Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie

SDB is back to flogging atheism, this time within the framework of explaining the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

I was glad to see SDB avoid a very common error in defining the two kinds of logic: the idea that deductive reasoning proceeds from general premises to specific conclusions, while inductive reasoning involves general conclusions derived from specific premises. This, however, is not the case: the difference lies not in whether the premises are general or specific, but in the logical relation between the premises and the conclusion.

In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. This is not the case with an inductive argument: in an inductive argument, the conclusion can still be false ever if the premises are true. Thus, what is at stake with inductive arguments is the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

This also demonstrates the difference between an algorithm and a heuristic. An algorithm is a sequence of steps that, followed correctly and in the correct order, will yield a precise result, each time those steps are followed. A heuristic is also a sequence of steps, but there is no such guarantee with a heuristic. Thus, when a heuristic is called for, the trick is to choose the steps for the greatest likelihood of producing the desired result. In some sense, a recipe for a cake is an algorithm, whereas a military strategy for removing a Middle-Eastern dictatorship from power is a heuristic. (The distinction between algorithms and heuristics is of central importance in the field of artificial intelligence.)

Ergo, God doesn't exist and my Jacksonian daddy can kick your Tranzi daddy's ass. So there.