《翻译与思辩》参考资料：Introduction_Logical reasoning methods and argumentation

Logical reasoning methods and argumentation Looking at logical categorizations of different types of reasoning the traditional main division made in philosophy is between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Formal logic has been described as the science of deduction"[45 The study of inductive reasoning is generally carried out within the field known as informal logic or critical thinking Deductive reasoning 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 ogisms like the following Premise 1: All humans are mortal Premise 2. Socrates is a human Conclusion: Socrates is mortal The reasoning in this argument is valid because there is no way in which the premises, I and 2, could be true and the conclusion, 3, be false Inductive reasoning Induction is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either specifically or generally, based on previous observation. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to objects or types

Logical reasoning methods and argumentation Looking at logical categorizations of different types of reasoning the traditional main division made in philosophy is between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Formal logic has been described as "the science of deduction".[45] The study of inductive reasoning is generally carried out within the field known as informal logic or critical thinking. Deductive reasoning 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: Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: 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. Inductive reasoning Induction is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either specifically or generally, based on previous observation. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to objects or types

based on previous observations or experiences, or to formulate general statements or laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning in that even in the best or strongest. cases of inductive reasoning. the truth ofthe premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. 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 ofreasoning is ampliative a classic example of inductive reasoning comes from the empiricist David hume remise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow Abductive reasoning Abductive reasoning, or argument to the best explanation, is a form of inductive reasoning, since the conclusion in an abductive argument does not follow with certainty from its premises and concerns something unobserved. What distinguishes abduction from the other forms of reasoning is an attempt to favour one conclusion above others

based on previous observations or experiences, or to formulate general statements or laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning in that, even in the best, or strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. 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 classic example of inductive reasoning comes from the empiricist David Hume: Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now. Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow. Abductive reasoning Abductive reasoning, or argument to the best explanation, is a form of inductive reasoning, since the conclusion in an abductive argument does not follow with certainty from its premises and concerns something unobserved. What distinguishes abduction from the other forms of reasoning is an attempt to favour one conclusion above others, by

attempting to falsify alternative explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favoured conclusion, given a set of more or less disputable assumptions. For example, when a patient disp lays certain symptoms, there might be various possible causes, but one of these is preferred above others as being more probable Analogical reasoning Analogical reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the particular. An example follows Premise 1: Socrates is human and socrates died Premise 2: Plato is human Conclusion Plato will die Analogical reasoning can be viewed as a form of inductive reasoning dubious-discussI, since the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. However, the traditional view is that inductive reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the general and thus analogical reasoning is distinct from inductive reasoning. [146] Fallacious reasoning: Logical fallacy, Formal fallacy, and Informal fallacy Flawed reasoning in arguments is known as fallacious reasoning

attempting to falsify alternative explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favoured conclusion, given a set of more or less disputable assumptions. For example, when a patient displays certain symptoms, there might be various possible causes, but one of these is preferred above others as being more probable. Analogical reasoning Analogical reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the particular. An example follows: Premise 1: Socrates is human and Socrates died. Premise 2: Plato is human. Conclusion: Plato will die. Analogical reasoning can be viewed as a form of inductive reasoning[dubious – discuss], since the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. However, the traditional view is that inductive reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the general, and thus analogical reasoning is distinct from inductive reasoning.[46] Fallacious reasoning： Logical fallacy, Formal fallacy, and Informal fallacy 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 occur when there is a problem with the form, or structure of the argument. The word"formal"refers to this link to the form of the argument. An argument that contains a formal fallacy will always be 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 An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs due to a problem with the content, rather than mere structure ofthe argument

Reasoning within arguments can be bad because it commits either a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy. Formal fallacies occur when there is a problem with the form, or structure, of the argument. The word "formal" refers to this link to the form of the argument. An argument that contains a formal fallacy will always be 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. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs due to a problem with the content, rather than mere structure, of the argument