How to respond to the discussion below?

Deductive type reasoning is most used in science because you begin with a hypothesis and work your way down to a solution. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes uses deductive reasoning to solve some of the most challenging cases in fictional London, England. Alaina Bradford of Live Science defines deductive reasoning as a "basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion". Or, as another article pointed out, "'top-down' logic, where the reasoner begins with an accepted premise and seeks to prove another statement based on previously 'known' information (Kincaid, 2015).

Inductive reasoning, as expected, is the opposite of deductive reasoning. The English Oxford Dictionary defines inductive as "the inference of general laws from particular instances" (Inductive, n.d.). When using inductive reasoning, one begins with a more specific idea and works their way to a broader, more generalized, or "bottom-up" logic. Pretty much the exact opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is more open-ended since it begins with a particular idea and expands from there; it is a more complementary way of thinking and reasoning, building up from one idea to another.

Our reading this week covered a bit on deductive validity. As our text states, "an important concept for those dealing with formal logic" (Nosich, 2012). I can see where deductive fact is essential when thinking critically. You want what you are taking in, whether a book, article, video, or whatever, to be as logically valid as possible