INDUCTIVE METHOD: CHARACTERISTICS, TYPES AND EXAMPLES - SCIENCE - 2025

The inductive method is a form of reasoning to reach conclusions that starts from the most specific and goes to the broadest generalizations and theories. It begins with some specific observations and measurements to reach general conclusions.

The inductive method consists of three stages: observation, grasping / observing a pattern, and developing a theory. For example, you observe the dogs (observation), you see that they all wag their tails (pattern), all the dogs in the world wag their tails (theory).

Inductive reasoning is reasoning in which premises are viewed as a way of providing strong evidence for the veracity of a conclusion. While the conclusion of an inductive argument is certain, the truth of that conclusion in an inductive argument is probable, based on the evidence provided.

Many sources can define the inductive method as one in which general principles are derived from specific observations.

In this method, broad generalizations are made from specific observations, so it can be said that it goes from the specific to the general. Many observations are made, a pattern is perceived, a generalization is made, and an explanation or theory is inferred.

This method is also used in the scientific method; scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply theories or assumptions to specific situations. An example of deductive reasoning might be the following:

All known biological life forms depend on liquid water to exist. Therefore, if we discover a new form of biological life it will depend on liquid water to exist.

This argument could be made every time a biological life form is found and it would be correct. However, it would be possible that in the future a biological life form would be found that does not require liquid water.

Types of inductive reasoning

- Generalization

Generalization comes from a premise about a sample from which a conclusion about a population is reached.

For example, let's say there are 20 balls, which can be black or white, in a jar. To estimate their number, a sample of four balls is drawn - three are black and one is white. If we use inductive generalization, we could conclude that there are 15 black balls and five white balls in the jar.

This premise has a bias since you are taking a small sample from a larger population.

Examples of generalization

• I visited Scotland and I didn't like it. I sure don't like the rest of the UK.
• I met a wealthy woman, she's pretty shallow. Surely all wealthy women are superficial.
• Yesterday Juan met his sister-in-law and did not like her. He is sure to dislike his whole girlfriend's family.
• I read a book by Mario Benedetti that I loved. I'm going to buy all your books because I'm sure I'm going to love them.
• Andrés lives in a poor neighborhood and is very cheerful. This means that all the people who live in poor neighborhoods are very happy.
• Yesterday I met a very interesting blue-eyed woman. I think all blue-eyed women must be quite interesting.
• In France, several Muslims have been found who are religious fanatics. Therefore, all Muslims must be religious fanatics.

- Statistical syllogism

The statistical syllogism originates from a generalization to a conclusion about an individual. For example:

• A proportion Q of the population P has an attribute A.
• An individual X is a member of P.

Therefore, there is a probability corresponding to Q that X has A.

Examples of statistical syllogism

1. Most farm workers have the flu.
2. Juan is a farm worker.
3. Juan is likely to have the flu.

1. No woman can breathe underwater.
2. Divers breathe underwater.
3. No diver is a woman.

1. All cats sleep.
2. All men sleep.
3. All men are cats.

1. 50% of the philosophers are Greek.
2. Emiliano was a philosopher.
3. There is a 50% chance that Emiliano is Greek.

1. Generally people eat chocolate ice cream.
2. I am a person.
3. I usually eat chocolate ice cream.

1. The girls play in the schoolyard with dolls.
2. My daughter is a girl.
3. My daughter will play dolls in the yard.

- Simple induction

It comes from a premise of a small sample to a conclusion about another individual:

• A proportion Q of the known population P has an attribute A.
• Individual I is a member of P.

Therefore there is a probability corresponding to Q that I has A.

Examples of simple induction

• Yesterday my brother came to visit and my father bought ham. Today my brother came to visit and my father bought chorizo. So if my brother comes to visit tomorrow, my father will buy some sausage.
• My mother gave me a pair of earrings and I missed one. My cousin gave me another pair of earrings and I missed one. My boyfriend gave me one more pair of earrings and I missed one. I induce that every time I get a pair of earrings, I lose one.
• Yesterday they visited us and my mother cleaned the room. Today another visitor comes and my mother is cleaning it again. This means that, whenever a visitor comes to the house, my mother cleans the room.
• On Monday Andrea did not have to work and woke up late. Yesterday she had the day off, and woke up late. On Sunday she didn't have to work either, and again she woke up late. I induce that on the days that Andrea doesn't have to go to work, she wakes up late.

- Argument from analogy

This process involves taking into account the shared properties of one or more things and from there inferring that they share other properties as well. So:

• P and Q are similar with respect to properties a, b, and c.
• The object P has been observed to have a property x.
• So Q probably has property x as well.

Examples of argument from analogy

• Horseshoe is to horse what shoe to human.
• Wool is to the sheep, what milk is to the cow.
• A driver is to a bus, what a pilot is to an airplane.
• The radio is to listen, as the newspaper is to read.
• Sleep to sleep, as hunger is to eat.
• Tears are to sadness, what laughter is to joy.
• Going to bed is like sitting on the couch.
• Cold is hot, as darkness is light.
• Bee is to hive, as ant is to colony.
• France is to wine, what Colombia is to coffee.
• Fin is to dolphin, what hand is to human.
• Colombia is to Bogotá, as Argentina is to Buenos Aires.
• Soap is to clean, as dirt is to dirt.
• Gloves are for hands, as stockings are for feet.

- Casual inference

A casual inference draws a conclusion about a causal connection based on the conditions of the existence of an effect.

Premises about the correlation of two things may indicate a causal relationship between them, but other factors must be established to be confirmed.

Examples of causal inference

• An investigation carried out in several schools in Spain observed that the students who obtained the best marks in computing were of Moroccan origin. Thus, it was concluded that having Moroccan origins was a causal factor for obtaining better IT certificates.
• In an investigation on alcoholism it is observed that the five study subjects have very different life circumstances. However, all of them saw how their parents or stepparents drank repeatedly in front of them. For this reason, researchers conclude that seeing the father figure drink frequently is a causal factor of alcoholism in adult men.
• A study on fidelity between couples looked at 10 couples (including homosexuals and heterosexuals) with different backgrounds and life histories. Some individuals in the study grew up in the homes of divorced parents or witnessed their infidelity. Those who had been unfaithful to their partner had grown up in homes where infidelity had no place. The study concluded that seeing parental infidelity is not a causal factor for infidelity in children.

- Prediction

A conclusion about an individual future is made from a past sample.

Prediction examples

1. Every time Juan is reunited with his family, he has a great time.
2. Juan will meet his family today
3. So, you will have a great time.

1. Health workers are contracting a highly contagious flu.
2. My girlfriend is a nurse.
3. So I'm going to get the flu.

1. Ana was unfaithful to her husband when he was traveling.
2. Ana's husband is away.
3. For this reason, Ana will be unfaithful.

1. When I went to Paris, I found it beautiful.
2. Tomorrow I'm going to Paris.
3. It will seem beautiful to me.

1. My brother invested in stocks and made a lot of money.
2. Today I am going to invest in stocks.
3. Consequently, I will earn a lot of money.

1. When I go to that restaurant, I eat a lot.
2. Tomorrow we go to that restaurant.
3. I am going to eat a lot.

Differences with deductive method

In a deduction, you start with a general argument or hypothesis and examine the possibilities for reaching a specific and logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories.

An example of a deductive argument is as follows:

• All men are mortal.
• Individual x is a man.

Therefore, individual x is mortal.

The main difference between the two methods is the research approach. While the deductive method is geared toward testing theories, the inductive method is more geared toward creating new theories that emerge from data or information.

Generally, the inductive method is associated with qualitative information since it is usually subject to subjectivity, it is more open, it is inductive, it is more process oriented, it is comparative and the description is narrative.

For its part, the deductive method is usually associated with quantitative research methods, such as deduction, objectivity, numerical estimation, and statistical interference. It is also usually more result-oriented.

References

1. Deduction & Induction. (2006) Foundations. Recovered from socialresearchmethods.net.
2. Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning (2015) Culture. Recovered from livescience.com.
3. Inductive and deductive approaches to research (2013) Recovered from deborahgabriel.com.
4. Inductive Approach (Inductive Reasoning) Recovered from research-methology.net.
5. Deductive Approach (Deductive Reasoning) Retrieved from research-methology.net.
6. Deductive reasoning. Recovered from Wikipedia.org.
7. Inductive reasoning. Recovered from Wikipedia.org.