Inductive vs Deductive Reasoning

|

Read Full Description |

Inductive Vs Deductive Reasoning|

The difference between inductive and deductive reasoning begins with the premise. Inductive reasoning starts with some sort of observation that cues the analyst into categorizing the event. After observing a pattern happen several times, the analyst will automatically fill in the conclusion when they see the event cycle starting. This type of reasoning will trigger the cliché, “Jumping to conclusions.” Deductive reasoning is much like stereotyping. There is a blanket statement in the premise that guides the rest of the conclusion. It tends to be more accurate than inductive reasoning but can be a fallacy in reasoning.

Two examples of inductive reasoning could be tied together when we kept our assault on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan a secret. Previously observing missions that Pakistan knew about; the U.S. knew that there are serious leaks in the Pakistan government. We also knew that because of the powerful figurehead that Osama was -- a leak was inevitable. So by observing past missions that were leaked we inductively reasoned that if we completed confided in the Pakistan government that this mission would be leaked as well and OBL would escape and our mission will fail. The second part of our inductive reasoning was that the Pakistan government has been known to deny permissions and resources to the U.S. when operating on PK soil. Again, we kept it a secret so the PK government will not object based on the principle of sovereign space.

The analysts on my team noted a recurring event during one of my SIGINT oversight missions. Tracked vessels entering a specific dockyard would receive an electronics upgrade to their radar systems. Every time over the course of a few months a vessel entered, it would come out a little while later with the differences. Through deductive reasoning we concluded that every vessel entering would receive the upgrade. We were right for the longest time but...