0
What logical fallacy should you watch out for when using inductive reasoning?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Hasty generalization
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
zarr1s
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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.
While it can strengthen the logical appeal of your argument if you address the opposition you should be careful not to?
straw man their argument by misrepresenting or exaggerating their views. Instead, accurately represent the opposing argument and respond to it with evidence and reasoning. This will help maintain the integrity of your own argument and foster a more productive discussion.
What do you have a negative and a positive wjat is the the answers?
In general, to solve math problems you need some logical reasoning, not just formulae. If you solve a physics problem with a math formula and it gives you two answer - for example, a negative and a positive answer - you should check each one, whether it makes sense in the context of the problem. In some cases, negative answers don't make sense; in others, they do. Note that there may very well be problems that have more than one possible answer.
What are 2 things a scientific conclusion should have?
A scientific conclusion should be based on evidence and data analysis. It should also be objective, drawing logical inferences from the results obtained rather than being influenced by personal biases or opinions.
What is the difference between logical and practical?
First of all, I will attempt to explain what logic or "logical" means. I'm assuming that the reason you are looking this up is because you don't know the definition of logical or practical. Perhaps, you don't know the definition to either of them. So, it makes sense to explain them both not just by definition but in a way that makes sense to everyone... well... hopefully. Things that make sense are logical. Data or information that is backed by factual evidence and that follow true reasoning are logical. If someone didn't know what "logical" meant then I would explain it by simply telling them that things happen for a reason. Things tick and are the way that they are for a certain reason. This "certain reasoning" or "fact" is logic or "logical." It would be logical for someone to think that if a person gets hit with a baseball they are going to feel it. Why is it logical? It is logical because 99.9% of humans feel pain. Unless you have some kind of medical reason as to why you don't feel pain, most people feel pain. So based on the fact that everybody feels pain, it is therefore "logical" that if you get hit by a baseball, you are going to feel it (and it's probably going to hurt). It wouldn't be logical to say that a person won't feel the baseball at all if it hit him/her in the leg traveling 90 miles per hour because every human (for the most part) feels pain. It is fact that all people feel pain therefore if you get hit by a baseball; you're going to feel it no matter what. Logical evidence is pretty much the same thing as factual evidence. Things that are backed by "facts" are also backed by "logic" until disproven. Another example of something logical is the fact that colors white and red make the color "pink" if mixed together. It wouldn't be a logical assumption to say that mixing white and red together create the color green. That wouldn't make any sense at all. So, basically logic is simply why everything ticks the way that it does proven by facts. Hopefully I explained what logical and logic mean to a way that you can understand it. Now I will attempt to explain what practical means. Practical is in the same ballpark as logic. They both intertwine each other, but there is a difference between them. I will use the baseball example again to try to explain "practical". Being practical to me is basically just having good judgment. As I said above that if you get hit by a baseball you are going to feel it no matter what because humans feel pain. This is only logical. Well, a practical stance would be to say that the baseball is going to hurt once a person gets hit by it. Practical and logical are very close in terms but practical involves more common sense while being logical involves cold hard facts. As I said above the logic involves facts, being practical just involves good judgment and common sense. By using "good judgment", a person can assume that if you get hit by a baseball traveling 90 miles per hour that it is most certainly going to inflict an ideal amount of pain. In other words, it's going to hurt quite a bit. A person may not have to go to the hospital afterwards, but they are definitely not going to just shrug it off in 2 seconds either (practical). It would be practical to assume that the person is going to have a bruise the next day in the area that they got hit with the baseball. As for the difference between logical and practical, I hope I explained it well. It is concluded that both logical and practical can both be linked together; there are logical sides to things just as there are practical sides to things and situations. Another good example of practical: Let's say that someone built a home designed to withstand a tornado. It would be practical to assume that a home of this magnitude should stay intact if hit by a tornado. It would also be good judgment to say that some form of the home had to be altered somehow by the tornado whether true or not. "It would also be good judgment to say that some form of the home had to be altered somehow by the tornado whether true or not." - This sentence is a perfect example that includes both logical and practical use. The practical side is the fact that a person is using good judgment stating that the home had to be altered some way because it is being hit by a tornado. The logical side of this statement would be whether this is true or not. Logic uses facts to support arguments, while a practical application uses common sense and good judgment to support arguments. A good philosophical individual uses a lot of practical application to support logical aspects. I would also like to include that it would not be a logical statement to say that someone is enduring excruciating pain after getting hit by a baseball. This would be a practical assumption, not a logical assumption. Why would this not be a logical assumption? It is not a logical assumption because there is a possibility that the person is not enduring an excruciating amount of pain. This is where practical and logical are different. Remember that logic has to be supported by 100% facts and practical is merely an incredibly good assumption or good judgment (usually, but not always common sense). As I stated above, logical and practical stances are used depending on the situation. They are both used in different situations and with different information. Depending on certain issues or mysteries that need to be solved, both logical and practical stances can be put to use. Sometimes a logical standpoint would simply not work in certain situations because certain information is unknown or certain facts are not obtained. Practical standpoints (on the flip side) are used when facts are unknown and/or certain information is uncertain. Practical uses calls for good judgment, great predictions, and using common sense. I'll give some examples of some situations below and you decide whether or not be practical or logical in order to figure the situation out. I'll have the answers posted below the questions, so don't scroll down until you have chosen the answers yourself. 1) Does my car need gas to run? (practical or logical answer?) 2) Why did that person just run out of that house wearing a black ski mask? 3) My best friends wedding is tomorrow. Do you think there is going to be a party afterwards? 1) Yes, all vehicles need gas for the most part. Logical 2) I don't know, if I had to guess I'd say he was trying to steal something or commit some type of crime. Practical 3) Considering that it is a wedding, there is usually some kind of party afterwards. Practical
What did Francis Bacon and English philosopher believe scientists should do?
use inductive reasoning.
Who believed that sientists should use inductive reasoning?
Francis Bacon
CL hamblin on deductive and inductive reasoning?
How should I know? Its not like I am C.L.Hamblin.
What did Galileo and Francis Bacon promote that the idea that knowledge should be based on?
inductive reasoning
What did Francis Bacon an English philosopher believe scientist should do?
use inductive reasoning
What does the baconian method state?
The Baconian method, developed by Francis Bacon, emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and systematic observation in scientific inquiry. It promotes a structured approach to experimentation and data analysis to uncover truths about the natural world. The method involves making careful observations, formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on evidence.
What should all inferences be based on?
Inferences should be based on objective observation and logical reasoning.
What should you watch out for when using inductive reasoning?
When using inductive reasoning, be cautious of generalizing conclusions too broadly based on limited evidence. It is important to recognize that inductive arguments can only provide probabilistic support for a conclusion, not absolute certainty. Additionally, watch for biases or hidden assumptions that may affect the validity of the reasoning.
Which type of logical fallacy argues that one should support a position just because many other people support it?
ad populum
How do you formulate a deductive or inductive argument?
For a deductive argument, you start with a general premise and apply it to a specific case to reach a certain conclusion. In contrast, an inductive argument begins with specific observations and generalizes to a broader theory or principle. Both types aim to support a conclusion with appropriate reasoning and logic.
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.
What are fallacies?
Fallacies are errors in reasoning that can make arguments unsound or invalid. They are often used to manipulate or deceive people by presenting the appearance of a valid argument without actually providing real evidence or support for a claim. Common fallacies include ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and appeals to emotion.
