Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Plausible reasoning can be used to fill in implicit premises in incomplete arguments. Plausible reasoning is commonly based on appearances from perception. Stability is an important characteristic of plausible reasoning. Plausible reasoning can be tested, and by this means, confirmed or refuted. Probing into plausible reasoning in a dialogue is ...
Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for actions committed by or on behalf of members of their organizational hierarchy.
In the latter case, a (declarative) sentence is just one way of expressing an underlying statement. A statement is what a sentence means, it is the notion or idea that a sentence expresses, i.e., what it represents. For example, it could be said that "2 + 2 = 4" and "two plus two equals four" are two different sentences expressing the same ...
Communicating the results in a format that subjects can easily understand is paramount. In a medical team setting, each member values speed and brevity. Simon and Folen (2001) suggest using the bottom line up front (BLUF) format—the recommendation first, followed by the backup reasoning or rationale in clear and straightforward terms. [44]
The modern view is more complex, since a single judgement of Aristotle's system involves two or more logical connectives. For example, the sentence "All men are mortal" involves, in term logic, two non-logical terms "is a man" (here M) and "is mortal" (here D): the sentence is given by the judgement A(M,D).
The truth value of an arbitrary sentence is then defined inductively using the T-schema, which is a definition of first-order semantics developed by Alfred Tarski. The T-schema interprets the logical connectives using truth tables, as discussed above. Thus, for example, φ ∧ ψ is satisfied if and only if both φ and ψ are satisfied.
The sentence can be read as "Reginam occidere nolite, timere bonum est, si omnes consentiunt, ego non. Contradico." ("don't kill the Queen, it is good to be afraid, even if all agree I do not. I object."), or the opposite meaning "Reginam occidere nolite timere, bonum est; si omnes consentiunt ego non contradico.
In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2] Some examples are: "People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round." "Drugs are illegal so they must be bad for you.