Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A false analogy is an informal fallacy, or a faulty instance, of the argument from analogy. An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to examine analogical reasoning in detail. [2]
Non-deductive reasoning plays a central role in everyday life and in most sciences. Often-discussed types are inductive , abductive , and analogical reasoning . Inductive reasoning is a form of generalization that infers a universal law from a pattern found in many individual cases.
For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal.
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. [54] Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample ...
Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share. [1]In logic, it is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction.
Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing valid conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth. [1] It is associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, religion, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.
Plausible reasoning can be tested, and by this means, confirmed or refuted. Probing into plausible reasoning in a dialogue is a way of testing it. Plausible reasoning admits of degrees by testing, but of a kind different from those the standard probability values and Bayesian rules used in Pascalian probability
Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc.