Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Answer

deleted 4 characters in body
Source Link
J D
J D
  • 29.2k
  • 3
  • 24
  • 106

Short Answer

Is it possible to get a probable proof using the method of philosophical argument?

Yes, there are several methods of argumentation that lead to uncertain conclusions such as induction, abduction, and statistical argumentation that are used by philosophers, particularly mathematically savvy ones. Deduction is the gold standard if you are looking for certain conclusions, but human reason is generally informal, and philosophers such as Stephen Toulmin have recognized that most inference is not deductive. (And if you were wondering, mathematicians have a fetish for deduction that might betray the fallibilistic nature of human reasoning generally.)

Long Answer

Welcome! Your profile suggests you are a mathematician getting your feet wet in philosophical thought. Philosophers generally recognize three broad categories of inference, although many philosophers engage in hair-splitting, for instance, distinguishing between abduction and inference to best explanation. Simply put, since Plato's Meno at least, philosophers have tried to show how to overcome uncertainty in reasoning and have arrived at three general classes of argument:

  • Deductive reasoning - Where a conclusion must necessarily follow from sound premises structured as a valid argument.
  • Inductive reasoning - Where a conclusion probabilistically follows from strong premises structured as a cogent argument.
  • Abductive reasoning/IBE - Where a conclusion follows from deductive and inductive reasoning combined with the use of intuition.

There areThese forms of reasoning are not the only that are studied, see Logical reasoning in WP, but these are the three important ones, with abductive reasoning being the most recent model of human reasoning, and particularly important given certain developments in logic such as natural deduction, intuitionistic logic, non-classical logic, and non-monotonic logic. In the philosophy of artificial intelligence, the defeasibility of informal logic is a widely studied topic.

Short Answer

Is it possible to get a probable proof using the method of philosophical argument?

Yes, there are several methods of argumentation that lead to uncertain conclusions such as induction, abduction, and statistical argumentation that are used by philosophers, particularly mathematically savvy ones. Deduction is the gold standard if you are looking for certain conclusions, but human reason is generally informal, and philosophers such as Stephen Toulmin have recognized that most inference is not deductive. (And if you were wondering, mathematicians have a fetish for deduction that might betray the fallibilistic nature of human reasoning generally.)

Long Answer

Welcome! Your profile suggests you are a mathematician getting your feet wet in philosophical thought. Philosophers generally recognize three broad categories of inference, although many philosophers engage in hair-splitting, for instance, distinguishing between abduction and inference to best explanation. Simply put, since Plato's Meno at least, philosophers have tried to show how to overcome uncertainty in reasoning and have arrived at three general classes of argument:

  • Deductive reasoning - Where a conclusion must necessarily follow from sound premises structured as a valid argument.
  • Inductive reasoning - Where a conclusion probabilistically follows from strong premises structured as a cogent argument.
  • Abductive reasoning/IBE - Where a conclusion follows from deductive and inductive reasoning combined with the use of intuition.

There are forms of reasoning are not the only that are studied, see Logical reasoning in WP, but these are the three important ones, with abductive reasoning being the most recent model of human reasoning, and particularly important given certain developments in logic such as natural deduction, intuitionistic logic, non-classical logic, and non-monotonic logic. In the philosophy of artificial intelligence, the defeasibility of informal logic is a widely studied topic.

Short Answer

Is it possible to get a probable proof using the method of philosophical argument?

Yes, there are several methods of argumentation that lead to uncertain conclusions such as induction, abduction, and statistical argumentation that are used by philosophers, particularly mathematically savvy ones. Deduction is the gold standard if you are looking for certain conclusions, but human reason is generally informal, and philosophers such as Stephen Toulmin have recognized that most inference is not deductive. (And if you were wondering, mathematicians have a fetish for deduction that might betray the fallibilistic nature of human reasoning generally.)

Long Answer

Welcome! Your profile suggests you are a mathematician getting your feet wet in philosophical thought. Philosophers generally recognize three broad categories of inference, although many philosophers engage in hair-splitting, for instance, distinguishing between abduction and inference to best explanation. Simply put, since Plato's Meno at least, philosophers have tried to show how to overcome uncertainty in reasoning and have arrived at three general classes of argument:

  • Deductive reasoning - Where a conclusion must necessarily follow from sound premises structured as a valid argument.
  • Inductive reasoning - Where a conclusion probabilistically follows from strong premises structured as a cogent argument.
  • Abductive reasoning/IBE - Where a conclusion follows from deductive and inductive reasoning combined with the use of intuition.

These forms of reasoning are not the only that are studied, see Logical reasoning in WP, but these are the three important ones, with abductive reasoning being the most recent model of human reasoning, and particularly important given certain developments in logic such as natural deduction, intuitionistic logic, non-classical logic, and non-monotonic logic. In the philosophy of artificial intelligence, the defeasibility of informal logic is a widely studied topic.

Source Link
J D
J D
  • 29.2k
  • 3
  • 24
  • 106

Short Answer

Is it possible to get a probable proof using the method of philosophical argument?

Yes, there are several methods of argumentation that lead to uncertain conclusions such as induction, abduction, and statistical argumentation that are used by philosophers, particularly mathematically savvy ones. Deduction is the gold standard if you are looking for certain conclusions, but human reason is generally informal, and philosophers such as Stephen Toulmin have recognized that most inference is not deductive. (And if you were wondering, mathematicians have a fetish for deduction that might betray the fallibilistic nature of human reasoning generally.)

Long Answer

Welcome! Your profile suggests you are a mathematician getting your feet wet in philosophical thought. Philosophers generally recognize three broad categories of inference, although many philosophers engage in hair-splitting, for instance, distinguishing between abduction and inference to best explanation. Simply put, since Plato's Meno at least, philosophers have tried to show how to overcome uncertainty in reasoning and have arrived at three general classes of argument:

  • Deductive reasoning - Where a conclusion must necessarily follow from sound premises structured as a valid argument.
  • Inductive reasoning - Where a conclusion probabilistically follows from strong premises structured as a cogent argument.
  • Abductive reasoning/IBE - Where a conclusion follows from deductive and inductive reasoning combined with the use of intuition.

There are forms of reasoning are not the only that are studied, see Logical reasoning in WP, but these are the three important ones, with abductive reasoning being the most recent model of human reasoning, and particularly important given certain developments in logic such as natural deduction, intuitionistic logic, non-classical logic, and non-monotonic logic. In the philosophy of artificial intelligence, the defeasibility of informal logic is a widely studied topic.