The Paradox of Induction

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. It is uncertain and operates in degrees to which the conclusions are credible. As such, inductive arguments can be weak or strong, rather than valid or invalid, and conclusions can be used to formulate testable, falsifiable hypotheses.
Inductive reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist makes observations and records them. This data can be qualitative or...

Mathematical induction is a structured method of proof used to confirm the truth of statements involving natural numbers. Consider the sum of the first n natural numbers:This formula describes a pattern that appears to hold true as more terms are added. To verify that it is valid for all natural numbers, mathematical induction proceeds in two essential steps. The first is the base case, where the formula is tested for the initial value, typically n = 1. Substituting into both sides confirms the...

An emf is induced when the magnetic field in a coil is changed by pushing a bar magnet into or out of the coil. emfs of opposite signs are produced by motion in opposite directions, and the directions of emfs are also reversed by reversing poles. The same results are produced if the coil is moved rather than the magnet—it is the relative motion that is important. The faster the motion, the greater the emf. Additionally, there is no emf when the magnet is stationary relative to the coil.
A...

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning, which means that it uses a general principle or law to predict specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can deduce and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid.
For example, a researcher can deduce specific predictions...

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now? 

While variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest. For instance, as sales in ice cream increase, so does the overall rate of crime. Is it possible that indulging in your favorite flavor of ice cream could send you on a crime spree? Or, after committing crime do you think you might decide to treat yourself to a cone?