question, we applied methods and concepts from memory research. We used 2 experiments to examine the effects of logical validity and premise– conclusion similarity on evaluation of arguments. Experiment 1 showed 2 dissociations: For a common set of arguments, deduction judgments were more affected by validity, and induction judgments were more affected by similarity. Moreover, Experiment 2 showed that fast deduction judgments were like induction judgments—in terms of being more influenced by similarity and less influenced by validity, compared with slow deduction judgments. These novel results pose challenges for a 1-process account of reasoning and are interpreted in terms of a 2-process account of reasoning, which was implemented as a multidimensional signal detection model and applied to receiver operating characteristic data. Keywords: reasoning, similarity, mathematical modeling An important open question in reasoning research concerns the arguments (Rips, 2001). This technique can highlight similarities relation between induction and deduction. Typically, individual or differences between induction and deduction that are not con- studies of reasoning have focused on only one task, rather than founded by the use of different materials (Heit, 2007). It also examining how the two are connected (Heit, 2007).
    [Show full text]