| Sumario: | A basic topic that is often included in introduction courses and manuals to logic is the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning. The common characterization that maintains that inductive reasoning is that which goes from the particular to the general, and vice versa for deductive reasoning, presents enough problems to justify its abandonment. However, there is no unanimously accepted stance as to how each type of reasoning should be characterized, and as a consequence, taught. Here we propose and defend a plausible characterization of inductive reasoning that has the advantage of adequately perceiving the typical cases of inductive reasoning. Another benefit is that this proposal provides a unified treatment of different kinds of examples that facilitates its understanding and teaching. With regard to deductive reasoning, we reexamine a very plausible known characterization and point out some of its (conceptual and didactic) advantages over other common characterizations.
|
|---|
