Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Constructive dilemma [1] [2] [3] is a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either P or R is true, then either Q or S has to be true. In sum, if two conditionals are true and at least one of their antecedents is, then at least one of their consequents must be too.
One example is the Defining Issues Test (DIT) created in 1979 by James Rest, [39] originally as a pencil-and-paper alternative to the Moral Judgement Interview. [40] Heavily influenced by the six-stage model, it made efforts to improve the validity criteria by using a quantitative test, the Likert scale, to rate moral dilemmas similar to ...
The cut-elimination theorem for a calculus says that every proof involving Cut can be transformed (generally, by a constructive method) into a proof without Cut, and hence that Cut is admissible. The Curry–Howard correspondence between proofs and programs relates modus ponens to function application : if f is a function of type P → Q and x ...
Part of understanding fallacies involves going beyond logic to empirical psychology in order to explain why there is a tendency to commit or fall for the fallacy in question. [ 9 ] [ 1 ] In the case of the false dilemma , the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements may play an important role.
A dilemma (from Ancient Greek δίλημμα (dílēmma) 'double proposition') is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable or preferable. The possibilities are termed the horns of the dilemma, a clichéd usage, but distinguishing the dilemma from other kinds of predicament as a matter of usage. [1]
In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. [1] [2] It is one of the three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity; however, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provides inference rules, such as modus ponens ...
Moral disengagement is a meaning from developmental psychology, educational psychology and social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context. [1] [2] This is done by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct and disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation. [3]
An example: we are given the conditional fact that if it is a bear, then it can swim. Then, all 4 possibilities in the truth table are compared to that fact. If it is a bear, then it can swim — T; If it is a bear, then it can not swim — F; If it is not a bear, then it can swim — T because it doesn’t contradict our initial fact.