EBTX makes a point. Thanks Larry, for this explanation. I want to repeat it...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In deductive logic you begin with a set of assumptions (postulates) and reason forward to whatever they require. Mostly this leads to things that don't match reality, at which point you abandon the reasoning and start over with a new set of assumnptions.
With inductive logic you start with a current observation and reason backwards, trying to guess what might have resulted in the observed phenominon. It is fairly easy to come up with a reasonable answer using this approach, and that is its primary weakness. It is so easy to find an answer that if you don't stop with the first one you think of, you can find another. And another, and so on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the two were looked at as if they formed a system, then each would be like opposite sides of a coin. And if they are a system, then there is a relationship between them. Emergence is a primary characteristic of a system, imposes constraints on how and when we begin our logic. For example, if sub-elements form emergent wholes having unforsen properties, it would be impossible to reason using inductive logic, and expect to come up with the right answer. With deductive logic, the emergent wholes are seen as natural consequences.
Biologist/systemist Bertalanffy thought of the search for knowledge as an inquiry, and he proposed that the study be found first in the philosophy, and then the science and tehn the techology. This has been accepted by the ISSS Primer group, and adapted to include Praxis as the fourth domain. The process is recursive, in that the fundamental begins with philosophy, and ends with action, knowledge of the action is fed back to the beginning adjusting ti to produce the desired outcome. It goes from the general to the specific to the methodology to the application. These can be integrated as knowledge and being. And those could integrate as Becoming.
As far as deductive and inductive, which my mind wants to reverse, I can see a problem in the logic. Granting emergents, and likening these emergents to "bridge crossings, I can see where deductive reasoning would not be able to tell where a bridge crossing was to be made. Whereas with inductive reasoning, the bridge crossing are obvious when they are come upon.
So maybe we need deduction to set the goal and induction to find the way to the goal. To use deduction for both goal and means is a conflict of interest.
