logical reasoning

 

  • A central aspect concerns the abilities used to distinguish facts from mere opinions, like the process of finding and evaluating reasons for and against a position to come
    to one’s own conclusion.

  • This form of abductive reasoning is relevant to why one normally trusts what other people say even though this inference is usually not drawn in an explicit way.

  • [111] If the decision is time-sensitive, on the other hand, logical reasoning may imply making a fast decision based on the currently available evidence even if it is very
    limited.

  • [68][69][70] Some theorists use the term in a very wide sense to include any form of non-deductive reasoning, even if no generalization is involved.

  • Outside the field of logic, the term “fallacy” is sometimes used in a slightly different sense for a false belief or theory and not for an argument.

  • [5][6] One central aspect is that this support is not restricted to a specific reasoner but that any rational person would find the conclusion convincing based on the premises.

  • This is often understood in terms of probability: the premises make it more likely that the conclusion is true and strong inferences make it very likely.

  • This is often understood in terms of probability: if the premises of a correct argument are true, it raises the probability that its conclusion is also true.

  • This means that if the premises are true, it makes it more likely but not certain that the conclusion is also true.

  • [57][58] So for a non-deductive argument, it is possible for all its premises to be true while its conclusion is still false.

  • As a form of non-deductive reasoning, abduction does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion even if the premises are true.

  • Definition Logical reasoning is a form of thinking that is concerned with arriving at a conclusion in a rigorous way.

  • This matters for effective reasoning since it is often necessary to rely on information provided by other people instead of checking every single fact for oneself.

  • In this case, they often resort to a form of guessing to come up with general principles that could explain the observations.

  • In this regard, inductive reasoning about future events seems to rest on the assumption that nature remains uniform.

  • Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support: the premises ensure the conclusion, meaning that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are
    true.

  • The types of logical reasoning differ concerning the exact norms they use as well as the certainty of the conclusion they arrive at.

  • [38] A rule of inference is a scheme of drawing conclusions that depends only on the logical form of the premises and the conclusion but not on their specific content.

  • For valid arguments, it is not important whether the premises are actually true but only that, if they were true, the conclusion could not be false.

  • [69][71][68] In the more narrow sense, it can be defined as “the process of inferring a general law or principle from the observations of particular instances.

  • [17] Other core skills linked to logical reasoning are to assess reasons before accepting a claim and to search for new information if more is needed to reach a reliable conclusion.

  • [12][13][14] The forms of logical reasoning have in common that they use premises to make inferences in a norm-governed way.

  • In such cases, logical reasoning includes weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks as well as considering their likelihood in order to arrive at a balanced all-things-considered
    decision.

  • [80][81][1] This expression underlines that there are usually many possible explanations of the same fact and that the reasoner should only infer the best explanation.

  • It plays an equally central role in the sciences, which often start with many particular observations and then apply the process of generalization to arrive at a universal
    law.

  • Inductive reasoning starts from a set of individual instances and uses generalization to arrive at a universal law governing all cases.

  • Non-deductive reasoning is ampliative in the sense that it arrives at information not already present in the premises.

  • For informal fallacies, like false dilemmas, the source of the faulty reasoning is usually found in the content or the context of the argument.

  • [62][63][59] So with non-deductive reasoning, one can learn something new that one did not know before.

  • Abductive reasoning, also known as “inference to the best explanation”, starts from an observation and reasons to the fact explaining this observation.

  • In this regard, the conclusion of an inductive inference contains new information not already found in the premises.

  • [18][25] An argument is correct or incorrect depending on whether the premises offer support for the conclusion.

  • The purpose of arguments is to convince a person that something is the case by providing reasons for this belief.

  • In this sense, it is roughly equivalent to critical thinking and includes the capacity to select and apply the appropriate rules of logic to specific situations.

  • For non-deductive reasoning, the premises make the conclusion more likely but do not ensure it.

  • It also includes the ability to consider different courses of action and compare the advantages and disadvantages of their consequences, to use common sense, and to avoid
    inconsistencies.

  • “[4] Logical reasoning is rigorous in the sense that it does not generate any conclusion but ensures that the premises support the conclusion and act as reasons for believing
    it.

  • Forms of logical reasoning can be distinguished based on how the premises support the conclusion.

  • [120] On the practical level, logical reasoning concerns the issue of making rational and effective decisions.

  • For example, when predicting how a person will react to a situation, inductive reasoning can be employed based on how the person reacted previously in similar circumstances.

  • Deductive reasoning, by contrast, is non-ampliative since it only extracts information already present in the premises without adding any additional information.

  • In this regard, it only matters that the conclusion could not be false if the premises are true and not whether they actually are true.

  • [116][117] This way, logical reasoning can help the person avoid the effects of propaganda or being manipulated by others.

  • [30] Incorrect arguments offer no or not sufficient support and are called fallacies,[31][32] although the use of incorrect arguments does not mean their conclusions are incorrect.

  • It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises.

  • Inductive reasoning is a form of generalization that infers a universal law from a pattern found in many individual cases.

  • This support comes in degrees: strong arguments make the conclusion very likely, as is the case for well-researched issues in the empirical sciences.

  • [124] If one lacks important information, it is often better to delay a decision and look for new information before coming to a conclusion.

  • [1][16] Some theorists give a very wide definition of logical reasoning that includes its role as a cognitive skill responsible for high-quality thinking.

  • This means that one may have to withdraw a conclusion upon learning new information.

  • Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing.

  • Arguments that fall short of the standards of logical reasoning are called fallacies.

  • It happens in the form of inferences drawn from premises to reach and support a conclusion, just like its deductive counterpart.

  • [83][81][84] Other central criteria for a good explanation are that it fits observed and commonly known facts and that it is relevant, precise, and not circular.

  • Further factors are to seek new information, to avoid inconsistencies, and to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different courses of action before making a decision.

  • [20][3] The propositions used as the starting point of logical reasoning are called the premises.

  • [86] Through analogical reasoning, knowledge can be transferred from one situation or domain to another.

  • The faulty premise oversimplifies reality: it states that things are either one way or another way but ignore many other viable alternatives.

  • Their main fault usually lies not in the form of the argument but has other sources, like its content or context.

  • This means that the premises support the conclusion by making it more probable but do not ensure its truth.

  • [2][3] It can be defined as “selecting and interpreting information from a given context, making connections, and verifying and drawing conclusions based on provided and interpreted
    information and the associated rules and processes.

  • Some theorists understand logical reasoning in a wide sense that is roughly equivalent to critical thinking.

 

Works Cited

[‘1. Nunes 2011, p. 2066–9, Logical Reasoning and Learning.
2. ^ Bronkhorst et al. 2020, p. 1675.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Dowden 2020, p. 24.
4. ^ Bronkhorst et al. 2020, p. 1676.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Franks et al. 2013, p. 146.
6. ^ Jump
up to:a b Dowden 2020, p. 5.
7. ^ Chang 2014, p. 37.
8. ^ Haack 1978, p. 1–10, 1. ‘Philosophy of logics’.
9. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 355.
10. ^ Girod 2014, p. 13.
11. ^ Craig 1996, Formal and informal logic.
12. ^ Bronkhorst et al. 2020, p.
1674-6.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b Enyeart, Baker & Vanharlingen 1980, p. 263–267.
14. ^ Flick 2013, p. 123.
15. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 5, 432.
16. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 346-7, 432, 470.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b c Dowden 2020, p. 1.
18. ^ Jump up to:a b
c d Audi 1999, Philosophy of logic.
19. ^ Jump up to:a b Honderich 2005, philosophical logic.
20. ^ Copi, Cohen & Rodych 2018, p. 4.
21. ^ Kenny 2018, p. 140.
22. ^ Kaye 2012, p. 57.
23. ^ Blackburn 2008, p. 29, argument.
24. ^ Johnson
2017, p. 2.
25. ^ Jump up to:a b c Dowden 2020, p. 67-8.
26. ^ Gabbay 2002, p. 15.
27. ^ Bronkhorst et al. 2020, p. 1676-7.
28. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 67-8, 432, 470.
29. ^ Copi, Cohen & Rodych 2018, p. 22–6.
30. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 31-2, 67-8.
31. ^
Girod 2014, p. 54.
32. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hansen 2020.
33. ^ Arp, Barbone & Bruce 2018, p. 115.
34. ^ Johnson-Laird 2009, p. 8–17.
35. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 432.
36. ^ Evans 2005, 8. Deductive reasoning.
37. ^ Evans 2005, p. 169, 8. Deductive
Reasoning.
38. ^ Byrne, Evans & Newstead 2019, p. 59.
39. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 392.
40. ^ Jamieson 2013, p. 34.
41. ^ Blackburn 2016, p. 422, rule of inference.
42. ^ Jump up to:a b Velleman 2006, p. 8, 103.
43. ^ Church 1996, p. 104.
44. ^
Jump up to:a b Jacquette 2006, p. 1–12, Introduction: Philosophy of logic today.
45. ^ Smith 2020.
46. ^ Groarke 2022.
47. ^ Haack 1978, p. 170, 222.
48. ^ Norman & Sylvan 2012, p. 419.
49. ^ Goranko & Rumberg 2022.
50. ^ Shapiro & Kouri
Kissel 2021.
51. ^ Haack 1996, p. 1, 4, 1. ‘Alternative’ in ‘Alternative Logic’.
52. ^ Jump up to:a b Borchert 2006, Logic, Non-Classical.
53. ^ Moschovakis 2021.
54. ^ Priest, Tanaka & Weber 2018.
55. ^ Weaver 2015, p. 70.
56. ^ Sayward
2009, p. 15.
57. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 432, 470.
58. ^ Jump up to:a b Anshakov & Gergely 2010, p. 128.
59. ^ Jump up to:a b Magnani & Bertolotti 2017, p. 152.
60. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Dowden 2020, p. 470.
61. ^ Amaya 2015, p. 202.
62. ^ Jump
up to:a b Bertolaso & Sterpetti 2020, p. 110.
63. ^ Cellucci 2017, p. 154.
64. ^ Nadler & Shapiro 2021, p. 81.
65. ^ Koons 2022.
66. ^ Nute 2012, p. 82.
67. ^ Niiniluoto, Sintonen & Wolenski 2004, p. 901.
68. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Li &
Vitányi 2019, p. 345–448, Inductive Reasoning.
69. ^ Jump up to:a b c Vickers 2022.
70. ^ Porta 2016, Inductive Reasoning.
71. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 432, 450, 470.
72. ^ Bird 2006, p. 123.
73. ^ Lorenzano, Rheinberger & Galles 2010, p. 103.
74. ^
Mizrahi 2020, p. 83.
75. ^ Asher, Banks & Scheuren 2007, p. 22.
76. ^ Heit 2007, p. 1–24, What Is Induction and Why Study It?.
77. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 346-7, 432.
78. ^ Henderson 2022.
79. ^ Psillos 2023.
80. ^ Jump up to:a b Douven 2022.
81. ^
Jump up to:a b Koslowski 2017, p. 366–382, Abductive reasoning and explanation.
82. ^ Walton 2014, p. 1–3.
83. ^ Douven 2011, Explicating Abduction.
84. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Dowden 2020, p. 519-20.
85. ^ Jump up to:a b c Douven 2011, 1.2
The ubiquity of abduction.
86. ^ Jump up to:a b Salmon 2012, p. 132–3.
87. ^ Kurtz, Morris & Pershadsingh 1989, p. 896–901.
88. ^ Bunnin & Yu 2008, p. 25.
89. ^ Jump up to:a b Bartha 2019.
90. ^ Sandkühler 2010, Analogie.
91. ^
 Salmon
2012, p. 133–4
 Bartha 2022
 Goswami 2013, p. 86
 Sriram 2012, p. 286
92. ^ Fasko & Fair 2020, p. 51.
93. ^ Demir 2017, p. 32.
94. ^ Margolis et al. 1986, p. 167.
95. ^ Ornek & Saleh 2012, p. 82.
96. ^ Jump up to:a
b c d Dowden 2023.
97. ^ Jump up to:a b Dowden 2020, p. 290.
98. ^ Kilcrease 2021, p. 100.
99. ^ Jump up to:a b Vleet 2011, p. ix.
100. ^ Colman 2009, affirming the consequent.
101. ^ Kohar 2016, p. 54, 57.
102. ^ Tomić 2013, p. 347–368.
103. ^
Dowden 2021.
104. ^ Tuman 2008, p. 75.
105. ^ Walton 2013, p. 250–2.
106. ^ Walton 1987, p. 10.
107. ^ Engel 2014, p. 74, 108–11.
108. ^ Mackie 2006, Fallacies.
109. ^ Atwater 1867, p. 167.
110. ^
 Enyeart, Baker & Vanharlingen
1980, p. 263–267
 Dowden 2020, p. 1
 Bronkhorst et al. 2020, p. 1674
 Ivory 2021, p. 73
 Halpern 2014, p. 81
111. ^ Jump up to:a b Dowden 2020, p. 18.
112. ^ Nelson 2005, p. 167.
113. ^ Conati et al. 2015, p.
738.
114. ^ Jump up to:a b c Dowden 2020, p. 1, 13.
115. ^ Jump up to:a b Mele & Rawling 2004, p. 3–14, Introduction: Aspects of Rationality.
116. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 143, 172.
117. ^ Cottrell 2017, p. 110.
118. ^ Jump up to:a b Dowden 2020,
p. 263-4.
119. ^ Gambrill 2012, p. 540.
120. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 19.
121. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 6.
122. ^ Robertson 2009, p. 192.
123. ^ Dowden 2020, p. 2-5.
124. ^ Jump up to:a b Dowden 2020, p. 9.
125. ^ Viale 2020, p. 746.
126. ^ Dowden
2020, p. 10.
2. Amaya, Amalia (30 April 2015). The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Coherence and its Role in Legal Argument. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 202. ISBN 9781782255161.
3. Anshakov, Oleg M.; Gergely, Tamás (11 March 2010).
Cognitive Reasoning: A Formal Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 128. ISBN 9783540688754.
4. Arp, Robert; Barbone, Steven; Bruce, Michael (28 September 2018). Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy.
John Wiley & Sons. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-119-16580-4.
5. Asher, Jana; Banks, David; Scheuren, Fritz J. (26 December 2007). Statistical Methods for Human Rights. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 22. ISBN 9780387728377.
6. Atwater, Lyman Hotchkiss
(1867). Manual of Elementary Logic: Designed Especially for the Use of Teachers and Learners. J. B. Lippincott. p. 167.
7. Audi, Robert (1999). “Philosophy of logic”. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107643796.
Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021.
8. Bartha, Paul (2019). “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
9. Bartha,
Paul (2022). “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning: 2.4 Analogical inference rules?”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 19 January 2023.
10. Bertolaso, Marta; Sterpetti, Fabio (5 February
2020). A Critical Reflection on Automated Science: Will Science Remain Human?. Springer Nature. p. 110. ISBN 9783030250010.
11. Bird, Alexander (9 May 2006). Philosophy Of Science. Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 9781135364236.
12. Blackburn, Simon (24
March 2016). “rule of inference”. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 9780198735304. Archived from the original on 8 January 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
13. Blackburn, Simon (1 January 2008). “argument”. The Oxford
Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780199541430. Archived from the original on 8 January 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
14. Borchert, Donald (2006). “Logic, Non-Classical”. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd
Edition. Macmillan. ISBN 9780028657905.
15. Bronkhorst, Hugo; Roorda, Gerrit; Suhre, Cor; Goedhart, Martin (December 2020). “Logical Reasoning in Formal and Everyday Reasoning Tasks”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 18
(8): 1673–1694. Bibcode:2020IJSME..18.1673B. doi:10.1007/s10763-019-10039-8. S2CID 254541202.
16. Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (15 April 2008). The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Wiley. p. 25. ISBN 9780470997215.
17. Byrne, Ruth M.
J.; Evans, Jonathan St B. T.; Newstead, Stephen E. (18 June 2019). Human Reasoning: The Psychology Of Deduction. Routledge. p. 59. ISBN 9781317716266.
18. Cellucci, Carlo (29 March 2017). Rethinking Knowledge: The Heuristic View. Springer. p. 154.
ISBN 9783319532370.
19. Chang, Mark (22 July 2014). Principles of Scientific Methods. CRC Press. p. 37. ISBN 9781482238099.
20. Church, Alonzo (1996). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton University Press. p. 104. ISBN 9780691029061.
21. Colman,
Andrew M. (1 January 2009). “affirming the consequent”. A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199534067.
22. Conati, Cristina; Heffernan, Neil; Mitrovic, Antonija; Verdejo, M. Felisa (16 June 2015). Artificial Intelligence
in Education: 17th International Conference, AIED 2015, Madrid, Spain, June 22-26, 2015. Proceedings. Springer. p. 738. ISBN 9783319197739.
23. Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl; Rodych, Victor (3 September 2018). Introduction to Logic. Routledge. ISBN
9781351386975.
24. Cottrell, Stella (14 March 2017). Critical Thinking Skills: Effective Analysis, Argument and Reflection. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 9781350314672.
25. Craig, Edward (1996). “Formal and informal logic”. Routledge Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 9780415073103. Archived from the original on 16 January 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021.
26. Demir, Imran (24 March 2017). Overconfidence and Risk Taking in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Case of Turkey’s Syria
Policy. Springer. p. 32. ISBN 9783319526058.
27. Douven, Igor (2022). “Abduction and Explanatory Reasoning”. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
28. Douven, Igor (9 March 2011). “Abduction”. Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
29. Dowden, Bradley (2023). “Fallacies”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 January 2023.
30. Dowden, Bradley (2021). “Fallacies: 6. Partial List of Fallacies”. Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
31. Dowden, Bradley H. (2020). Logical Reasoning (PDF). (for an earlier version, see: Dowden, Bradley Harris (1993). Logical Reasoning. Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 9780534176884.)
32. Engel, S. Morris
(2014). With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies. St. Martin’s Press. pp. 74, 108–11. ISBN 9781457695957.
33. Enyeart, Morris A.; Baker, Dale; Vanharlingen, Dave (May 1980). “Correlation of inductive and deductive logical reasoning
to college physics achievement”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 17 (3): 263–267. Bibcode:1980JRScT..17..263E. doi:10.1002/tea.3660170311.
34. Evans, Jonathan (18 April 2005). Morrison, Robert (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and
Reasoning. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521824170.
35. Fasko, Daniel; Fair, Frank (12 October 2020). Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment. Brill. p. 51. ISBN 9789004444591.
36. Flick, Uwe (10
December 2013). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE. p. 123. ISBN 9781446296691.
37. Franks, Bridget A.; Therriault, David J.; Buhr, Miriam I.; Chiang, Evelyn S.; Gonzalez, Claire M.; Kwon, Heekyung K.; Schelble, Jenni L.; Wang,
Xuesong (August 2013). “Looking back: reasoning and metacognition with narrative texts”. Metacognition and Learning. 8 (2): 146. doi:10.1007/s11409-013-9099-2. S2CID 255162310.
38. Gabbay, Michael (4 September 2002). Logic With Added Reasoning.
Broadview Press. p. 15. ISBN 9781551114057.
39. Gambrill, Eileen (1 May 2012). Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Improving the Quality of Judgments and Decisions. John Wiley & Sons. p. 540. ISBN 9780470904381.
40. Girod, Robert J. (25 September
2014). Logical Investigative Methods: Critical Thinking and Reasoning for Successful Investigations. CRC Press. ISBN 9781482243147.
41. Goranko, Valentin; Rumberg, Antje (2022). “Temporal Logic”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 24 January 2023.
42. Goswami, Usha (23 October 2013). Analogical Reasoning in Children. Routledge. p. 86. ISBN 9781317775393.
43. Groarke, Louis F. (2022). “Aristotle: Logic”. Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 29 December 2021. Retrieved 1 January 2022.
44. Haack, Susan (1996). “1. ‘Alternative’ in ‘Alternative Logic'”. Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press. pp. 1, 4. ISBN 9780226311333.
45. Haack, Susan (27 July 1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521293297.
46. Halpern, Diane F. (4 February 2014). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Brief Edition
of Thought & Knowledge. Routledge. p. 81. ISBN 9781317778370.
47. Hansen, Hans (2020). “Fallacies”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 29 March 2021. Retrieved 18
March 2021.
48. Heit, Evan (2007). “What Is Induction and Why Study It?”. Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental, and Computational Approaches. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–24. ISBN 9780521856485.
49. Henderson, Leah (2022). “The
Problem of Induction: 1. Hume’s Problem”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
50. Honderich, Ted (2005). “philosophical logic”. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 9780199264797. Archived from the original on 29 January 2021. Retrieved 2 January 2022.
51. Ivory, Sarah Birrell (11 January 2021). Becoming a Critical Thinker: For Your University Studies and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
p. 73. ISBN 9780198841531.
52. Jacquette, Dale (2006). “Introduction: Philosophy of logic today”. Philosophy of Logic. North Holland. pp. 1–12. ISBN 9780444515414. Archived from the original on 7 December 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021.
53. Jamieson,
D. (9 March 2013). Language, Mind, and Art: Essays in Appreciation and Analysis, in Honor of Paul Ziff. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 34. ISBN 9789401583138.
54. Johnson, Gregory (6 January 2017). Argument and Inference: An Introduction
to Inductive Logic. MIT Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780262035255.
55. Johnson-Laird, Phil (30 December 2009). “Deductive reasoning”. WIREs Cognitive Science. 1 (1): 8–17. doi:10.1002/wcs.20. ISSN 1939-5078. PMID 26272833.
56. Kaye, Sharon M. (1 December
2012). Critical Thinking: A Beginner’s Guide. Simon and Schuster. p. 57. ISBN 9781780741475.
57. Kenny, Anthony (15 October 2018). An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy, 20th Anniversary Edition. John Wiley & Sons. p. 140. ISBN 9781119531173.
58. Kilcrease,
Bethany (2021). Falsehood and Fallacy: How to Think, Read, and Write in the Twenty-First Century. University of Toronto Press. p. 100. ISBN 9781487588618.
59. Kohar, Richard (15 June 2016). Basic Discrete Mathematics: Logic, Set Theory, And Probability.
World Scientific Publishing Company. pp. 54, 57. ISBN 9789814730419.
60. Koons, Robert (2022). “Defeasible Reasoning”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 22 January 2023.
61. Koslowski,
Barbara (14 November 2017). “Abductive reasoning and explanation”. International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Routledge. pp. 366–382. doi:10.4324/9781315725697. ISBN 9781315725697.
62. Kurtz, T W; Morris, R C; Pershadsingh, H A (June 1989).
“The Zucker fatty rat as a genetic model of obesity and hypertension”. Hypertension. 13 (6_pt_2): 896–901. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.13.6.896. PMID 2786848. S2CID 109606.
63. Li, Ming; Vitányi, Paul (2019). “Inductive Reasoning”. An Introduction to Kolmogorov
Complexity and Its Applications. Springer International Publishing. pp. 345–448. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11298-1_5. ISBN 9783030112981.
64. Lorenzano, Pablo; Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg; Galles, Eduardo Ortiz and Carlos Delfino (27 September 2010). History
and Philosophy of Science and Technology. Eolss Publishers / UNESCO. p. 103. ISBN 9781848263239.
65. Mackie, J. L. (2006). “Fallacies”. In Borchert, Donald (ed.). Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Macmillan. ISBN 9780028657905.
66. Magnani,
Lorenzo; Bertolotti, Tommaso (22 May 2017). Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science. Springer. p. 152. ISBN 9783319305264.
67. Margolis, James M.; Margolis, Joseph; Krausz, Michael; Krausz, A. S.; Burian, R.; Margolis, Professor Joseph (31 October
1986). Rationality, Relativism and the Human Sciences. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 167. ISBN 9789024732715.
68. Mele, Alfred R.; Rawling, Piers. (2004). “INTRODUCTION: Aspects of Rationality”. The Oxford Handbook of Rationality. Oxford
University Press. pp. 3–14. doi:10.1093/0195145399.001.0001. ISBN 9780195145397.
69. Mizrahi, Moti (29 September 2020). The Relativity of Theory: Key Positions and Arguments in the Contemporary Scientific Realism/Antirealism Debate. Springer Nature.
p. 83. ISBN 9783030580476.
70. Moschovakis, Joan (2021). “Intuitionistic Logic: 1. Rejection of Tertium Non Datur”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 11 December 2021.
71. Nadler,
Steven; Shapiro, Lawrence (31 August 2021). When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People: How Philosophy Can Save Us from Ourselves. Princeton University Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780691220086.
72. Nelson, Hazel E. (2005). Cognitive-behavioural Therapy with
Delusions and Hallucinations: A Practice Manual. Nelson Thornes. p. 167. ISBN 9780748792566.
73. Niiniluoto, I.; Sintonen, Matti; Wolenski, Jan (31 March 2004). Handbook of Epistemology. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 901. ISBN 9781402019852.
74. Norman,
J.; Sylvan, R. (6 December 2012). Directions in Relevant Logic. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 419. ISBN 9789400910058.
75. Nunes, Terezinha (5 October 2011). “Logical Reasoning and Learning”. In Seel, Norbert M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the
Sciences of Learning. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 2066–9. ISBN 9781441914279.
76. Nute, Donald (6 December 2012). Defeasible Deontic Logic. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 82. ISBN 9789401588515.
77. Ornek, Dr Funda; Saleh, Dr
Issa M. (1 May 2012). Contemporary Science Teaching Approaches: Promoting Conceptual Understanding in Science. IAP. p. 82. ISBN 9781617356100.
78. Porta, Miquel (21 July 2016). “Inductive Reasoning”. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 9780199976720.
79. Priest, Graham; Tanaka, Koji; Weber, Zach (2018). “Paraconsistent Logic”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
80. Psillos, Stathis (2023).
“Induction, The Problem of”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 January 2023.
81. Robertson, Simon (1 October 2009). Spheres of Reason: New Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity. OUP Oxford. p. 192. ISBN 9780191610219.
82. Salmon,
Merrilee (2012). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1133711643.
83. Sandkühler, Hans Jörg (2010). “Analogie”. Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Meiner. ISBN 9783787319992. Archived from the original on 2021-03-11. Retrieved
2023-01-24.
84. Sayward, Charles (2009). Dialogues Concerning Natural Numbers. Peter Lang. p. 15. ISBN 9781433107801.
85. Shapiro, Stewart; Kouri Kissel, Teresa (2021). “Classical Logic”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 3 May 1998. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
86. Smith, Robin (2020). “Aristotle’s Logic”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the
original on 26 December 2021. Retrieved 1 January 2022.
87. Sriram, Ram D. (6 December 2012). Intelligent Systems for Engineering: A Knowledge-based Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 286. ISBN 9781447106319.
88. Tomić, Taeda (2013).
“False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition”. Argumentation. 27 (4): 347–368. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0. S2CID 144781912.
89. Tuman, Joseph S. (2008). Political Communication in American Campaigns. SAGE. p. 75. ISBN 9781412909457.
90. Velleman,
Daniel J. (16 January 2006). How to Prove It: A Structured Approach. Cambridge University Press. p. 8, 103. ISBN 9780521675994.
91. Viale, Riccardo (2 December 2020). Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality. Routledge. p. 746. ISBN 9781317330790.
92. Vickers,
John M. (2022). “Inductive Reasoning”. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
93. Vleet, Jacob E. Van (2011). Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide. University Press of America. p. ix. ISBN 9780761854333.
94. Walton,
Douglas (15 May 2014). Abductive Reasoning. University of Alabama Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 9780817357825.
95. Walton, Douglas (26 August 2013). Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 250–2. ISBN 9781107039308.
96. Walton, Douglas
N. (1987). Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 9789027250056.
97. Weaver, Nik (22 April 2015). Truth And Assertibility. World Scientific. p. 70. ISBN 9789814619981.
Photo credit:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maf04/6347846935/’]