Epistemic reasoning. This is entirely different from inductive reasoning,

Epistemic Valuation Within the Sciences Within the field of science, there are two approaches to epistemic valuation, which are processes used to hold value to a certain knowledge or argument. The two approaches to epistemic valuation, deductive and inductive reasoning, are sometimes not well understood or differentiated, leading to confusion when attempting to determine one from the other. In reality, most arguments involve the combination of both induction and deduction, but the two are fundamentally different. A deductive argument should be the main system of epistemic valuation used in the sciences for determining the value of a knowledge or argument. This is because the functional definition states that premises must be facts or general principles, the deduction is more likely to produce a consistent and accurate result within these premises, and the process provides a structure that produces a specific conclusion from a general question. Deductive reasoning is based upon premises that are stated as facts and general principles, which serve as the base of an argument, theory, or reasoning. Often referred to as top-down logic, it is a thought process in which principles guide individuals as they approach and handle familiar and unfamiliar phenomenon alike. These proposals “call for practical decisions and practical arguments rather than for theoretical reasons or evidence”(Creath). Due to the fact-heavy portion of deductive reasoning, this method is the more challenging of the two to utilize, especially in problems involving logic. To use deductive reasoning, one needs facts that are definitely true across all the premises, greatly increasing the validity of deductive reasoning. This is entirely different from inductive reasoning, which is based upon premises that are made from observations and experiences of specific cases. Often understood as bottom-up logic, the process is largely personally guided, as only the individual who experienced or observed a phenomenon would be able to come to a conclusion about it. In simpler words, inductive reasoning “cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense-although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the ‘result of observation'”(Popper). Evidence is used to support the argument instead of facts, portraying inductive processes to have less validity than deductive reasoning when approaching premises of a thought or argument. Deductive reasoning is, in its bare bones, a form of reasoning which “conserves truth”. This proposes that a deduction begins by introducing a question, one which shall be answered by the end of the deductive process. Then, in order to provide an answer to the introduced question, necessary background research is completed to gain a sufficient understanding of the topic. Here, a hypothesis, a prediction made from limited prior observation is created, providing a starting point for possible further investigation and experimentation. The formulated hypothesis is then put into testing, the results examined in afterwards to identify possibilities of a specific, logical conclusion. Based on this conclusion, the proposed hypothesis is either proven to be true or false within the original premises. As for the premises to be true and its conclusion to be false would be considered inconsistent, the steps provide the reasoning for denying situations which make all the premises true and the conclusion false. This approach is distinctly comparable to inductive reasoning, which may provide a single observable reasoning out of possible many reasons. The process of inductive reasoning makes broad and general statements from specific observations. It begins with a specific conclusion drawn from data, producing generalized theories throughout the process. Here, many observations are made, a pattern is identified, and after a large generalization, a theory to the reason it occurred is inferred. A scientific theory “should be consistent, not only internally or with itself, but also with other currently accepted theories applicable to related aspects of nature”(Kuhn). In the scientific world, consistency and guarantees are greatly important within data collection as it validates a method of approach as effective, therefore deductive reasoning is again of higher-caliber within the sciences. Within deductive reasoning, the conclusion reached within the given premises is more special and specific than the information provided by the premises. This is the result when logical rules are directly applied to the premises, which yield consistent results in practice. This aspect of deductive reasoning is comparable to inductive reasoning once again, where the conclusion reached from the premises is more general than the information it provides. As the conclusion is reached by generalizing the premises’ information, this is an unavoidable difference between the two approaches to epistemic valuation. “A theory’s consequences should extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or subtheories it was initially designed to explain”(Kuhn). The field of science, no matter what field it may be, is always looking for definite answers which constantly hold true within the given premises. Deductive reasoning, rather than inductive reasoning, is the approach which satisfies this scientific requirement better.In order to formulate proper logic, the meaning and idea behind both deductive and inductive reasoning should be acknowledged and understood well. Although most arguments in the sciences involve the combination of both induction and deduction, the idea of value and which pieces of knowledge to consider to be important can vary from person to person. Deductive reasoning is based on premises that must be facts or general principles, produces consistent results within these premises, and provides a structure that produces a specific conclusion from a generalized question. This lays down a scientific guideline on value that is not solely based on varying experience and is instead, consistent. Deductive reasoning, therefore, should be the main system of epistemic valuation used in the sciences for determining the value of a knowledge or argument.