#inductive reasoning

[medsocionwheels]

Sociological Theory and the Canon

It's Sociology Sunday! Today we're talking theory.

What is sociological theory?

Sociological theory is a set of interrelated ideas that allow for the (1) systematization of knowledge of the social world (2) the explanation of that world, and (3) predictions about the future of that world, and which are falsifiable through empirical research.

Theory provides a possible answer to questions like, “why did this happen?” or, “why did they do that?” This means theory is speculation, not fact, but unlike “ideas” generally, theory is speculation driven by a more formal, systematic, process, which incorporates the work of previous theorists and research findings.

The Sociological Canon

Some theories are more popular than others. Some theories, while unpopular, are considered “pivotal” to the foundation of sociology. The “sociological canon” helps us identify the “popular” and “pivotal” theories.

The sociological canon is defined as the theories, ideas, and texts that are widely considered as the most important in the field of sociology (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2018) 

“I’m not a regular mom theory, I’m a cool mom theory!”

The canonized theories are sort of like the “cool mom” in Mean Girls (oshowing my age here, the original 😘) – others exist, but these are the ones we tend to think of first when we think of “the mom in Mean Girls” (or, in this case, “sociological theory”).

Critics of the canon argue that the canon is not a neutral construction; rather, it is affected by power and the politics of the theory. To some degree, they are right.

The field of sociology has historically privileged theories that have testable hypotheses, known as “positivist” theories, and theories produced by white men faculty. In this, we can see that the canon, and relatedly, the field of sociology,  have tended to reflect power structures in society more broadly. Which means that, yes, technically the canon is full of theories created by old white dude philosophers in Europe in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Nowadays, though, most sociologists agree that the canon includes much more than Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. 

Meaning the canon is now considered to  include theories from other classical theorists writing during the same time as Mark/Weber/Durkheim, like W.E.B. DuBois and Ida B. Wells. The canon has also expanded in the last 40 or so years to include contemporary theories, such as emancipatory, feminist, and queer theories. These expansions were important steps towards accounting for the reality of the field as it presently exists, and to correctly reflect the field’s foundations which expand far beyond whiteness, masculinity, and western imperial culture. Presently, women make up the (quantitative) majority of sociology faculty, and while this women majority was historically white, the number of women, including and especially women of color, in sociology continues to grow, substantially outpacing white men. 

Sociological Theory and Empirical Research

Empirical research is rooted in theory.

Sometimes these theories are the driving force behind research, constituting the research question for an empirical study. You begin with the possible answer to the question, the theory, and you investigate to see if it holds up–your results may call into question some or all of the theory’s propositions. This is called “deductive reasoning.”

Theory is not always the starting point of research, though. Sometimes theory is generated from research. This process is called “inductive reasoning.” In this case, you begin with observations, draw conclusions, and from those conclusions, generate new ideas about the social world. 

Deductive reasoning is often linked with quantitative research. Quantitative researchers usually have some idea of theory before forming their research question, and some quantitative research is constructed with the goal of testing (falsifying) theoretical propositions.  Qualitative research, in contrast, often uses inductive reasoning, beginning with observation and developing theory as part of the study’s conclusions. This is not always the case with qualitative research, though. One approach to creating contemporary sociological theory assumes the “best” theory is constructed via inductive reasoning, and thus, begins with observation, absent of pre-existing ideas. This is known as a “grounded theory” approach, because it produces theory that is “grounded” in observation of tangible facts instead of based upon pre-existing abstract ideas. The sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss are often credited with popularizing the “grounded theory” approach, which they outlined in their 1967 book “The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research”.

Other approaches to qualitative research, like content analysis, may start with theory or observations.

Summary:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Dr. Heather Sue M. Rosen (@medsocionwheels)

Watch full lecture:

[ijustsmackedmynewtattoo]

Logical Reasoning

I should have made this a looooong time ago but I didn’t so we’re doing it now. Welcome to the different types of logical reasoning. 

Deductive Reasoning

This is a general principle applied to a specific conclusion. This is cause to effect reasoning using fact, rules, and definitions so that your conclusion must be true. This one takes a lot more thought and practice overall but the payoff is consistent correctness. Think math, if you’re doing the right formula your answer will always be correct.

Inductive Reasoning

This is the type of deduction or logical reasoning Sherlock actually uses. This is observation xyz are used to assume a general conclusion, the reversal of deductive reasoning. Your answer is probably true but there’s always outliers and inconsistencies. I you’re looking for fast and easy day to day ways to play ball this is what you and your favorite deductionists are using. 

Abductive Reasoning

Much bad. Abductive reasoning uses an incomplete observation to draw a best prediction of the situation. In other words its an assumption that might be true but might not and the type of reasoning s lot of beginner’s fall victim to.

Thanks for reading the blurb

-Graham

[sleuth2k7]

hot take: deduction is sort of a pseudoscience. 1/?

[important vocab lesson: deduction = that thing Sherlock Holmes does]

I have many, many thoughts on how (and why) deduction is framed a specific way in the deduction community, and how that framing both gatekeeps and misses the point of what deduction actually involves. For now though, I want to start with an idea that I’ve been considering since I was introduced to the concept of “ways of knowing” a few months ago.

I’ll preface my explanation with this: In this context, pseudoscience doesn’t equal fake/not reliable. Deduction is a real thing that people can (and have!) learned to do. But - my idea here is that viewing it as a pseudoscience (specifically ordinary human inquiry) is a useful way to think about deduction.

Now, the “ways of knowing” concept that I mentioned:

There are lots of ways that we “know things.” These “ways of knowing” can be loosely divided into three categories.

1. Scientific - this is the scientific method, which can be done through:

deductive reasoning: theory, hypothesis, observations, generalizations

inductive reasoning: observations, generalizations, theory, hypothesis

Sherlock Holmes’ deduction is inductive reasoning, yes? So while deduction follows a scientific method structure, deduction is a lot more layered and in the moment than scientists in a lab, or researchers conducting a study, who are focusing on a small piece of a larger puzzle. A social scientist might be observing in a coffee shop to determine what ages order various drinks, while a deductionist could sit in the same coffee shop and work on developing entire profiles of people - deductionists do not (and cannot) spend months on finding and analyzing one piece of the puzzle. Deductionists find the pieces and construct the puzzle on the spot. It’s improv, not a research study. Thus why I hesitate to place deduction 100% into this first “way of knowing,” since it is looser and not as definite. 

2. Non-scientific - this includes learning from personal experience, common sense, ideologies, and the media.

Personal experience and common sense, while not scientific, play a role in deduction, though neither should ever be the primary factor fueling your deductions.

3. Pseudoscience - this includes tradition & authority, and ordinary human inquiry. 

Tradition and authority can provide a deductionist with contextual information that would be helpful in making deductions, though what I want to focus on here is ordinary human inquiry. 

There are a few “limits” to ordinary human inquiry - and these limits are why I made the connection to deduction when I learned about this “ways of knowing” framework.

Limits: inaccurate observations, overgeneralizations, selective observations, and illogical reasoning. 

If someone who doesn’t know anything about deduction goes out into the wild and tries to “figure things out” about someone, the list above outlines the sorts of mistakes they will definitely make. Deduction, however, is all about observing well, not generalizing or jumping to conclusions, and using logical reasoning. 

In conclusion: deduction is the act of trying to become less shit at ordinary human inquiry (because as humans, we start out as shit at it - that’s why it’s considered a pseudoscience). 

Can a deductionist become so good at avoiding the limits of ordinary human inquiry that it is no longer a pseudoscience? I don’t think so!

Those four things can always happen to a deductionist, no matter how good you are. Thus why, while deduction dabbles in all three “ways of knowing,” it is for the most part ordinary human inquiry.

Now, I did mention that viewing deduction this way is useful - why?

Well, you have a framework of what to work on now:

1. In terms of observations, you want to avoid inaccurate observations, and selective observations. Observing well is a priority - step one to becoming a deductionist, to be honest, as observations are the base for deductions. 

2. Generalizations are useful in deduction, but only to a point. It’s important to keep in mind that there are exceptions to everything, and generalizations are not definite. Context is also vital when generalizing. 

3. While I dislike the idea that deduction is pure logic, your reasoning does need to be logically sound. So: what causes illogical reasoning? Lots of things, but the most relevant one here is bias - we are all are own unique combination of biases. One of the biggest hurdles in learning deduction is ignoring those biases as much as you can.

Final note: The idea that deduction falls into the pseudoscience “ordinary human inquiry” is a theory of mine (and part of my own personal framework of deduction). I am in no way saying that these are set in stone facts and that I am Right. Looking at deduction (especially the learning of deduction) through this lens is just neat! 

[easynotes4u]

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning - Syllogism, Analogical, Statistical & Casual Reasoning

In this article we will discuss about various types of deductive and Inductive reasoning such as Syllogism, Analogical, Statistical & Casual Reasoning. DEDUCTIVE REASONING Deductive reasoning is a simple form of arriving at a conclusion by joining two or more pieces of information. It is a process of logical reasoning which processes two or more premises to arrive at a logical conclusion.…

[asprngdeductionist]

The 3 types of reasoning

The 3 types of reasoning we use daily are abductive, inductive and you guessed it, Deductive reasoning. The latter I know the most about. We'll go from least, to most likely getting a conclusion.

Abductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning is the easiest type of reasoning to master. Ab generally means something not according to rules being abnormal. basically, abductive reasoning is trying your best to get a conclusion. Gathering information, and then just getting a conclusion. That easy. You're defienetely not guaranteed to get a conclusion.

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning is following some more rules then abductive reasoning. It's basically everyday doing. I used this to gather information and basically know things for a long time. You learn lenguages with this type of reasoning. It's observing and notiring patters and such. One of my teachers actually said that I'm good in this form of reasoning. This is basically how I study. Also it's basically just a syllogism. it can be false.

Deductive reasoning

Do I really have to explain? Allringt. Deduction is the only type of reasoning that guarantees a conclusion. It takes two premises and makes a conclusion. Basically:

If x = 4 And if y = 1 Then 2x + y = 9

Algebra pretty much sums it up.

This is a tublr exclusive post, so enjoy. Until then...

Happy deducing!

[philosophybits]

Animals are not guided in [causal] inferences by reasoning: Neither are children: Neither are the generality of mankind, in their ordinary actions and conclusions: Neither are philosophers themselves, who, in all the active parts of life, are, in the main, the same with the vulgar, and are governed by the same maxims.

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

[basementstalker]

須賀るか This guy is the culprit.

"No one accepted your chocolate? ... I see. Of course I'll accept it. Isn't it obvious? It's because I'm the only one who loves you."

[redbean-nom]

watched the first 2 episodes of acolyte and so far i like every character except for the main one lol. (also is her name osha as in occupational safety and health administration??)

[satansfavoritedyke]

I'm convinced the human brain's downright obsession with inventing binary systems based on loose behavioral patterns and the result of using it to control other people around them, is due to the fact that like 70-77% of the total population just can't ever hold more than 2 concepts in their head simultaneously & remain passably operable

[lonesomedotmp3]

love philosophy when it's just shooting the shit about some random crap nobody cares about. when it borders on the scientific? the mathematic? let's all kill ourselves.

[dutybcrne]

Kaeya for certain would never want to change his surname. It is one of his few remaining ties with his family and heritage, and thus is very precious to him. A significant other who is willing to take it as their own, esp someone who doesn’t have a surname as is, is genuinely so important to him.

[guinevereslancelot]

i bought an oven yesterday 😐

[meadow-dusk]

Led Zeppelin with Neil Young | Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony ©️ Kevin Mazur, 1995

[canthaveshitingotham]

ze has such cool concepts for death games i wish i cared about the characters and plot more or at all wanted to attempt the gameplay

[philosophybits]

All inferences from experience are effects of custom, not of reasoning.

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

[journey-to-the-attic]

Random Au idea I had while watching JoJo P5.... you know how the Boss of the mafia is called Diavolo?

Basically Ik is just a normal schoolkid who helps an injured man on her way home. Little does she know the man happens to be Lucifer, one of the leaders who runs the gang controlling the local area, who now owes her his life and will repay his debt as such

In the process he accidentally gets attached and so does the rest of his brothers, oops. Now the gang's all trying to make sure she doesn't get got by their enemies while also trying their best to keep the whole mafia thing a secret (also she's lowkey reforming them without even trying)

oooo this is a cool idea!! (also when i first started playing obey me i spent the first two months thinking of the jojo character EVERY time i saw diavolo, so this au definitely hits home for me)

so i guess diavolo is the... well, diavolo of this situation, the Big Boss of the whole operation, and lucifer is bucciarati, leader of a secondary team within the organisation... maybe the angels could be a rival gang, and the brothers got ousted (and defected to diavolo's side as a result)

it'd be funny if relations are SUPER tense between them on any given day, like one-misstep-from-getting-stabbed levels of bad blood, but as soon as ik shows up there's just a mutual "everyone shut the fuck up and act natural" moment

she shows up while the lucifer's gang is having a stand-off with simeon's and the brothers are all immediately like "SHSHHHSHHHHH. DON'T TELL HER" and simeon just nods and immediately is like "oh what a completely innocent gathering of friends this is! lucifer my friend how nice it is to see you again! i love being normal and hanging out with my friends!!!!"