0
True
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What should inductive arguments never be characterized as?
Inductive arguments should never be characterized as guaranteeing truth or absolute certainty. This is because inductive reasoning relies on specific examples to draw general conclusions, which are probabilistic and open to revision based on new evidence.
What is a valid argument?
A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Validity refers to the logical structure of the argument rather than the truth of the premises.
All of our rules of inference are valid In other words they will never take you from true premises to a false conclusion?
Yes, rules of inference are valid inferences that guarantee truth-preservation. This means that if the premises of an argument are true, then the conclusion drawn using valid rules of inference will also be true. Rules of inference are based on sound logic and deductive reasoning to ensure that the conclusion accurately follows from the given premises.
What is the difference between valid and sound argument?
A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. In other words, a sound argument is both valid and has true premises.
Socrates' unexpected response to the argument leaves Crito?
Socrates leaves Crito after giving an unexpected response to his argument because he remains steadfast in his belief that it is never right to do wrong. He believes that escaping from prison, even though unjustly convicted, would go against his principles and the laws of the state.
What should deductive arguments never be characterized as?
True
What should inductive arguments never be characterized as?
Inductive arguments should never be characterized as guaranteeing truth or absolute certainty. This is because inductive reasoning relies on specific examples to draw general conclusions, which are probabilistic and open to revision based on new evidence.
how you ever witness an argument between a nurse and a patient attendant?
no, i am never witness an argument between nurse and patient.
What is the infinitive phrase of the sentence To win an argument is seldom a desirable goal?
Always winning an argument is never a desireable goal.
What should you do argument over money from your sister and resulted in her throwing you out?
If your sister threw you out of the house because you two had an argument over money, you only have two options. One is leave and never talk to her again or two, try to make up with your sister.
What is a valid argument?
A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Validity refers to the logical structure of the argument rather than the truth of the premises.
How do you win a theological argument with a fundamental Baptist?
You can't. To win an argument with anyone, you have to be able to discuss things in a rational, logical manner. That is not possible when it comes to religion. It is a belief with nothing to prove it so there can be no logical argument about it.Answer:Generally to "win" an argument it means one side or the other must admit that his was the incorrect view. In religious arguments the position is generally "I'm right, no matter what you say!" and the argument is just sounding off about positions. See appended flowchart for the requirements for a real argument.Answer: One should never go into an argument with the intention of "winning". One should only enter into argument with the intention of putting across their point of view, as YOU could be the one in the wrong, maybe even both of you.
What was the whole argument between Cheryl Cole and Danni Minogue about?
There never was any argument in the series of the X Factor. The media just made it up.
What determines if an oral argument is granted?
Unless otherwise said by a judge and oral argument is never manditory. You can file an appeakl for an oral argument 20 days after the court date. The appeals must be filed with the briefs only.
What features of an argument make it inductive reasoning?
One AnswerInductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning that begins with a particular argument and arrives at a universal logical conclusion. An example is when you first observe falling objects, and as a result, formulate a general operational law of gravity.A critical factor for identifying an argument based on inductive reasoning is the nature relationships among the premises underlying the propositions in an argument. Logical reasoning exists in an argument only when a premise or premises flow with logical necessity into the resulting conclusion. Hence, there is no sequence.The following is an example of an Inductive Argument:Premise 1. You know that a woman named Daffodil lives somewhere your building.Premise 2: Daffodil has a shrill voice.Premise 3. You hear a woman in the apartment next door yelling with a yelling with a shrill voice.Conclusion: It is likely that the woman fighting in the apartment is Daffodil.Note how the detailed premises logically flow together into the conclusion. This is the hallmark of inductive reasoning.Another AnswerI have heard of a mathematical proof that quantifies inductive reasoning through patterns in numbers, its called Occums Razor.Another AnswerThe information contained in the premises of an argument is supposed to provide evidence for its conclusion. In a good (valid) argument, they do; the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In a bad (invalid) argument, they do not.When the evidence provided by the premises is conclusive, or, minimally, supposed to be conclusive, the argument is a deductive one; otherwise, it is inductive.To use the metaphor of containment, in a valid deductive argument the information contained in its conclusion is always equal to or less than the information provided by its premises. For example, where 'p' stands for any proposition, the argument: "p, hence p" is valid (even though it's trivial). The information in the conclusion is obviously the same as the information in the premise. (In an actual case, this valid argument would be "sound" if the premise were true, and it would be valid but "unsound" if the premise were false.)By way of contrast, in an inductive argument, the information in the premises is always weaker than the information in the conclusion.For example, suppose that all the senators from a certain state have been male. Someone might argue that, since the first senator was male and since the second senator was male and since the third senator was male and so on, then the next senator will also be male. In this case, the information contained in the conclusion is not already contained in its premises (because its premises say nothing about the next senator). Is this, then, a successful argument?Obviously, it is not in the sense that there is a logical gap between the information contained in the premises and the information contained in the conclusion. On the other hand, some might argue that the premises provide some, but not conclusive, evidence of the truth of the conclusion. It might, in other words, be more likely that the next senator would be male, but that is not for certain.Therefore, in a deductive argument, the relevant evidence is, if true and the argument is valid, conclusive.However, in an inductive argument, the evidence provided by all the premises is never conclusive.CautionPeople often confuse inductive and deductive arguments. inductive arguments often reason from a set of particulars to a generality; deductive arguments often reason from a generality to a set of particulars. For example, if I see three robins (the bird, not Batman's sidekick) and they all have red breasts, then I can use inductive reasoning to say that all robins have red breasts (I start with what I've seen and make a general rule about it). Once I've made the rule that all robins have red breasts, then I can use deductive reasoning to say that the next robin I see will have a red breast (I start with a general rule and make a statement about a particular thing I will see).However, there are deductive arguments that move from general premises to general conclusions. Eg., All dogs are canines. All canines are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. And inductive arguments that move from particulars to particulars. Eg., These shoes are like the ones I bought last year at Zmart. The ones I bought last year are still wearable so these shoes are likely to be wearable too.
Which marine biome is characterized by deep water depths that never receive sunlight?
deep zone.
How often do people become psychics?
Probably never, although you can make an argument for Edgar Cayce.
