Week four Journal

docx

School

Brightwood College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

347N

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by dellie680

1 Inferences and Fallacies Doris Bangura Chamberlain University PHIL347N-13661 Dr. Todd Buck 06/05/2023

2 Inferences and Fallacies Inferences The terms "valid inference" and "warranted inference" refer to the same thing in both their definitions and their conceptualizations: What exactly do we mean when we say, "valid inference"? The statement "drawing a wrong inference from facts before presenting it as fact" accurately describes the action of reaching a judgment that is not supported by the data. As defined by Shwartz (2020), a "warranted inference" refers to an argument where the proposer claims that the finding achieved is very probable or near to the truth, despite the fact that it might be true or untrue. The process of drawing such an inference is called "warranting" the conclusion. Because "to prove" is one of the definitions of deductive reasoning, it implies that the concept of valid inference is likewise relatively close to that of deductive reasoning. As a result, having a grasp of what constitutes a valid inference will be advantageous in a variety of settings. If someone is exceptionally good at dancing, and another person watches them and thinks, "Wow, he's just dancing like Michael Jackson!" then that person is dancing like Michael Jackson. An inductive argument serves the same aim that a justified inference does, which is to increase the likelihood of reaching a certain conclusion. One will have a better understanding of the many different kinds of inductive reasoning if they have a firm grip on the idea of justified inference (Hayes & Heit, 2018). For instance, one may interpret a girl's angry knocking on the door as an indication of her displeasure with the situation. Regardless of whether or not her anger is warranted by the situation. Fallacies

3 A valid argument will not include any typos or spelling mistakes. Only by logically following from other true premises can an argument be considered convincing. When the conclusion does not fit with the premises, yet the premises do, the argument is fallacious. There are two distinct kinds of logical fallacy: those that use a proper form but apply it incorrectly and those that use no form at all (Facione, Gittens & Facione, 2016). Given (A) and (B), then (A) implies (B) is an example of a logical error induced by the failure to account for the counterfactual. In this case, it is correct to write "If A then B, A, therefore, B," which affirms the consequent (the statement "If A then B, B therefore A"). The fallacy of assuming that anything present or missing in part must be present in the whole is at play here; the correct form is "If A then B, Not B, Therefore Not A"; for example, "A can do all his work very best, however, cannot carry out it with others." When someone argues that anything present or missing in the whole must also be present in the parts, they are making the division fallacy, which is the reverse of the composition fallacy. Civic Responsibility Participants will be equipped with listened explanations from both perspectives of the topic by the conclusion of the session, giving them plenty to chew on as they develop their own opinions. It's crucial to focus on issues that might have far-reaching consequences for the community as a whole. Citizens owe themselves to themselves and their communities to be informed about pressing topics like health care reform, which affects us all (Facione & Gittens, 2016).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 References Facione, P. A., Gittens, C. A., & Facione, N. C. (2016). Cultivating a critical thinking mindset. Academia. Edu. Weekly Digest , 28 . Shwartz, V. (2021). Learning high-precision lexical inferences. Künstliche Intelligenz . Kane, M. T. (2021). Articulating a validity argument. In The Routledge Handbook of language testing (pp. 32-47). Routledge. Hayes, B. K., & Heit, E. (2018). Inductive reasoning 2.0. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 9 (3), e1459. Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Week four Journal

Related Documents