Information AboutDeductive |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DEDUCTIVE REASONING | |
| logic | |
| problem solving | |
| philosophical terminology | |
|
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". This is distinguished from Inductive Reasoning and Abductive Reasoning where Inferences can be made with some Likelihood but never with complete certainty. ''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 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 (all Rice University students are smart, therefore this particular Rice University student is smart). 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 lists some inference rules of Propositional Calculus . The table makes use of mathematical notation. The following symbols occur in the table:
FORMAL DEFINITION A deduction (or '''proof''') can be defined precisely in the context of a Formal System like the Propositional Calculus . A Proposition α is deduced from a collection Σ of premises by applying inference rules repeatedly (see Above Section ). The deduction is a record of this repeated application of inference rules. More formally, a finite sequence ''β1 ,..., βn'' of propositions is said to be a deduction of α from a collection of premises Σ if
Different versions of axiomatic propositional logics contain a few Axioms , usually three or more, in addition to one or more inference rules. For instance, Gottlob Frege 's axiomatization of propositional logic, which is also the first instance of such an attempt, has six propositional axioms and two rules. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead also suggested a system with five axioms. For instance a version of axiomatic propositional logic due to Jan Łukasiewicz (1878-1956) has a set ''A'' of axioms adopted as follows:
and it has the set ''R'' of Rules of inference with one rule in it that is Modu Ponendo Ponens as follows:
The inference rule(s) allows people to derive the statements following the axioms or given ''wff''s of the ensemble Σ. NATURAL DEDUCTIVE LOGIC One version of natural deductive logic has no axioms. System L, developed by E.J. Lemmon, has only nine primitive rules that govern the syntax of a proof. The nine primitive rules of system L are # The Rule of Assumption (A) # Modus Ponendo Ponens (MPP) # The Rule of Double Negation (DN) # The Rule of Conditional Proof (CP) # The Rule of ∧-introduction (∧I) # The Rule of ∧-elimination (∧E) # The Rule of ∨-introduction (∨I) # The Rule of ∨-elimination (∨E) # Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA) In system L, a proof has a definition with the following conditions: # has a finite sequence of ''wff''s (well-formed formula) # each line of it is justified by a rule of the system L # the last line of the proof is what is intended, and this last line of the proof uses the only premise(s) that is given; or no premise if nothing is given. Then if no premise is given, the sequent is called theorem. Therefore, the definitions of a theorem in system L are
An example of the proof of a sequent (Modus Tollendo Tollens in this case): An example of the proof of a sequent (a theorem in this case): Each rule of system L has its own requirements for the type of input(s) or entry(es) that it can accept and has its own way of treating and calculating the assumptions used by its inputs. REFERENCES
SEE ALSO
|
|
|