Deduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin. Syllogism A syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. In Aristotle,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Advertisements

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Lecture 2: Deduction, Induction, Validity, Soundness.
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS Fundamentals of Logic Unit – 1 Chapter – 4 Fundamentals of Logic Unit – 1 Chapter – 4.
Logic and Reasoning Panther Prep North Central High School.
Logic. To Think Clearly Use reason, instead of relying on instinct alone What is Logic? – “the art of reasoning” – The study of truth – The ethics of.
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
Logos Formal Logic.
EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.
Deductive reasoning.
Basic Argumentation.
The ubiquity of logic One common example of reasoning  If I take an umbrella, I can prevent getting wet by rain  I don’t want to get myself wet by rain.
RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Chapter I. Explanations about the Universe Power of the gods Religious authority Challenge to religious dogma Metacognition: Thinking.
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning. Objectives Use a Venn diagram to determine the validity of an argument. Complete a pattern with the most likely possible.

1 Chapter 7 Propositional and Predicate Logic. 2 Chapter 7 Contents (1) l What is Logic? l Logical Operators l Translating between English and Logic l.
March 3, 2015Applied Discrete Mathematics Week 5: Mathematical Reasoning 1Arguments Just like a rule of inference, an argument consists of one or more.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
The Inverse Error Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13.
The Science of Good Reasons
Logic in Everyday Life.
Logic A: Capital punishment is immoral. B: No it isn’t! A: Yes it is! B: Well, what do you know about it? A: I know more about it then you do! B: Oh yeah?
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
Logic. What is logic? Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike) is the use and study of valid reasoning. The study of logic features most prominently.
Unit 1 – Foundations of Logic Reasoning and Arguments.
Review from Yesterday…. Rhetoric vs. Dialectic Deduction : conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from the previously stated facts (premises). Remember.
Logic – Basic Terms Logic: the study of how to reason well. Validity: Valid thinking is thinking in conformity with the rules. If the premises are true.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.
Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 2.3.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. PROBLEM SOLVING Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
The construction of a formal argument
NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. REASONING.
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Logic and Reasoning.
Section 2.3: Deductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
Predicate Logic Although Propositional Logic is complete... It is still inadequate.
Deductive s. Inductive Reasoning
Section 3.6 Reasoning and Patterns. Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning starts with a general rule, which we know to be true. Then from that rule,
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive reasoning.
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
Argumentation and Persuasion
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Theme № 14. Conclusion The plan: 1. Essence of conclusion.
Win Every Argument Every Time
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
The Ontological Argument
Logical Inferences: A set of premises accompanied by a suggested conclusion regardless of whether or not the conclusion is a logical consequence of the.
Reasoning, Logic, and Position Statements
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE REASONING Forensic Science.
The Ontological Argument
Inductive and Deductive Logic
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Logical Fallacies.
Syllogisms and Enthymemes.
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

Deduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin

Syllogism A syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form: "Some/all A belong to B," where "Some/All A' is one term and "belong to B" is another, but more modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate) of the conclusion; in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example: –Major premise: All humans are mortal. –Minor premise: Socrates is human. –Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Deductive reasoning Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning where the conclusion is necessitated by previously known premises. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. For instance, beginning with the premises "sharks are fish" and "all fish have fins", you may conclude that "sharks have fins".

Certainty This is distinguished from inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning where inferences can be made with some likelihood but never with complete certainty.

Deductive reasoning Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.

Examples An example of deductive reasoning is the following: –All men are mortal (major premise), –Socrates is a man (minor premise), –Therefore Socrates is mortal. Note that replacing "mortal" with any nonsensical property will not affect the validity of the argument: –All men are purple-skinned, –Socrates is a man, –Therefore Socrates is purple-skinned. Intuitively, one might deny the major premise or the conclusion; yet anyone accepting the premises must accept the conclusion.

Popular misuses of the term It is occasionally taught that deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the particular, while inductive reasoning proceeds from the particular to the general. This is false - or at least, it is not the way logicians use these terms. There are deductively valid arguments that proceed from the particular to the general (Oscar is grouchy, therefore something is grouchy) and inductive arguments that proceed from the general to the particular (most University students are smart, therefore this particular University student is smart).

Sherlock Holmes Sherlock Holmes frequently describes his methods as involving deductive reasoning in the various stories about the character. However, most of his "deductions" in fact used inductive or abductive reasoning; very few were actually deductive in nature. There was nearly always some conceivable, if vanishingly unlikely, way his conclusions could have turned out to be incorrect, a fact exploited by many parodies of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Inference rules The following table (next slide) lists some inference rules of propositional calculus. The table makes use of mathematical notation. The following symbols occur in the table: