According to wikipedia, Deduction is the process of working from known patterns to prove the validity of a statement, so the result is logically valid as long as all of the premises are valid. Induction, on the other hand, is the process of working from a set of statements to find a pattern, but the result may be false even if all the premises are true, because new information could potentially contradict that pattern.
Not to be confused with mathematical induction, which is a bit more meta, and consists of proving that a pattern *must* be true in all cases by constructing an infinite series of data points that follow the pattern but can be shown to be true without knowing the pattern.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Buddha Buck
<blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Shadowfirebird
<
shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since the game is about logical deduction based on an iterative process of
> the master marking koans, then it follows that (if you are playing fairly)
> the master's rule should be discoverable using only that process.
I suggest you read Kory Heath's writings on the design of the game,
since this paragraph illustrates some fundamental misunderstanding of
the point of the game.
Specifically, the game is not about logical deduction, but rather
about logical *induction*, a completely different process.