That is actually not the difference between deductive and inductive arguments.Originally Posted by poppy
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is claimed to follow with absolute necessity from the premises. Any added premises (whether true or false) have no effect on this necessity.
An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises only with probability. This probability is a matter of degree, and this degree can change in light of new facts added as premises.
Although it is usually the case that deductive arguments move from general to specific and inductive arguments move from specific to general, both deductive and inductive arguments can move in either direction.
Here is an example of an inductive argument that moves from general to specific:
Most dogs have four legs.
Fido is a dog.
Therefore, Fido has four legs.
An example of a deductive argument that moves from specific to general...
I have three dogs whose names are Fido, Rover, and Champ.
Fido has four legs.
Rover has four legs.
Champ has four legs.
Therefore, all of my dogs have four legs.
Possibly, but "evidence" is usually intended to refer to the premises of an argument. Rules and theorems set forth general properties of certain types of arguments or premises.Originally Posted by poppy
Now, as far as the OP goes, as an NTP, I use whichever form of reasoning seems to be most appropriate in light of the evidence I have acquired. The enjoyment I get from using each type is about equal.