Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, this is the minor term (i.e., the subject of the conclusion). For example:
The conclusions of inductive reasoning are inherently uncertain. It only deals with the extent to which, given the premises, the conclusion is "credible" according to some theory of evidence. Examples include a many-valued logic, Dempster–Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule.
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises [105] [106] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy. Is–ought fallacy [107] – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding a statistical survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population. [1] [6] [7] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, which consists of denying a reasonable conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").
Logical reasoning is a form of thinking that is concerned with arriving at a conclusion in a rigorous way. [1] This happens in the form of inferences by transforming the information present in a set of premises to reach a conclusion.
Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. [1] A sentence is said to be a logical consequence of a set of sentences, for a given language , if and only if , using only logic (i.e., without regard to any personal interpretations of the sentences) the sentence must ...
To show that this form is invalid, we demonstrate how it can lead from true premises to a false conclusion. All apples are fruit. (True) All bananas are fruit. (True) Therefore, all bananas are apples. (False) A valid argument with a false premise may lead to a false conclusion, (this and the following examples do not follow the Greek syllogism):
Deductive reasoning is the psychological process of drawing deductive inferences.An inference is a set of premises together with a conclusion. This psychological process starts from the premises and reasons to a conclusion based on and supported by these premises.