Deductive reasoning is a type of logical reasoning in which one starts with a general principle or premise and draws a specific conclusion based on that principle. It involves a process of using known facts, premises, or principles to arrive at a specific conclusion or prediction.
In deductive reasoning, the general principle or premise is often called a “major premise,” while the specific conclusion or prediction is called the “minor premise.” By combining the major premise and minor premise, we arrive at a conclusion through a logical process.
The steps in deductive reasoning
- Start with a major premise: Begin with a general statement or principle that is accepted as true. This statement forms the foundation for your argument and provides the basis for your conclusion.
- Add a minor premise: Introduce a specific statement or example that relates to the major premise. This statement should be based on observations or evidence that support your argument.
- Draw a conclusion: Combine the major and minor premises to form a logical conclusion. This conclusion should be a logical inference based on the information provided in the premises.
- Evaluate the conclusion: Assess the validity of your conclusion. Determine whether it is a logical and reasonable inference based on the information provided in the premises. Make sure that the premises are true and that the argument follows a valid logical structure.
- Test the conclusion: Test your conclusion against new evidence or observations. Use the conclusion to make predictions or form hypotheses that can be tested through further experimentation or observation.
Example One
- Major premise: All birds have feathers.
- Minor premise: Penguins are birds.
- Conclusion: Therefore, penguins have feathers.
In this example, the major premise establishes the general principle that all birds have feathers. The minor premise provides a specific example that penguins are birds. By combining the major and minor premises, we can logically conclude that penguins have feathers.
We can evaluate the validity of this conclusion by checking the accuracy of the premises. The major premise is generally accepted as true, and the minor premise is also accurate based on the scientific classification of penguins as birds.
We can test the conclusion by examining penguins and observing their feathers. Through observation and experimentation, we can verify that penguins do indeed have feathers, supporting the accuracy of our deductive reasoning.
Example Two
- Major premise: People who commit murder often have a motive for their actions.
- Minor premise: John had a motive to kill his business partner, as they were involved in a financial dispute.
- Conclusion: Therefore, John is a suspect in the murder of his business partner.
In this example, the major premise establishes a general principle that people who commit murder often have a motive. The minor premise provides a specific example that John had a motive to kill his business partner due to a financial dispute. By combining the major and minor premises, we can logically conclude that John is a suspect in the murder of his business partner.
Example Three
Major premise: Regular exercise is good for health.
Minor premise 1: Running is a form of regular exercise. Minor premise 2: Weightlifting is a form of regular exercise. Minor premise 3: Swimming is a form of regular exercise.
Conclusion: Therefore, running, weightlifting, and swimming are all good for health.
In this example, the major premise establishes the general principle that regular exercise is good for health. The three minor premises provide specific examples of types of regular exercise that people might engage in. By combining the major premise and the three minor premises, we can conclude that all three types of exercise (running, weightlifting, and swimming) are good for health.
We can evaluate the validity of this conclusion by looking at scientific research and evidence that supports the health benefits of these types of exercise. If the research shows that running, weightlifting, and swimming are all good for health, then the conclusion drawn through deductive reasoning can be considered reasonable and accurate.
This example demonstrates how deductive reasoning can be used to draw a conclusion based on a general principle and specific examples that illustrate that principle. It also shows how deductive reasoning can be used to make broad generalizations based on a few specific observations.
We can evaluate the validity of this conclusion by investigating further and gathering additional evidence. If there is enough evidence linking John to the murder, such as physical evidence or witness statements, the conclusion drawn through deductive reasoning can be considered reasonable and accurate.
This example demonstrates how deductive reasoning can be used in crime investigations to identify potential suspects based on established principles and specific evidence or observations. However, it is important to note that deductive reasoning alone cannot prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and further investigation and evidence are needed to establish a solid case.
In Summary
The number of minor premises that can relate to a major premise before it is considered factual can vary depending on the specific situation and the quality of the evidence used to support the premises.
In deductive reasoning, the premises must be true in order for the conclusion to be considered valid. Therefore, the accuracy and quality of each premise is crucial. One well-supported minor premise may be enough to establish the validity of a conclusion, while several unsupported or poorly supported minor premises may not be enough to establish the conclusion as factual.
It is important to note that deductive reasoning alone cannot establish a fact as absolute, as there is always the possibility of error or the discovery of new evidence that may require a reassessment of the premises and the conclusion. Additionally, in some cases, the conclusion may be based on probable or likely scenarios rather than absolute facts.
Deductive reasoning is often used in mathematics, science, and philosophy. It is a valuable tool for evaluating arguments, making predictions, and testing hypotheses. However, it relies heavily on the accuracy and validity of the premises or principles used in the reasoning process. If the premises are false or inaccurate, the conclusion may be flawed or invalid.
#infobymattcole
You can check out Matt’s LinkedIn account, Youtube Channel, or Podcast.Introducing my new books, ‘The Art of Critical Thinking’ and ‘The Critical Thinking Model’. Both can be read for free with Kindle Unlimited or $2.99 each via Kindle.