According to Kirby, Goodpastor and Levine (2000), creative thought, along with, inductive and deductive logic comprise the bedrock and substance to all our thinking.
Inductive thinking also known as the “bottom up” approach, moves from particular observations to a more generalized theory or conclusion, it detects patterns and regularities; as well as, it helps to formulate tenetative hypothesis, from which we derive our generalized theory or conclusion. For example, if we see 100 cats, all with a different colored coat, we could conclude that all cats have some type of coat, right? Wrong, there is such a thing as a sphynx; which is hairless. This intern becomes an error in reasoning also known as a fallacy.
“Some philosophers, such as the skeptic David Hume, argue that there is no absolutely sound inductive argument”, but we do have good practical inductive arguments based on repeated, accurate observations. The following would be and example given by Kirby Goodpastor and Levine (1999) of a sound inductive argument. “Every day I notice that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Though I’ll be dead in one hundred years, I know that my grandchildren will also see the sun ris
The type of rationality we assume in economics--perfect, logical, deductive rationality--is extremely useful in generating solutions to theoretical problems. But it demands much of human behavior--much more in fact than it can usually deliver. If we were to imagine the vast collection of decision problems economic agents might conceivably deal with as a sea or an ocean, with the easier problems on top and more complicated ones at increasing depth, then deductive rationality would describe human behavior accurately only within a few feet of the surface. For example, the game Tic-Tac-Toe is simple, and we can readily find a perfectly rational, minimax solution to it. But we do not find rational "solutions" at the depth of Checkers; and certainly not at the still modest depths of...