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:
Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This can be proven for any valid argument form using a truth table which shows that there is no situation in which there are all true premises and a false conclusion. [2]
For valid arguments, the logical structure of the premises and the conclusion follows a pattern called a rule of inference. [12] For example, modus ponens is a rule of inference according to which all arguments of the form "(1) p , (2) if p then q , (3) therefore q " are valid, independent of what the terms p and q stand for. [ 13 ]
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 ...
This theory of deductive reasoning – also known as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic. [citation needed] Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with inductive reasoning, in regards to validity and soundness. In cases of inductive reasoning, even though the ...
An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises. In formal logic, the validity of an argument depends not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but on whether the argument has a valid logical form.
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]
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]