An argument is logically valid “if no argument with the same logical form has true premises but a false conclusion”. The validity of an argument must be independent of the factual truth or falsity of the propositions involved in it; for correct conclusions can also be drawn from false premises. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. All men are same, so there is no exception to any individual. “That which is appeared will disappear, that which is disappeared will appear.”
Contents
What is this an example of all humans are mortal Socrates is human Socrates is mortal?
The form of a deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it uses rules of inference by which it is impossible to obtain a false conclusion from true premises. An argument consists of one or more premises and a conclusion. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises leads to the truth of its conclusion. It would be contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The conclusion is the necessary consequence, on the one hand of the premises, on the other hand of the structure or logical form of the argument. If the argument’s premises and conclusion are true, that’s not why it’s valid.
What is Socrates most famous statement explain?
In the spring of 399, five years after the end of the Peloponnesian War, a trial for impiety was brought against Socrates by three accusers, Anytos, a leading politician, and two companions, Meletos, a poet, and Lycon, an obscure orator. The charges were: “not recognising the same gods as the state, introducing new deities and corrupting the youth”. Of the 501 judges, 280 voted for conviction, 221 for acquittal. Plato indicates that the conviction was made with a very small majority, about 30 votes. Asked to propose a punishment, Meletos asks for the death penalty, Socrates asks to be fed in the Prytaneum, an honour reserved for the most deserving citizens. The judges then voted in favour of the death penalty. Contemporary commentators are divided on the interpretation of this trial: some think that the charges are the real reasons for the trial, others that they are a pretext and that the real reasons are political. It was in court that Socrates allegedly uttered the now-famous phrase, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
What did Socrates say about man?
Socrates believed that the only life worth living is a life that is persistent in seeking good character. When a human character is weak, this correlates with a lack of knowledge or the lack of ability to allow knowledge to influence us. In Socrates’ view, knowledge and character are developmentally linked.
What did Socrates always say?
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” “The unexamined life is not worth living.” “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”
What kind of reasoning is use in this statement since all humans are mortal and I am human then I am mortal?
Since all humans are mortal, and I am a human, then I am mortal. logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.
What does the word Socrates mean?
Greek philosopher
Socrates. /ˈsɑː.krə.t̬iːz/ uk. /ˈsɒk.rə.tiːz/ an ancient Greek philosopher (= a person who studies the meaning of life): Speak of Greek antiquity, and most people will call to mind the golden age of 5th century BC Athens – the time of Socrates, Plato, Thucydides, Sophocles, and Pericles.
Which reasoning derives the logically conclusion from the given premises?
1 Deductive reasoning: Deductive reasoning derives the logically necessary conclusion from the given premises.
What type of reasoning is commonly known as informal logic and is based on probabilistic reasoning?
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive Reasoning and Associative Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable. Consider these simple logical statements, known as syllogisms.
What is the type of reasoning where a person makes conclusions based on observations and patterns?
Inductive reasoning, or inductive logic, is a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of specific observations.
What kind of reasoning if it is based on facts such as definition of terms and properties?
Inductive reasoning involves drawing conclusions from facts, using logic.
What kind of reasoning uses a general statement to make conclusions about specific examples?
Whereas inductive reasoning draws general principles from specific instances, deductive reasoning draws specific conclusions from general principles or premises.
Which of the following refers to the conclusion which arrived at by inductive reasoning?
A conclusion you reach using inductive reasoning is called a conjecture . Examining several specific situations to arrive at a conjecture is called inductive reasoning.
What is the conclusion formed using inductive reasoning since it may or may not be correct called?
The conclusion formed by inductive reasoning is called a conjecture.
What is inductive reasoning explain with example?
In causal inference inductive reasoning, you use inductive logic to draw a causal link between a premise and hypothesis. As an example: In the summer, there are ducks on our pond. Therefore, summer will bring ducks to our pond.
Which of the following best describes inductive reasoning?
Inductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that involves forming generalizations based on specific incidents you’ve experienced, observations you’ve made, or facts you know to be true or false.
What is syllogism law?
In mathematical logic, the Law of Syllogism says that if the following two statements are true: (1) If p , then q . (2) If q , then r . Then we can derive a third true statement: (3) If p , then r .
What is a deductive thinker?
Deductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that starts with a general idea and reaches a specific conclusion. It’s sometimes is referred to as top-down thinking or moving from the general to the specific.
Which best describes why this is an example of inductive reasoning fellow citizens?
Terms in this set (9)
Which best describes why this is an example of inductive reasoning? It starts with details and uses them to support a more sweeping statement. Which excerpt is a counterclaim in “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
How does this rhetorical question contribute to the passage central idea?
How does this rhetorical question contribute to the passage’s central idea? It reinforces the idea that the rights given to others are not extended to African Americans.
Related posts:
Scientific paradigms comparison?
Can reason defend itself without resort to reason?
Is it possible to use intuitionistic logic in some everyday situations?
The Problem of the Criterion in the history of philosophy?
Can we say that “I Think Therefore I Am” was never about “I”, or thinking, or “I” doing the thinking?
Is Socrates wrong in ‘Euthyphro’?
Utilitarian Morality vs Kantian Morality?
Where does Derrida say that deconstruction and the existence of or belief in God are incompatible?
What is meant by “assume P”?
Size of infinite sets?