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 â€œbottom upâ€ 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.
â€œSome philosophers, such as the skeptic David Hume, argue that there is no absolutely sound inductive argumentâ€, 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. â€œEvery day I notice that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Though Iâ€™ll be dead in one hundred years, I know that my grandchildren will also see the sun rise in the east and set in the west.â€ There is a good chance that the grandchildren will make this observation predicted; although, with inductive thinking there is always the possibility that the argument might be false, for they are statements of probability not certainty.
Again, inductive arguments detect patterns, regularities, help formulate tentative hypothesis, and finally help us to formulate a conclusion and/or generalized theory. These theories or conclusion can be challenged. In the sphynx example one could argue with evidence or observation that suggests a contrary conclusion. In the sun-set example the probable outcome was given, but there is also the impossible