The "truth" of a hypothesis lies in its experimental and .

Notice that if the deductions predict phenomena not previously known, the confirmed consequences are not a part of the original phenomena that led to the hypothesis (usually inductively).

In this case, the scientist makes various guesses (hypotheses) to explain some observations.

In Peircean logical system, the logic of abduction and deductioncontribute to our conceptual understanding of a phenomenon, while the logic of induction adds quantitative details to our conceptual knowledge.


What role do human beings play in this hypothesis.

We have evidently here an induction and an hypothesis followed by a deduction; thus:

The two-Gospel hypothesis provides an effective response regarding these literary and historical similarities with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke through a balanced approach utilizing both internal and external resources to address the long standing debate regarding the synoptic problem....


Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning - An Overview - …

Whorf writes how “Language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity” (1956:212), and I will explain how it is able to do so.

13/07/2017 · Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning ..

Peirce's metaphysical system resolves the problem of induction byasserting that the data from our perception are not reducible to discrete,logically and ontologically independent events (Sullivan, 1991).

involves alternating between deduction and induction.

The connection between the related concepts of logical possibility, causal possibility and conceivability are among the basics which create the foundation for determining the creation and interpretation of a hypothesis that is being analyzed within a thought experiment.

Thinking Logically: Deduction and Induction - dummies

Another suggestion about the connection between abduction and Bayesianreasoning—to be found in Okasha 2000, McGrew 2003, and Lipton2004 (Ch. 7)—is that the explanatory considerations may serve asa heuristic to determine, even if only roughly, priors and likelihoodsin cases in which we would otherwise be clueless and could do nobetter than guessing. This suggestion is sensitive to thewell-recognized fact that we are not always able to assign a prior toevery hypothesis of interest, or to say how probable a given piece ofevidence is conditional on a given hypothesis. Consideration of thathypothesis’ explanatory power might then help us to figure out, ifperhaps only within certain bounds, what prior to assign to it, orwhat likelihood to assign to it on the given evidence.

A common example is the hypothesis that all ..

Even inductive reasoning using numerous accurate data and high power computingcan go wrong, because predictions are made only under certain specifiedconditions (Samuelson, 1967).