Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is generally accepted that the concept of scientific validity addresses the nature of reality in terms of statistical measures and as such is an epistemological and philosophical issue as well as a question of measurement. The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the relationship between the premises and conclusion of an ...
When this distinction is applied to the term "falsifiability", it corresponds to a distinction between two completely different meanings of the term. The same is true for the term "falsifiable". Popper said that he only uses "falsifiability" or "falsifiable" in reference to the logical side and that, when he refers to the methodological side ...
The validity of an inference depends on the form of the inference. That is, the word "valid" does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusion, but rather to the form of the inference. An inference can be valid even if the parts are false, and can be invalid even if some parts are true.
A particular argument is valid if it follows a valid rule of inference. Deductive arguments that do not follow a valid rule of inference are called formal fallacies: the truth of their premises does not ensure the truth of their conclusion. [18] [14] In some cases, whether a rule of inference is valid depends on the logical system one is using.
Inferences are said to possess internal validity if a causal relationship between two variables is properly demonstrated. [1] [2] A valid causal inference may be made when three criteria are satisfied: the "cause" precedes the "effect" in time (temporal precedence), the "cause" and the "effect" tend to occur together (covariation), and
Rules of inference govern the transition from the premises to the conclusion. On this view, an inference is valid if it is in accordance with an appropriate rule of inference. [5] Closely related to the notion of valid inference is that of confirmation. [8] Valid inferences belong to formal logic and is associated with deductively valid arguments.
The definition of a formal proof is intended to capture the concept of proofs as written in the practice of mathematics. The soundness of this definition amounts to the belief that a published proof can, in principle, be converted into a formal proof. However, outside the field of automated proof assistants, this is rarely done in practice.
In predicate logic, existential generalization [1] [2] (also known as existential introduction, ∃I) is a valid rule of inference that allows one to move from a specific statement, or one instance, to a quantified generalized statement, or existential proposition.