Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types, Deductive and Inductive. Although every argument involves the claim that its premisses provide some ground for the truth of its conclusion, only a Deductive Argument involves the claim that its premisses provide conclusive grounds.When premisses and conclusions are related that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also. Every Deductive argument is either valid or invalid ; the task of deductive logic is to clarify the nature of the relation between premisses and conclusion in valid arguments and thus to allow us to discriminate valid from invalid arguments.
On the other hand, an inductive argument involves the claim, not that its premisses give conclusive grounds for truth of its conclusion but only that they provide some grounds for it. Inductive Arguments are neither "valid" nor "invalid" in the sense in which those terms are applied to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments may, of course, be evaluated as better or worse, according to the degree of likelyhood or probablity which their premises confer upon their conclusion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"If Sylvester Stallone owened all the gold in Fort Knox, then Sylvester Stallone will be wealthy.
Sylvester Stellone does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Threfore Sylvester Stallone is not wealthy."
The premisses of this argument are true, and its concusion is false. Such an argument cannot be valid, because it is impossible for the premisses of a valid argument to be true while its conclusion is false.
Determining the correctness of arguments falls frequently within the province of logic. The logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premisses might be wrong.
On the other hand, an inductive argument involves the claim, not that its premisses give conclusive grounds for truth of its conclusion but only that they provide some grounds for it. Inductive Arguments are neither "valid" nor "invalid" in the sense in which those terms are applied to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments may, of course, be evaluated as better or worse, according to the degree of likelyhood or probablity which their premises confer upon their conclusion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"If Sylvester Stallone owened all the gold in Fort Knox, then Sylvester Stallone will be wealthy.
Sylvester Stellone does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Threfore Sylvester Stallone is not wealthy."
The premisses of this argument are true, and its concusion is false. Such an argument cannot be valid, because it is impossible for the premisses of a valid argument to be true while its conclusion is false.
Determining the correctness of arguments falls frequently within the province of logic. The logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premisses might be wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment