Which of the following is NOT a difference between inductive and deductive argum

Question

Which of the following is NOT a difference between inductive and deductive arguments, according to Stephen Law? Science relies primarily on deductive, not inductive, arguments Inductive arguments support, but don't logically necessitate, their conclusions. To deny the conclusion of a valid deductive argument would be a logical contradiction. p. 340: "In other words, to assert the premises but deny the conclusion would be...a logical contradiction." p. 341: "Inductive arguments differ...their premises are suppose to support, but not logically entail." p. 341: "Science is heavily dependent on induction.

Explanation / Answer

Answer: The first statement that science relies primarily on deductive, not inductive arguments is incorrect according to Stephen Law, as the law states that science primarily depends upon inductive arguments, since the scientific theories are expected to hold true for all the times and places, even those that which had not been observed by us, and the only evidence of their truth depends on what has been observed. This forms the basis of relying on inductive reasoning to justify the laid scientific theories.

Therefore its the first statement that is NOT a difference between the inductive and deductive arguments according to Stephen law.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.