Please describe the difference between induction and deduction. Which approach to reasoning, in your opinion, is the “highest” form of homeland security analysis and why?
To earn maximum points for this forum, you will need to thoughtfully and critically engage at least two of your fellow students. This means challenging, refuting, extending an idea, taking a new line of reasoning, for example. To earn points, you need to add value with each posting. Postings that amount to nothing more than “I agree” or a restatement of what someone else said will not earn points. There is plenty to talk about on this topic.
Instructions: YOUR POST SHOULD BE 300 WORDS AND REFLECT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WEEK’S MATERIAL. YOU SHOULD RESPOND TO TWO CLASSMATES. EACH RESPONSE SHOULD BE 150 WORDS AND CONTAIN DIRECT QUESTIONS WHICH ARE MEANT TO STIMULATE DISCUSSION.
In this week’s forum we are to explain and compare deductive and inductive reasoning in terms of homeland security reasoning. I figured I would start out by using the definitions for the lesson.
Deductive logic begins with one or more premises. Premises are “statements or assumptions that are self-evident and widely accepted truths”. This type of reasoning applies general rules to particular cases.
In laymen’s terms as it applies to DHS, the deductive logic is using an accepted knowledge to create a theory of an outcome without actually observing the event yet. Developing a theory first and then attempting to confirm the theory can lead to a lot of chasing loose ends. With all of the threats that are known about, DHS has lots to look out for without creating “possible” threats.
Inductive reasoning begins, not with an established truth or premise, but with an observation. In inductive reasoning, people use observations of specific events to draw conclusions. In induction, observation precedes theory. The researcher observes an event of interest and records those observations. After a study of his observations, the researcher notices a pattern or regularity in the data and develops a theory to explain why the pattern has occurred.
To me inductive reasoning is a much more tangible method of creating theory. We use patterns regularly to develop strategies and attack and defense plans. Movements of people and equipment is an example of a pattern one may observe before an attack is carried out. The military uses after action reports to adjust battle plans for later operations which can give you the upper hand when facing the same enemy in the next encounter.
While there is always a time and place for what ifs and the thought of endless possible outcomes or worst-case scenarios, using actual factual data from events that have happened, to me, is the much more reliable method of reasoning.
I am interested to see what the class has to say on this topic. Have a great weekend!
Good evening class,
In this weeks lesson we learned about inductive and deductive reasoning. If someone has a question that they are trying to answer, when they are using the knowledge that they know to be true, they can come up with an answer that is for sure. The answer is consistent and will not change. This is the type of reasoning someone would us for a math class. They can “deduce” the math problem because it is true or known. It would be like steps are laid out for you. Step one happens then step two happens, then three and four. Well if one and two happen, we can deduce that four will happen.
When it comes to inductive reasoning when answering a question, the individuals trying to figure out the problem will look at the pattern that has taken place and will use that information to come up with answers that they “think” will happen. I could see this type of reasoning when it comes to predicting the weather forecast. It could also be used in most sciences.
When it comes to Homeland Security, I think that depending on the field you get into, one may use both deductive and inductive reasoning. For the most part though, I believe that inductive reasoning is the higher form of reasoning technique because everything that has happened in the past creates some sort of pattern. We must take these patterns and basically pin point where or what we think will happen next. If we could read the future we wouldn’t need inductive reasoning. Even though I believe inductive reasoning is the higher of the two, you will still use some deductive reasoning as well. Say someone was trying to track down where money came from. If it is not fake money and going through legal accounts, then it can be deduced where it originated from. Detectives use inductive reasoning when it comes to figuring out where and when a crime will be taking place. However, we all need to get used to using both techniques to adapt to the current situation or problem that we are facing.