Inductive, deductive

V. D. Hanson writes for the Hoover Institution, The New Nihilism,

For about a half century, universities have eroded inductive and empirical education. Instead, deduction and advocacy took its place—and to such a degree that to question man-made global warming, the dogma of racial separatism and chauvinism, radical abortion, or gay marriage became taboo and proof of near criminality.

And there is that inductive vs deductive thing again. Let's see, one of them means you take a few things and formulate a generality about everything. And the other one means you take a few clues and pinpoint something specific. I think.

What in the world is he even talking about?

Now I have to look up these two things all over again. Just to understand what he means.

He's saying inductive reasoning was good college education in the past and now deductive thinking is not a good replacement.

I thought Sherlock Holmes did a lot of deduction, so why would that be bad?

Hanson is confusing sometimes.

Maybe the font of concurred, approved, curated wisdom can help, Wikipedia.

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

What?

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.

Okay.

Another crucial difference is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems. 

Deductive certainty is impossible in reality?

Reality is non-axiomatic.

If I waved my hand and asked about this in class, the professor would say, Sherlock Holmes is fiction.

Then I'd go, "Oh, right."

I still don't see why being deductive is so bad.

Hanson says a lot more erudite stuff at the link, you should read it.

It's all about Democrats not having a good response to Trump. Presently they are without reasonable alternatives to Trump doctrine. So far, everything they come out with is insane.