These..., standing on the ground of inductive argument, place in our hands means to attain a certain end, of which there can be no doubt: whether we shall use them aright for the cure of disease, does not lie within the province of inductive reasoning.
The mistake frequently committed... has its origin in the vague and erroneous definition usually given of the inductive process... the method of induction... is indeed the only process of reasoning whereby it is possible to pass, at will, and in a given direction, beyond the boundaries of our knowledge.
[T]he human reason discovers new relations between things not by deduction, but by that unpredictable blend of speculation and insight... induction, which—like other forms of imagination—cannot be formalized.
[S]ymbols have a reach and a roundness that goes beyond their literal and practical meaning. They are the rich concepts under which the mind gathers many particulars into one name, and many instances into one general induction.
Counter-induction is... both a fact—science could not exist without it—and a legitimate and much needed move in the game of science.
Induction, I maintain, may or may not employ hypothesis, but what is essential to it is the inference from the particular to the general, from the known to the unknown, and the nature of this inference it is impossible to represent adequately by reference to the forms of deduction.
There is... no special uncertainty attaching to the truths arrived at by induction. They are, indeed, like all other truths, relative to the present constitution of nature and the present constitution of the human mind, but this is a limitation to which all our knowledge alike is subject, and which it is vain for us to attempt to transcend.
I shall endeavor to show that induction is really the inverse process of deduction.
Neither in deductive nor inductive reasoning can we add a tittle to our implicit knowledge, which is like that contained in an unread book or a sealed letter. ...Reasoning explicates or brings to conscious possession what was before unconscious. It does not create, nor does it destroy, but it transmutes and throws the same matter into a new form.
If there really be an instance of inductive reasoning not expressible in Syllogism, why is it that some form of words conveying such reasoning has not been propounded?
The mental operation by which one achieves new concepts and which one denotes generally by the inadequate name of induction is not a simple but rather a very complicated process. Above all, it is not a logical process although such processes can be inserted as intermediary and auxiliary links. The principle effort that leads to the discovery of new knowledge is due to abstraction and imagination.
Induction may be defined the operation of discovering and proving general propositions.
The distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is thus: In deductive reasoning the process is from the whole to the parts; in inductive reasoning, on the other hand, the process is from the parts to the whole.
What is easier to remember, a collection of facts glued together, or a story, something that offers a series of logical links? Causality is easier to commit to memory. ...What is induction exactly? ...It is very handy, as the general takes much less room in one's memory than a collection of particulars. The effect of such compression is the reduction in the degree of detected randomness.