Contents.

Sr. Content Page no.

1. INFERENCE 2

2. INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE 2

3. VALID INFERENCE 2

4. REASONING 3

5. FORM OF AUGUMENT 3

6. DEDUCTIVE REASONING 3

7. INDUCTIVE REASONING 4

8. ABSTRUCTIVE REASONING 4

9. FALLACIOUS REASONING 5

10. FORMAL FALLACIS 5

11. REFRENCES 5
 INFERENCE

Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one
already knows.

Inference is studied within several different fields.

• Human inference.
• Logic studies the laws of valid inference.

The accuracy of inductive and deductive inferences

The conclusion inferred from multiple observations is made by the process of

inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, and may be
tested by additional observations. In contrast, the conclusion of a valid deductive
inference is true if the premises are true. The conclusion is inferred using the
process of deductive reasoning. A valid deductive inference is never false. This is
because the validity of a deductive inference is formal. The inferred conclusion of
a valid deductive inference is necessarily true if the premises it is based on are
true.

The field of half-truths as they relate to the truth of observations, is another area
of concern impacting inference based on observations.

Valid inferences

Inferences are either valid or invalid, but not both. Philosophical logic has
attempted to define the rules of proper inference, i.e. the formal rules that, when
correctly applied to true premises, lead to true conclusions. Aristotle has given
one of the most famous statements of those rules in his Organon.

An example: the classic syllogism

Greek philosophers defined a number of syllogisms, correct three-part

inferences, that can be used as building blocks for more complex reasoning.
We'll begin with the most famous of them all:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The reader can check that the premises and conclusion are true. The validity of
the inference may not be true. The validity of the inference depends on the form
of the inference. That is, a valid inference does not depend on the truth of the

2
premises and conclusion, but on the formal rules of inference being used. In
traditional logic, the form of the syllogism is:

All A is B
All C is A
----------
All C is B

Since the syllogism fits this form, then the inference is valid. And if the premises
are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.

REASONING

Reasoning is the process of looking for reasons on which to base one's beliefs or
actions. In philosophy, the study of reasoning typically focuses on what makes
reasoning good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate. Philosophers do this by
either examining the form or structure of the reasoning within arguments, or by
considering the broader methods used to reach particular goals of reasoning,
such as beliefs or actions. Psychologists, in contrast, tend to study how people
actually reason, and how those methods of reasoning help or hinder people.

Reasoning and forms of argument

One approach to the study of reasoning is to identify various forms of reasoning

that may be used to support or justify conclusions. The main division between
forms of reasoning that is made in philosophy is between deductive reasoning
and inductive reasoning. Formal logic has been described as 'the science of
deduction' (Jeffrey, 1991, 1). The study of inductive reasoning is generally called
either 'informal logic' or 'critical thinking'.

Deductive reasoning

Deductive arguments are intended to have reasoning that is valid. Reasoning in

an argument is valid if the argument's conclusion must be true when the
premises (the reasons given to support that conclusion) are true. One classic
example of deductive reasoning is that found in syllogisms like the following:

1. All humans are mortal.

2. Socrates is a human.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The reasoning in this argument is valid, because there is no way in which the
premises, 1 and 2, could be true and the conclusion, 3, be false.

3
Validity is a property of the reasoning in the argument, not a property of the
premises in the argument or the argument as a whole. In fact, the truth or falsity
of the premises and the conclusion is irrelevant to the validity of the reasoning in
the argument. The following argument, with a false premise and a false
conclusion, is also valid, (it has the form of reasoning known as modus ponens).

1. If green is a colour, then grass poisons cows.

2. Green is a colour.
3. So, grass poisons cows.

Again, if the premises in this argument were true, the reasoning is such that the
conclusion would also have to be true.

In a deductive argument with valid reasoning the conclusion contains no more

information than is contained in the premises. Therefore, deductive reasoning
does not increase one's knowledge base, and so is said to be non-ampliative.

Within the field of formal logic, a variety of different forms of deductive reasoning
have been developed. These involve abstract reasoning using symbols, logical
operators and a set of rules that specify what processes may be followed to
arrive at a conclusion. These forms of reasoning include Aristotelian logic, also
known as syllogistic logic, propositional logic, predicate logic, and modal logic.

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning. Even in the

best, or strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does
not guarantee the truth of the conlusion. Instead, the conclusion of an inductive
argument follows with some degree of probability. Relatedly, the conclusion of an
inductive argument contains more information than is already contained in the
premises. Thus, this method of reasoning is ampliative.

A classical example of inductive reasoning comes from the empiricist David

Hume:

1. The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now.
2. So, the sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.

Abductive reasoning

, or argument to the best explanation often involves both inductive and deductive
arguments. However, as the conclusion in an abductive argument does not follow
with certainty from its premises it is best thought of as a form of inductive
reasoning. What separates abduction from the other forms of reasoning is an
attempt to favor one conclusion above others, by attempting to falsify alternative

4
explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favored conclusion, given
a set of more or less disputable assumptions.

Fallacious reasoning

Flawed reasoning in arguments is known as fallacious reasoning. Reasoning

within arguments can be bad because it commits either a formal fallacy or an
informal fallacy.

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies occur when there is a problem with the form, or structure, of the
argument, and, for this reason, always make an argument invalid. Consider, for
example, the following argument:

1. If a drink is made with boiling water, it will be hot.

2. This drink was not made with boiling water.
3. This drink is not hot.

The reasoning in this argument is bad, because the antecedent (first part) of the
conditional (the 'if..., then...' statement) can be false without the consequent
(second half) of the conditional being true. In this example, the drink could have
been made with boiling milk, or heated in the microwave, and so be hot in spite
of the truth of statement 2. This particular formal fallacy is known as denying the
antecedent.

References

• Jeffrey, Richard. 1991. Formal logic: its scope and limits, (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
• Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and
Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8
• Scriven, Michael. 1976. Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-
055882-5

• Ian Hacking. An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic. Cambridge

University Press, (2000).
• Edwin Thompson Jaynes. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science.
Cambridge University Press, (2003). ISBN 0-521-59271-2.
• David J.C. McKay. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning
Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, (2003).
• Stuart Russell, Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach.
Prentice Hall, (2002).
• Henk Tijms. Understanding Probability. Cambridge University Press,
(2004).
• André Fuhrmann: Nonmonotonic Logic.

5
6