7 Liberal Arts . Logic

from Wikipedia

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.



In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation".

The fields of law, computer science, and artificial intelligence research renewed interest in the subject of abduction. Diagnostic expert systems frequently employ abduction.

from Wikipedia  philpapers.org

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. It differs from inductive reasoning or abductive reasoning.



Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left.

In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty. However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

from Wikipedia   Properties of inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.



Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms).

Trivium Education

LOGIC — (Answers the Why of a subject.)

Developing the faculty of reason in establishing valid [i.e., non-contradictory] relationships among facts yields basic, systematic Understanding– it is a guide for thinking correctly; thinking without contradiction. More concisely, it is the art of non-contradictory identification.



The work of logic is proof. Proof consists of establishing the truth and validity of a concept or proposition in correspondence with objective, factual reality by following a self-consistent chain of higher-level thought back down to foundational, primary concepts or axioms (i.e., Existence, Consciousness, and Causality). It is a means of keeping us in touch and grounded to objective reality in our search for valid knowledge and understanding.

Logic brings the rhythm of the subjective thoughts of the mind, and the subsequent actions of the body, into harmony with the rhythm of the objective universe. The intention is to amicably synchronize individual mental processes, and their attendant actions, with the processes of our surrounding natural, factual existence over the period of a lifetime.