Inductice, Deductive and Abductive Thinking

In his book "The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation", P&G CEO A.G. Lafley explains the difference between two methods:

"Business schools tend to focus on inductive thinking (based on directly observable facts) and deductive thinking (logic and analysis, typically based on past evidence)."

"Design schools emphasize abductive thinking – imagining what could be possible. This new thinking approach helps us challenge assumed constraints and add to ideas, versus discouraging them."

• Inductive thinking = Based on directly observable facts ("All ice I ever touched is cold > All ice is cold")
• Deductive thinking = Logic and analysis, typically based on past evidence ("All men are mortal and Socrates is a man > Socrates is mortal" – from Aristotle)
• Abductive thinking = Imagining what could be possible. A method of reasoning in which one chooses the hypothesis that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. Abductive reasoning starts from a set of accepted facts and infers their most likely, or best, explanations.

På dansk: Induktion, deduktion og abduktion (også kaldet retroduktion)

Article from Business Week

P&G's AG Lafley on Innovation