“If facts by themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in the proof of a statement?” With reference to the question I would say “Facts” can indeed prove or disprove anything, but they need help from Areas of Knowledge and Ways of knowing. One of the major WOK that supports reasoning and proving/disproving of facts is “Logic” and “Belief” is another WOK that supports reasoning. The AOK’s such as “Mathematics” plays a really great role in reasoning. Facts may be perceived differently by different individual because every single person wants to accept something as a fact that is going to be beneficial to them. This brings me to my knowledge question How do we know if the reason has proven or disproven a statement ?. Reasoning
…show more content…
Many believe that beliefs and Logic are the best way to support one’s argument because things like syllogism plays role in it. In logic, which is a form of deductive reasoning, consisting of a minor premise, a major premise, and a conclusion. For instance we studied one of the most common syllogism that helps prove or disprove things is a categorical syllogism which shows: if A=B, B=C then C=A. To prove that the facts are proven and disprove through the usage of logic in terms of syllogism the example is All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. So in here “All men are mortal” is major premise, “Socrates is a man” is minor premise and “Socrates is mortal” is Concluded. So through the use of these kind of syllogism, it makes us believe like it 's a fact even though it necessarily is not. Both premises are known to be valid according to observation or historical fact. So these syllogism tries to prove that if these two premises are valid then the conclusion has to be valid too. Due to the fact that conclusion is based on logical reasoning, therefore it does not represent trust all the time, but it is still considered fact. Through this analysis, then it shows that through the help of WOK we can prove a statement, even if it is not, which is clearly explained by the example
Many believe that beliefs and Logic are the best way to support one’s argument because things like syllogism plays role in it. In logic, which is a form of deductive reasoning, consisting of a minor premise, a major premise, and a conclusion. For instance we studied one of the most common syllogism that helps prove or disprove things is a categorical syllogism which shows: if A=B, B=C then C=A. To prove that the facts are proven and disprove through the usage of logic in terms of syllogism the example is All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. So in here “All men are mortal” is major premise, “Socrates is a man” is minor premise and “Socrates is mortal” is Concluded. So through the use of these kind of syllogism, it makes us believe like it 's a fact even though it necessarily is not. Both premises are known to be valid according to observation or historical fact. So these syllogism tries to prove that if these two premises are valid then the conclusion has to be valid too. Due to the fact that conclusion is based on logical reasoning, therefore it does not represent trust all the time, but it is still considered fact. Through this analysis, then it shows that through the help of WOK we can prove a statement, even if it is not, which is clearly explained by the example