Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Invalid deductive arguments, which do not follow a rule of inference, are called formal fallacies. Rules of inference are definitory rules and contrast with strategic rules, which specify what inferences one needs to draw in order to arrive at an intended conclusion. Deductive reasoning contrasts with non-deductive or ampliative reasoning.
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.
A propositional argument using modus ponens is said to be deductive. In single-conclusion sequent calculi , modus ponens is the Cut rule. The cut-elimination theorem for a calculus says that every proof involving Cut can be transformed (generally, by a constructive method) into a proof without Cut, and hence that Cut is admissible .
Forms of logical reasoning can be distinguished based on how the premises support the conclusion. Deductive arguments offer the strongest possible support. Non-deductive arguments are weaker but are nonetheless correct forms of reasoning. [28] [29] The term "proof" is often used for deductive arguments or very strong non-deductive arguments. [30]
Common deductive argument forms are hypothetical syllogism, categorical syllogism, argument by definition, argument based on mathematics, argument from definition. The most reliable forms of logic are modus ponens , modus tollens , and chain arguments because if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. [ 5 ]
Such reasoning itself, or the chain of intermediates representing it, has also been called an argument, more fully a deductive argument. In many cases, an argument can be known to be valid by means of a deduction of its conclusion from its premises but non-deductive methods such as Venn diagrams and other graphic procedures have been proposed.
If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak. A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument is uncogent. The military budget argument example is a strong, cogent argument. Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it.
The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity. [4] The first to explicitly describe the argument form modus tollens was Theophrastus. [5] Modus tollens is closely related to modus ponens.