Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises. An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid". An example of a valid (and sound) argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
This indicates that correspondence is a perfectly valid definition of truth, but is not of itself a valid criterion of truth. An additional test beyond this "definition" is required to determine the precise degree of similarity between what is posited and what exists in objective reality. [7]
Deductive reasoning is the psychological process of drawing deductive inferences.An inference is a set of premises together with a conclusion. This psychological process starts from the premises and reasons to a conclusion based on and supported by these premises.
The types of logical reasoning differ concerning the exact norms they use as well as the certainty of the conclusion they arrive at. [1] [15] Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support and implies its conclusion with certainty, like mathematical proofs. For non-deductive reasoning, the premises make the conclusion more likely but do not ...
Logic studies valid forms of inference like modus ponens.. Logic is the study of correct reasoning.It includes both formal and informal logic.Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths.
Test validity is the extent to which a test (such as a chemical, physical, or scholastic test) accurately measures what it is supposed to measure.In the fields of psychological testing and educational testing, "validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests". [1]
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. [1] The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.
Intuitively this is as valid as All Greeks are men, all men are mortal therefore all Greeks are mortals. To argue that its validity can be explained by the theory of syllogism would require that we show that Socrates is a man is the equivalent of a categorical proposition.