codzienność: Deductive reasoning

Evidence: 100 • authority: 72

Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" to the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is deductively valid. An argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. One approach defines deduction in terms of the intentions of the author: they have to intend for the premises to offer deductive support to the conclusion. With the help of this modification, it is possible to distinguish valid from invalid deductive…

Evidence: 70 • authority: 72

Logical reasoning is a form of thinking or information processing that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is logic. Distinct types of logical reasoning differ from each other concerning the norms they employ and the cert…

Evidence: 68 • authority: 72

Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as the logical structure of valid arguments. If an argument with true premises follows a rule of inference then the conclusion cannot be false. Modus ponens, an influential rule of inference, connects two premises of the form "if P {\displaystyle P} then Q {\displaystyle Q} " and " P {\displaystyle P} " to the conclusion " Q {\displaystyle Q} ", as in the argument "If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet." There are many other rules of inference for different patterns of valid arguments, such as modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, construc…

Evidence: 51 • authority: 72

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a set of observations. It was formulated and advanced by the American philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the latter half of the 19th century. Abductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not definitively verify it. Abductive conclusions do not eliminate uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in terms such as "best available" or "most likely". While inductive reasoning draws general conclusions that apply to many situations, abductive conclusions are confi…

Evidence: 51 • authority: 72

Inferences are steps in logical reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Inference is traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that dates at least to Aristotle (300s BC). A third type of inference, abduction, has been proposed, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular evidence to a universal conclusion. Abduction seeks neither logical certainty nor a universal conclusion but a "best explanation" based on likelihood given the evidence. Various fields study how inference…

Evidence: 44 • authority: 88

Fuzzy logic, deductive rules of inference and linguistic reasoning on knowledge base. In this paper we introduce a notion of knowledge base consisting of statements with truth degree in which every statement may have several truth degrees. A set of rules of inference handling this kind of statements, a deductive reasoning method based on these rules will be considered. The consistency of the knowledge base will be also investigated.

Evidence: 38 • authority: 92

Putting reasons back into reasoning: how genuine reasoning is inference-based and why neuro-symbolic NLI could achieve it.. Taking Leibniz' ideal of a universal truth-calculating machine as a vantage point, this article provides a philosophically sound analysis of the concept of reasoning in NLP. It argues that reasoning always involves inference, which in turn requires being guided by reason relations. Based on this, the article argues that Symbolic NLP is unable to reason for epistemic reasons on the part of humans, that Neural NLP is likely unable to do so in principle, and that Neuro-Symbolic NLP is ideally set up to succeed where the two approaches in isolation failed, that is, to prog…

Evidence: — • authority: 92

Rethinking the nature of "logical" intuitions about deductive reasoning: Conflict detection and semantic cues.. There is evidence that when people make illogical (heuristic) judgments, they are intuitively aware that their answer is incorrect. There are competing hypotheses about this intuition. De Neys (2023) claimed that people have intuitions that correspond to formal validity. Ghasemi et al. (2022) suggested that people use a simple matching heuristic unrelated to validity. In these studies, we examine reasoning with simple, concrete syllogisms of the form "All A are B, X are B." We examine the hypothesis that when given such inferences, people have a "logical" intuition that leads to a…

Evidence: — • authority: 72

Of the many and varied argument forms that can possibly be constructed, only very few are valid argument forms. In order to evaluate these forms, statements are put into logical form. Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its subject matter. 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.

Evidence: — • authority: 72

In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas (also called wffs or simply formulas). The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form.

Evidence: — • authority: 72

In computer science, a rule-based system is a computer system in which domain-specific knowledge is represented in the form of rules and general-purpose reasoning is used to solve problems in the domain. Two different kinds of rule-based systems emerged within the field of artificial intelligence in the 1970s: Production systems, which use if-then rules to derive actions from conditions. Logic programming systems, which use conclusion if conditions rules to derive conclusions from conditions. The differences and relationships between these two kinds of rule-based system has been a major source of misunderstanding and confusion. Both kinds of rule-based systems use either forward or backward…

Evidence: — • authority: 72

Logical consequence (also entailment or logical implication) is a fundamental concept in logic which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the following questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of lo…