Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the ...
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.
Argument from analogy. Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. [1]
Argument from anecdote – a fallacy where anecdotal evidence is presented as an argument; without any other contributory evidence or reasoning. Inductive fallacy – a more general name for a class of fallacies, including hasty generalization and its relatives.
Logical reasoning is concerned with the correctness of arguments. A key distinction is between deductive and non-deductive arguments. Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion ...
For example: Almost all people are taller than 26 inches; Gareth is a person; Therefore, Gareth is taller than 26 inches; Premise 1 (the major premise) is a generalization, and the argument attempts to draw a conclusion from that generalization. In contrast to a deductive syllogism, the premises logically support or confirm the conclusion ...
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, [2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible. [3][4] However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority ...
Category. : Inductive fallacies. This category is for inductive fallacies, or faulty generalizations, arguments that improperly move from specific instances to general rules.