Knowledge & Things 'not observed'
In Chapter 4 of our textbook P.F. Strawson writes in "The Justification of Induction" (page 178) about the process of inductive reasoning. For this discussion board share your thoughts on whether we 'ought' to justify inductive reasoning. Please make sure to support your answer (hint: it would be useful to review the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning).
Example of deductive argument:
All men are mortal (premise)
Socrates is a man (premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)
Example of inductive argument:
I ate at the deli and got sick (premise)
Therefore, probably the next time I eat at the deli I'll get sick (conclusion)
Please make sure your initial thread is academic and professional and is at least 250 words.
ATTACHED IS THE CHAPTER THAT NEEDS TO BE READ FOR THIS DISCUSSION