Abstract
Deductive and inductive reasoning have long histories dating back to early philosophy. One of the primary distinctions between these two forms of reasoning is that deduction leads to a valid conclusion, while induction does not. Deduction is influenced by the specific premises offered. Schemas and other information may suggest to us that two things that vary asymmetrically (such as “all A’s are B’s”) are actually symmetrical (inferring that this means all B′s are also A's). People rarely notice that they need to check a deductive situation in which they must see if there is a rule violation. This tendency accompanies our general preference for confirming a hypothesis, rather than disconfirming one. Evidence from brain damaged patient studies suggest that the ability to solve deductive reasoning problems involving cheating involves the medial temporal lobes and prefrontal cortex. Inductive reasoning is strongly guided by our experience. Knowledge about mechanisms of action will also influence our tendency to infer a property in a new item on the basis of its existence in the population overall. Inductive inferences vary across cultures further illustrating the idea that these inferences are based on our prior knowledge about the world.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Reasoning |
Subtitle of host publication | The Neuroscience of how we Think |
Publisher | Elsevier |
Pages | 199-225 |
Number of pages | 27 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9780128092859 |
ISBN (Print) | 9780128095768 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jan 1 2018 |
Keywords
- Altruism
- Cultural differences
- Deduction
- Deontic reasoning
- Hypothesis testing
- Induction
- Reciprocal altruism
- Semantic knowledge
- Similarity
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Neuroscience