Is it not true that any argument that is expressed inductively can also be expressed deductively?
Isn't the difference here simply where an individual is in the process?
When going from the specific observation to the more general are we using induction while in the next step, testing the general statement against specifics, are we using deduction?
Aren't both forms of reasoning necessary, induction in going from the initial observation to formulating a general rule, and deduction in then testing and verifying that rule?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
