Social Psychology
Mohamed Ahmed Abd El-Hay in Understanding Psychology for Medicine and Nursing, 2019
For people using the central route, the use of logic is the most suitable strategy, where reasoning is used to convince the audience of a certain perspective. Arguments based on logic usually employ deductive and/or inductive reasoning. Deductive (or top-down) reasoning applies a general rule to draw a conclusion about a specific case or cases. In other words, deductive reasoning starts with applying a theory to a hypothesis and collects observations to confirm or dispute such a hypothesis. Inductive (or bottom-up) reasoning constructs a premise or rule by generalizing and inferring from a specific case or cases. In other words, inductive reasoning starts by collecting observations to formulate a hypothesis that is explored before forming a theory. Statistics are sometimes used to support an argument with a different sort of evidence.
Medicine making sense
Alan Bleakley in Educating Doctors’ Senses Through the Medical Humanities, 2020
Inductive reasoning involves working forward from evidence to set up a hypothesis. Deductive reasoning involves testing a hypothesis through gathering evidence. There is a third way of knowing – ‘abduction’ or abductive reasoning, first described by Charles Peirce (1931) as a knowing in the senses (Schleifer and Vannatta 2013). Peirce described abductive reasoning as “the operations by which theories … are given birth”, in other words, the embodiment of proto-theory in practical acts. Something is done, and an idea follows that is contained in the arc of the act. Theory is then performative, often muscular and sometimes nervy – in itself an embodied activity. Donald Schön (1990) famously described ‘reflection-in-action’ as the moment-to-moment adjustment that we make as we are faced with novelty or uncertainty in activity. This is a reflex in the human, who is naturally predictive (Clark 2016). As the blurb to Andy Clark’s (ibid) book Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind promises the reader: This title brings together work on embodiment, action, and the predictive mind. At the core is the vision of human minds as prediction machines – devices that constantly try to stay one step ahead of the breaking waves of sensory stimulation, by actively predicting the incoming flow.
Overview
Song S. Qian, Mark R. DuFour, Ibrahim Alameddine in Bayesian Applications in Environmental and Ecological Studies with R and Stan, 2023
The above example illustrates the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Using deductive reasoning, we start from what we know to predict the outcome. As long as what we know is correct, the prediction will be correct. If we know the probability of success is , we can easily calculate the likelihood of observing successes in trials (dbinom(x=3, n=10, p=0.3)). Induction is the inverse process of figuring out the likely value of the probability of success when observing the data. In the binomial example, we start the process by providing an initial guess (the prior) and Bayes' theorem updates the prior with data. The updating process can be iterative.
Exploring the applicability of occupational therapy transition assessments for students with disabilities
Published in World Federation of Occupational Therapists Bulletin, 2019
Christopher Trujillo, Meghan Poach, Mikaela Carr
There were 33 individuals who answered the open-ended anonymous comments section at the end of the survey. This data was examined systematically, line by line, and through the analytic process common ideas began to emerge. Using participant’s own words, these initial 12 ideas were categorised using the participant’s own words. These words were then coded numerically and categorised using an open coding approach. During secondary analysis of categories, related concepts were grouped into themes that researchers agreed on and named. Inductive reasoning was applied to understand the themes of the data. The results revealed three main themes: (1) positive statements about occupational therapy transition support and assessment, (2) the need for increased transition training for special education teams, and (3) transition team members desire for their input to be included in a transition assessment.
Is the premise ‘occupation promotes health’ logical? A syllogistic analysis
Published in Journal of Occupational Science, 2018
Rationalism and empiricism play different roles in scientific inquiry. Empiricism tests how well a postulate corresponds to a phenomenon with inductive reasoning, whereas rationalism validates the logical connection of concepts in the postulation using deductive reasoning. According to philosophyterms.com, “While deductive reasoning implies logical certainty, inductive reasoning only gives you the reasonable probability” (Philosophy terms, n.d., Para. 8). The strength of rationalism is that it enhances scientific credibility through the use of deductive reasoning skills, allowing the formulation of logically certain premises upon which theories can be built. Occupational science requires both empiricism and rationalism. In order to expedite the epistemic development of the discipline, I advocate the need for occupational science to be bifurcated into rationalistic occupational science and empirical occupational science, and the inclusion of various rationalist methods in occupational science curricula.
Technology-enabled work from home during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study of employee experiences and effectiveness
Published in Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 2022
Sarika Sharma, Jatinderkumar R. Saini, Shreya Virani
The Microsoft Excel spreadsheets were used for the compilation of the responses (interviews) and the analysis of the collected responses was done manually. Few earlier researchers have worked on similar studies, their work was referred while the data analysis was conducted. Inductive reasoning was found appropriate in the present situation. First of all, the interviewees’ responses were read thoroughly to get an overall view and impression of the contents. The method used for content analysis is not based on any prior theory as the situation of emergency WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic is unique. Without any biases, the sub-themes and themes were endorsed (Kondracki, Wellman, & Amundson, 2002). The steps followed for qualitative content analysis are exhibited in Figure 1.
Related Knowledge Centers
- Altruism
- Artificial Intelligence
- Chemistry
- Sampling Bias
- Sulfur Dioxide
- Sampling
- Empiric School
- Epilogism
- Dogmatic School
- Uncertainty