Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Plausible reasoning is based on the way things generally go in familiar situations. Plausible reasoning can be used to fill in implicit premises in incomplete arguments. Plausible reasoning is commonly based on appearances from perception. Stability is an important characteristic of plausible reasoning. Plausible reasoning can be tested, and by ...
For example, a tsunami could also explain why the streets are wet but this is usually not the best explanation. As a form of non-deductive reasoning, abduction does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion even if the premises are true. [80] [82] The more plausible the explanation is, the stronger it is supported by the premises.
[2] [4]: 186 With strict implication, p will imply z, but if at each step the probability is 90%, for example, then the more steps there are, the less likely it becomes that p will cause z. A slippery slope argument is typically a negative argument where there is an attempt to discourage someone from taking a course of action because if they do ...
When people mistake unreliable introspection for genuine self-knowledge, the result can be an illusion of superiority over other people, for example when each person thinks they are less biased and less conformist than the rest of the group. Even when experimental subjects are provided with reports of other subjects' introspections, in as ...
A knowledge base of facts and rules is needed, but some of them may be uncertain because there may be a probability associated to using them for inference. Therefore, we can also refer to this as plausible inference. The plausibility of an inference is a function of the plausibility of each query assertion. Rather than retrieving a document ...
Ahead, we’ve rounded up 50 holy grail hyperbole examples — some are as sweet as sugar, and some will make you laugh out loud. 50 common hyperbole examples I’m so hungry, I could eat a horse.
For example, one might argue that it is valid to use inductive inference in the future because this type of reasoning has yielded accurate results in the past. However, this argument relies on an inductive premise itself—that past observations of induction being valid will mean that future observations of induction will also be valid.
For example, If P, then Q. P. ∴ Q. In this example, the first premise is a conditional statement in which "P" is the antecedent and "Q" is the consequent. The second premise "affirms" the antecedent. The conclusion, that the consequent must be true, is deductively valid.