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 ...
See also List of Ship of Theseus examples Sorites paradox (also known as the paradox of the heap ): If one removes a single grain of sand from a heap, they still have a heap. If they keep removing single grains, the heap will disappear.
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.
In statistics education, informal inferential reasoning (also called informal inference) refers to the process of making a generalization based on data (samples) about a wider universe (population/process) while taking into account uncertainty without using the formal statistical procedure or methods (e.g. P-values, t-test, hypothesis testing, significance test).
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis concluding that they also share some further property. [1] [2] [3] The structure or form may be generalised like so: [1] [2] [3] P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c. P has been observed to have further ...
The form or structure of an argument is also called "rule of inference". The most well-known rule of inference is modus ponens, which states that given a premise of the form "If p then q" and another in the form "p", then the conclusion is "q". Rules of inferences are formal because it depends only on the structure or the syntax of the premises ...
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.
As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of semantic (or substantive) relations that inference rules in classical logic ignore. [2]: 19 More than one argumentation scheme may apply to the same argument; in this example, the more complex abductive argumentation scheme may also apply.