Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Mastermind player uses abduction to infer the secret colors (top) from summaries (bottom left) of discrepancies in their guesses (bottom right).. Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, [1] abductive inference, [1] or retroduction [2]) is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations.
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.
Attribute substitution is a psychological process thought to underlie a number of cognitive biases and perceptual illusions. It occurs when an individual has to make a judgment (of a target attribute ) that is computationally complex, and instead substitutes a more easily calculated heuristic attribute . [ 1 ]
For example, someone who has been thinking about their love life and is then asked how happy they are might substitute how happy they are with their love life rather than other areas. The substitution is not detected and corrected by the reflective system. For example, when asked "A bat and a ball together cost $1.10.
The identity substitution, which maps every variable to itself, is the neutral element of substitution composition. A substitution σ is called idempotent if σσ = σ, and hence tσσ = tσ for every term t. When x i ≠t i for all i, the substitution { x 1 ↦ t 1, …, x k ↦ t k} is idempotent if and only if none of the variables x i ...
We begin with a famous example: All humans are mortal. All Greeks are humans. All Greeks are mortal. The reader can check that the premises and conclusion are true, but logic is concerned with inference: does the truth of the conclusion follow from that of the premises? The validity of an inference depends on the form of the inference.
Consider the modal account in terms of the argument given as an example above: All frogs are green. Kermit is a frog. Therefore, Kermit is green. The conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises because we can not imagine a possible world where (a) all frogs are green; (b) Kermit is a frog; and (c) Kermit is not green.
Lewis's trilemma is a famous example of this type of argument involving three disjuncts: "Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord". [3] By denying that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, one is forced to draw the conclusion that he was God. But this leaves out various other alternatives, for example, that Jesus was a prophet. [3]