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.
Another valid form of argument is known as constructive dilemma or sometimes just 'dilemma'. It does not leave the user with one statement alone at the end of the argument, instead, it gives an option of two different statements. The first premise gives an option of two different statements.
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 ...
Each logic operator can be used in an assertion about variables and operations, showing a basic rule of inference. Examples: The column-14 operator (OR), shows Addition rule: when p=T (the hypothesis selects the first two lines of the table), we see (at column-14) that p∨q=T.
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe. Other stories on moral dilemma that Kohlberg used in his research were about two young men trying to skip town, both steal money to leave town but the question then becomes whose crime was worse out of the two.
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]
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.
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.