When the definition of valid reasoning that says that it is a valid inference in whom the condition

Reasoning and valid reasoning | A Short History of Philosophy barmaid
Home Chapter History of Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy Ancient Philosophy Medieval philosophy Modern philosophy Contemporary philosophy philosophical discipline Hrestomatija Introduction to Philosophy - Ancient hrestomatija f. - Hrestomatija Medieval f. - Hrestomatija Modern f. - Hrestomatija Modern f. - Hrestomatija F. disciplines - hrestomatija Literature Philosophy Today Course philosophy Logic Basic forms opinions Miscellaneous
The conclusion is perhaps best defined by Immanuel Kant: the conclusion of the process of executing a paragraph from one or more other positions. So when can we justify the belief that the conclusion was already contained in the premises, ie, that conclusion must be true if the premises barmaid are true, then it is deductive reasoning. But we can not conclude that only deductive, because it was assumed that somehow all already know, that we all already contained in the premises. Because there are other types of reasoning, such as inductive or analogical.
Attitudes on the basis of which we conclude are called premises, and the attitude that derive from the premise called the conclusion or conclusion. Logically valid in the strict sense is only deductive reasoning, because only that "preserves truthfulness", that is, do not add anything to the premises, but only out of them performs what is already implicit in them. The rule about keeping barmaid istnitosti means and as a rule "salvo veritate". barmaid
The conclusion from a premise called directly reasoning, and from two or more premises of indirect inference. If the views or statements which are taken as a premise denote capital letters A, B, C, ..., we can record the claim that the conclusion follows from the premises Z in this way:
When the definition of valid reasoning that says that it is a valid inference in whom the condition is met if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, we analyze, we come to a valid conclusion can vary in a broad and valid inference in the narrow sense.
Valid inference in a broad sense is each individual barmaid reasoning that does not violate barmaid the basic rule. Thus understood barmaid validity follow the rules established for the implication of that is true in all cases, except when the . This means that it will be valid and any inference that we have developed starting from the false attitudes, and also all the reasoning in which the conclusion is true and the premises are true, even though they are not in any immediate logical connection.
Valid inference in the narrow sense, it is a form of reasoning which provides barmaid that comply with the basic rule on the validity, or that it can not happen in an individual case, the conclusion to this form of reasoning premises are true and the conclusion barmaid false.
D G
we see that this form does not generally provide that if the premises are true the conclusion must be true, because the conclusion occur quite new terms which may be evidence that is false. (For example: "Birds are mammals")
These two aspects of validity complement one another. First, the general validity is not included in the question of the form of reasoning, but only at the conclusion of rules applied implications, which itself Obika conclusion (p followed by q).
The second, narrower definition deals with the internal form of reasoning. Aristotle described in detail the process of reasoning which involves the views expressed in predikatskoj form and describe the rules of the syllogism, the conclusion from two premises. Modern logic provides rules of inference over a tautology, attitudes that are always logically true and which can therefore be used in concluding without compromising the basic rule that a valid conclusion from true premises barmaid must not follow false conclusion.
Another name for a valid inference is deductive reasoning. As in other cases that we discussed in the framework of traditional logic, the term "deductive" is used in a narrow barmaid sense. It is always the case that any valid conclusions in the narrow sense must be valid and in a broader sense, but the reverse is not true, as we have seen.
Message *
Home Chapter History of Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy Ancient Philosophy Medieval philosophy Modern philosophy Contemporary philosophy philosophical discipline Hrestomatija Introduction to Philosophy - Ancient hrestomatija f. - Hrestomatija Medieval barmaid f. - Hrestomatija Modern f. - Hrestomatija Modern barmaid f. - Hrestomatija F. disciplines - hrestomatija barmaid Literature barmaid Philosophy Today Course philosophy barmaid Logic Basic forms opinions Miscellaneous
% D bloggers like this: