Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises. In formal logic, the validity of an argument depends not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but on whether the argument has a valid logical form.
While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "non sequitur" refers to an unnamed formal fallacy.
Arguments are correct or incorrect depending on whether their premises support their conclusion. Premises and conclusions, on the other hand, are true or false depending on whether they are in accord with reality. In formal logic, a sound argument is an argument that is both correct and has only true premises. [61]
Another form of argument is known as modus tollens (commonly abbreviated MT). In this form, you start with the same first premise as with modus ponens. However, the second part of the premise is denied, leading to the conclusion that the first part of the premise should be denied as well.
Formal arguments that are invalid are often associated with at least one fallacy which should be verifiable. A standard view is that whether an argument is valid is a matter of the argument's logical form. Many techniques are employed by logicians to represent an argument's logical form.
A logical argument, seen as an ordered set of sentences, has a logical form that derives from the form of its constituent sentences; the logical form of an argument is sometimes called argument form. [6] Some authors only define logical form with respect to whole arguments, as the schemata or inferential structure of the argument. [7]
There are four main components: argumentation schemes, [29] dialogue structures, argument mapping tools, and formal argumentation systems. The method uses the notion of commitment in dialogue as the fundamental tool for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation rather than the notion of belief. [6]
Logic is the formal science of using reason and is considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics and to a lesser extent computer science.Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and the study of arguments in natural language.