enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Premise - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

    A premise or premiss [a] is a proposition—a true or false declarative statement—used in an argument to prove the truth of another proposition called the conclusion. [1] Arguments consist of a set of premises and a conclusion. An argument is meaningful for its conclusion only when all of its premises are true. If one or more premises are ...

  3. Argument–deduction–proof distinctions - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument–deduction...

    Such reasoning itself, or the chain of intermediates representing it, has also been called an argument, more fully a deductive argument. In many cases, an argument can be known to be valid by means of a deduction of its conclusion from its premises but non-deductive methods such as Venn diagrams and other graphic procedures have been proposed.

  4. Fact–value distinction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

    This rendered all facts about human action examinable under a normative framework defined by cardinal virtues and capital vices. "Fact" in this sense was not value-free, and the fact-value distinction was an alien concept. The decline of Aristotelianism in the 16th century set the framework in which those theories of knowledge could be revised. [6]

  5. Propositional calculus - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

    Premise 1: If it's raining, then it's cloudy. Premise 2: It's raining. Conclusion: It's cloudy. The logical form of this argument is known as modus ponens, [39] which is a classically valid form. [40] So, in classical logic, the argument is valid, although it may or may not be sound, depending on the meteorological facts in a given context

  6. Logic - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

    For valid arguments, the logical structure of the premises and the conclusion follows a pattern called a rule of inference. [12] For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p , (2) if p then q , (3) therefore q " are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. [ 13 ]

  7. Argument map - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map

    An argument with this structure is sometimes called a complex argument. If there is a single chain of claims containing at least one intermediate conclusion, the argument is sometimes described as a serial argument or a chain argument. [11] Statement 4 is an intermediate conclusion or sub-conclusion.

  8. Glossary of logic - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_logic

    A statement or proposition that asserts both a statement and its negation, considered universally false in classical logic. contradictory Referring to a pair of statements or propositions where one is the negation of the other, such that they cannot both be true or both be false.

  9. Validity (logic) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

    A statement can be called valid, i.e. logical truth, in some systems of logic like in Modal logic if the statement is true in all interpretations. In Aristotelian logic statements are not valid per se. Validity refers to entire arguments. The same is true in propositional logic (statements can be true or false but not called valid or invalid).