Instructions:
Please respond to at least 2 other students. Responses should be a minimum of 200 words and include direct questions.
Responses Due: Sunday, by 11:55pm ET
Timsmoke,
I really appreciated your succinct and organized post for this week’s topics. I think that you have clearly identified the methodology behind both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. In researching this week’s topics, I was surprised to find that there is a real debate over some of the terms used to describe deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. While it is hard to argue against your suppositions and term descriptions, I would quibble with one or two words. Flick argued that inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are both stages of research (2014, p. 123). In essence, with inductive reasoning there is an observation, which could be considered as factual or truthful, and with deductive reasoning there is a generally factual or truthful premise that serves as the starting point. So, a researcher or an analyst would always begin with a factual or truthful starting point. This does not mean that after research or analysis the observation or premise will remain factual, only that the observation or premise is thought to be factual (Flick, 2014, p. 124). To me this makes sense, does it make sense to you? I think that my point is, that the researcher or analyst needs some grounding before research or analysis begins. What do you think? Does this change what you thought of inductive and deductive reasoning, or am I out on a limb here?
Otherwise, there is no doubt that predictive analysis, a form of inductive reasoning, is probably the most important analysis performed throughout the homeland security apparatus. I would tend to agree that the collection of patterns and understanding their meaning to help envisage future activity for interdiction is probably the most important activity. This approach may not always be perfect, but it as close to a crystal ball as we can get!
Thanks!
References
Flick, U. (2014). Induction, deduction, abduction. In Flick, U. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 123-135). London, : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446282243.n9 – See more at: http://methods.sagepub.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/book/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-analysis/n9.xml#sthash.cyiCglrZ.dpuf
Please describe the difference between induction and deduction.
Deductive logic is extremely valuable for generating research hypotheses and testing theories (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, pp. 31-2). Deductive reasoning begins with a statement or an assumption that is self-evident. From the original theory one forms a hypothesis and then conducts observations in order to prove the original theory correct. The scientific method is able to use deductive reasoning to test hypothesis and theories.
Inductive reasoning is the exact opposite of deductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning observations precede the hypothesis or theory. In inductive reasoning observations will be made of specific events. Patterns that occur while these events take place and from the data recorded a theory will be formed on why the specific patterns occurred.
Which approach to reasoning, in your opinion, is the “highest” form of homeland security analysis and why?
I believe that Inductive reasoning is the preferred form of analysis in regards to homeland security. When trying to prevent a negative occurrence from taking place I would rather base my theory off patterns that have taken place during actual events opposed acting on an assumption.
Reference
Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical Research Planning and Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
