Deduction: Highest Form Of Homeland Security Analysis And Why

567 Words3 Pages

Describe the difference between induction and deduction. Which approach to reasoning, in your opinion, is the "highest" form of homeland security analysis and why?
Induction and deduction are two of the most basic forms of logical reasoning that is used in every type of research (Reichertz 2014). Meaning, both of these methods are ways of generating ideas. As human beings, we use both methods when making decisions on a regular basis.
As mentioned above, deduction is a form of logical reasoning. The easiest way to define deduction is as follows; “Deduction is a systematic process whose goal is to draw a valid consequence from a series of premises” (Bara & Bucciarelli 2000, 95). Meaning, this method requires oneself to consider something is …show more content…

This method of logic reasons that there is more semantic information beyond the conclusion. This reasoning also allows for more possibility beyond the circumstances of the conclusion. For example:
Tom was late for practice; he did not have to run extra laps.
John was late for practice; he did not have to run extra laps.
With induction, it leaves out the possibility that Tom and John didn’t have to run extra laps. “Thus, the inductive conclusion does increase the semantic information, although it is not necessarily true” Bara & Bucciarelli 2000, 96). Induction is simply using observations and/or self-experiences to generate a conclusion.
In my opinion, I believe the “highest” form of homeland security analysis is the induction form of logical reasoning. Any kind of annalistic process should thoughtful and thorough. I believe in order to accomplish this, one must make assumptions, or question things beyond a conclusion. Although, this wouldn’t be the ONLY form of homeland security analysis. Depending on the scenario or situation, you have to consider the truth, is well, the truth. For example, last year you got intelligence regarding al Qaeda gathering resources for a weapons cashe. Two weeks from gathering this Intel, al Qaeda attacked a nearby American FOB. A few months pass and once again, you gather Intel stating the same exact facts. This leads you to make an inductive decision, stating al Qaeda is going to do the same