Deductive inductivity?

I guess that everyone was at least once thinking about how scientists formulate a theory or a statement based on the experiments they've carried out. Or maybe it's the other way round - they formulate a principle and then try to prove it right? Is their method inductive or deductive and what's actually the difference between those two?

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories.

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false.  

Here is an example of deductive reasoning:

"All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

Here is an example of inductive reasoning:

"Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements. Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false.

  

It's not hard to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning, especially if we have some funny examples! Deductive reasoning plays a role in testing hypotheses and theories and allows one to apply the theories to specific situations. Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories.

Anger rules the world

Chris Taylor was an ordinary student. He believed in patriotism and wanted to serve his country in the noblest way he thought he could. He volunteered for the war in Vietnam considering it his patriotic duty. Soon after he arrived in the combat zone, he was told "You don't belong here". 

  

"Platoon" shows war from its dark side. In life-threatening situations we forget about our reason and make decisions based on emotions like fear, anger or sadness. In this film many scenes prove this statement right. Once Taylor finds a disabled young man and an elderly woman hiding in a spider hole. Taylor snaps, screaming and threatening the man, but is shocked to see Bunny (another soldier) bludgeon him to death. What made Bunny do that? Maybe it's normal to get rid of hard emotions in such way during the war? Accumulated fear and stress that soldiers have to deal with every day eventually found a vent. 

Not much later, Barnes interrogates the village chief to determine if they have been aiding the NVA. Despite the villagers' adamant denials and although Lerner also agrees that they are telling the truth, Barnes shoots and kills the chief's wife. Barnes then threatens to shoot the child of the woman, if the villagers do not reveal information.

The human life seems to be worthless in the film. Who's got power and no scruples can decide who'll stay alive. Emotions play the most important role and reason's been forgotten.

Hearty fighter's reasoning problems

The process of making decisions is very complex. We want to make the best possible decision and that's why we often hesitate during this process. But what makes us choose one thing instead of another? How helpful is here logical thinking? Is it helpful at all?

I had to deal with these questions and tried to find an answer. When do I decide to do something because I feel it's right and when do I listen to reason?

Decisions based on emotions are usually spontaneous caused by our reaction to something that just happened. Emotions sometimes make us do things we later regret and wish we listened to our reason. In this way emotions make us irrational and it's possible that they may influence negatively our long-term interests. On the other hand, they don't allow us to think something over, so we act before we get stressed or threatened which is helpful in some situations (for example if we want to start a conversation with a beautiful stranger). 

Reason always searches for the most appropriate (optimal) solution based on facts and their most possible impact on us. It takes into account both advantages and downsides. It makes a kind of a calculation of positive and negative influence and helps us choose the best option. However, it takes time to make a decision based on reason and it also happens that despite long and complicated thinking process we haven't chosen the right way. 

 

That's why it's vital to reconcile emotions and reason. It may seem impossible, but although they can't work together, their mixing gives us the highest probability of the right choice. For example negative emotions can improve decisions involving risk.