Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] Inductive reasoning is in contrast to deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive ...
For example, one might argue that it is valid to use inductive inference in the future because this type of reasoning has yielded accurate results in the past. However, this argument relies on an inductive premise itself—that past observations of induction being valid will mean that future observations of induction will also be valid.
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]
Schemes may aid in argument identification because they describe factors that distinguish the argument type from other text. For example, an argument from expert opinion refers to an expert and a field of expertise, both of which could be identified in a text. Some schemes contain more easily distinguished characteristics than others.
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: All men are mortal. (True) Socrates is a man. (True) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (True) What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion.
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. [citation needed] The validity of an argument is ...
The validity of this method can be verified from the usual principle of mathematical induction. Using mathematical induction on the statement P ( n ) defined as " Q ( m ) is false for all natural numbers m less than or equal to n ", it follows that P ( n ) holds for all n , which means that Q ( n ) is false for every natural number n .
For example: Almost all people are taller than 26 inches; Gareth is a person; Therefore, Gareth is taller than 26 inches; Premise 1 (the major premise) is a generalization, and the argument attempts to draw a conclusion from that generalization. In contrast to a deductive syllogism, the premises logically support or confirm the conclusion ...