{"id":567,"date":"2014-06-21T16:33:34","date_gmt":"2014-06-21T16:33:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.agron.iastate.edu\/glsi\/?p=567"},"modified":"2025-04-07T11:06:12","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T16:06:12","slug":"is-it-deduction-or-induction-my-dear-watson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.agron.iastate.edu\/glsi\/blog\/is-it-deduction-or-induction-my-dear-watson\/","title":{"rendered":"Is It \u2018Deduction\u2019 or \u2018Induction\u2019, My Dear Watson?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Sherlock Holmes often talks about \u2018deductive reasoning’ but was he really using deduction or induction? Although by definition these two approaches appear to be opposites, in practice, the differences between the two can be subtle.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

A simplified contrast between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deduction is reasoning from the top down and induction is reasoning from the bottom up. However, the modern definitions of these philosophies have many nuances, which address issues with both of these oversimplified descriptions and blur the lines between the two. Nonetheless, as a natural scientist, I view deduction as the formation of generalized rules that help prediction. Some have argued that deduction does not allow for a conclusion to be false, but that would not be science. It has been my observation that scientists using deductive reasoning make use of exceptions when they are discovered to refine understanding. For example, in this scene, Sherlock over-extends a generalization and learns a lesson that he probably won\u2019t forget:<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n