0
valid
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What should a deductive argument never be characterized as?
A deductive argument should never be characterized as uncertain or probabilistic. It aims to provide a conclusion that necessarily follows from the premises, making it either valid or invalid based on the structure of the argument and the truth of the premises.
What does kant mean by always treat yourself and others as ends in themselves never just as a means?
Kant's principle means that individuals should not be manipulated or used solely for the benefit of others; they have inherent value and should be respected as such. It emphasizes the importance of treating people with dignity, as rational beings capable of making their own choices and deserving of respect.
What are the differences between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of history?
The philosophy of science examines the nature of scientific knowledge, theories, and methods, focusing on how science works and what counts as scientific. In contrast, the philosophy of history explores the nature of historical knowledge, causation, interpretation of events, and the role of history in understanding human societies and cultures. Both disciplines raise questions about the nature of knowledge, evidence, and interpretation but apply them to different domains of inquiry.
Can an argument be both valid and fallacious?
No, an argument cannot be both valid and fallacious. A valid argument follows logically from its premises to its conclusion, while a fallacious argument contains a flaw in its reasoning. If an argument is fallacious, it is by definition not valid.
A second version of Kant's categorical imperative is?
"One should always treat others as ends in themselves, never merely as a means to an end."
What should deductive arguments never be characterized as?
True
What should a deductive argument never be characterized as?
A deductive argument should never be characterized as uncertain or probabilistic. It aims to provide a conclusion that necessarily follows from the premises, making it either valid or invalid based on the structure of the argument and the truth of the premises.
What is an example of inductive arguments?
an inductive argument is when a person gives facts and evidence then draws a conclusion. a good example of the is the Declaration of Independence.
What arguments could be called arguments of consequence?
If Mansa Musa had never converted to Islam, Mali would have never become wealthy. stion…
How should you agree to handle arguments?
you should always try to talk things over and NEVER let your emotions take over you. okay and if that dont work then just try to stay alone for a little bit. okay.
What is a one rebuttal debate?
I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me that it is a debate with only one rebuttal per side. A rebuttal is a speech where a team is allowed to make arguments on pre-existing arguments, but they are not allowed to bring up new arguments.
What is a one-rebuttal debate?
I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me that it is a debate with only one rebuttal per side. A rebuttal is a speech where a team is allowed to make arguments on pre-existing arguments, but they are not allowed to bring up new arguments.
Do you often have arguments with your parents?
its solely dependent upon parents and children and there thinking...if they never listened to you in past..you are definitely going to have arguments in future as you will always think that you don't get importance in family..but if they have always listened to you..then its a chance you may have less arguments..but as teenagers, we often have arguments with parents, because we are constantly changing our views (but our parents aren't), so of course this leads to arguments.
Which marine biome is characterized by deep water depths that never receive sunlight?
deep zone.
What is the advantage to having a coexecutor for a will?
I've never seen an advantage. They always seem to get into arguments with each other.
Did Breezepelt ever fight or argue with his father?
They had many arguments, but Breezepelt and Crowfeather never had a battle. Not yet anyway.
Is inductive or deductive reasoning the best way to approach a geometric proof?
Please remember proof gives absolute truth, which means it HAS to be true for all cases satisfying the condition. Hence, inductive reasoning will NEVER be able to be used for that ---- it only supposes that the OBSERVED is true than the rest must, that's garbage, if it's observed of course it's true (in Math), no one knows what will come next. But it's a good place to start, inductive reasoning gives a person incentive to do a full proof. Do NOT confuse inductive reasoning with inductive proof. Inductive reasoning: If a1 is true, a2 is true, and a3 is true, than a4 should be true. Inductive Proof: If a1 is true (1), and for every an, a(n+1) is true as well (2), then, since a1 is true (1), then a2 is true (2), then a3 is true (2). You see, in inductive proof, there is a process of deductive reasoning ---- proving (1) and (2). (1) is usually, just plugin case 1. (2) provides only a generic condition, asking you to derive the result (a (n+1) being true), that is deductive reasoning. In other words, proof uses implications a cause b, and b cause c hence a cause c. Inductive says though a causes c because I saw one example of it.
