“Inductive” Bible study often gets billed as the way to allow the details of Scripture to shape our thinking, since we eliminate preconceptions, begin with the details of a passage, and build a belief system from there. The problem is that inductive reasoning does not work this way. The difference between induction and deduction has little to do with whether one begins with particulars or with generalities.

You’ve probably heard of Inductive Bible Study.  I don’t like it.

I think the thing itself is just fine.  My criticism is for the label.  “Inductive” is just not the right term for it.

Harvey Bluedorn summarizes the common perception well when he states:

A deductive approach moves from the rule to the example, and an inductive approach moves from the example to the rule.

Bluedorn’s article is quite excellent, apart from this near-fatal assumption that drives his use of terminology.  But Bluedorn’s terminology faithfully represents the popular wisdom.  So “inductive” Bible study often gets billed as the way to allow the details of Scripture to shape our thinking, since we eliminate preconceptions, begin with the details of a passage, and build a belief system from there.

The problem is that inductive reasoning does not work this way.  The difference between induction and deduction has little to do with whether one begins with particulars or with generalities.

From my college logic textbook (Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 6th Ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997):

The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in the strength of an argument’s inferential claim.  In other words, the distinction lies in how strongly the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises (p. 32).

Deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning (31).

Read More