Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Deductive reasoning, by contrast, is non-ampliative since it only extracts information already present in the premises without adding any additional information. [62] [63] [59] So with non-deductive reasoning, one can learn something new that one did not know before. But the fact that new information is added means that this additional ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Từ_điển_Bách_khoa_Việt_Nam&oldid=502103327"
Reasoning is one of the most paradigmatic forms of thinking. It is the process of drawing conclusions from premises or evidence. Types of reasoning can be divided into deductive and non-deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is governed by certain rules of inference, which guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
Unlike many other forms of syllogism, a statistical syllogism is inductive, so when evaluating this kind of argument it is important to consider how strong or weak it is, along with the other rules of induction (as opposed to deduction). In the above example, if 99% of people are taller than 26 inches, then the probability of the conclusion ...
Từ điển bách khoa toàn thư Việt Nam (Encyclopedia of Vietnam), a state-sponsored encyclopedia which was published in 2005. Vietnamese Wikipedia, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Vietnam War encyclopedias. Encyclopedic works and encyclopedias focused on Vietnam War-related topics.
A form of deductive reasoning in Aristotelian logic consisting of three categorical propositions that involve three terms and deduce a conclusion from two premises. category In mathematics and logic, a collection of objects and morphisms between them that satisfies certain axioms, fundamental to category theory. category theory
Deductive reasoning contrasts with non-deductive or ampliative reasoning. For ampliative arguments, such as inductive or abductive arguments, the premises offer weaker support to their conclusion: they indicate that it is most likely, but they do not guarantee its truth. They make up for this drawback with their ability to provide genuinely new ...
Even non-deductive arguments can be said to be fallacious: for example, an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality. But "since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments".