Answer :
Final answer:
Ampliative (or inductive) reasoning cannot be definitively stated as superior to deductive reasoning, as both methods have their uses and limitations. The choice between the two depends on the specific context or objective. While deductive reasoning leads to certain conclusions if the hypotheses are true, ampliative reasoning, dealing in probabilities, can lead to new hypotheses and theory building.
Explanation:
Whether ampliative reasoning could be viewed as superior to deductive reasoning is subjective and largely depends on the specific context or goal.
Ampliative reasoning or inductive reasoning, as it’s often known, involves making broad generalizations from specific observations. It’s the process typically used to formulate theories.
Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, starts with a hypothesis or a 'given' and tests the validity of that hypothesis through observation or experimentation.
If the hypothesis holds true under all conditions and premises, then the conclusion is deemed absolute or certain.
Fundamentally, the difference between the two lies in the degree of certainty with which conclusions can be drawn.
Deductive reasoning can provide absolute certainty, provided the initial premises are true. Inductive reasoning, however, cannot provide absolute certainty, regardless of the number of observations. Instead, it deals in probabilities.
Learn more about Deductive and Ampliative Reasoning:
https://brainly.com/question/21698818
#SPJ11
