In mathematics, a statement that has been proven is referred to as a theorem; it is proven based on pre-established statements that require no proof, such as axioms, which are self-evident. In Philosophy, philosophers are concerned with arguments, instead of proofs. Truth of an argument can be acquired through two main processes: Deduction and induction. Arguments with such logical process consist of premises and a conclusion.
In order to prove an argument, one has to provide reasons to support it. To do so, one begins with plausible assumptions, the premises (axioms) and then show that those assumptions logically entails a conclusion (theorem).
The logical form of an argument shows whether the argument is valid or invalid. Let’s assume that …show more content…
However, one can argue that the second premise is false given the following reason: Considering the fact that the earth has land and water surfaces and assuming that the apple was in good condition, if it was released below earth’s surface, in water, it would have risen. Whether the apple falls or rise depends on the point (above or below earth’s surface) from which it is being released. In the following argument, the defect of invalidity of the original argument is repaired with true premises.
An unsupported object, when released a few feet from the earth’s surface, falls to earth due to the law of universal gravitation.
In example 3, the first premise is true because we know that an invisible force called gravity acts upon it. However, if the apple was released into space, the apple would have unlikely fallen. This is because in space, gravitational force is weaker for objects having relatively less mass. Since, the premises specify that the apple is released “a few feet from the earth’s surface”, we know that the apples are neither released below earth’s surface nor in space. Hence, the statements in the argument are true and …show more content…
The conclusion is a conjecture as further observations may support or contradict the conclusion; the 100,001st horse may not have hooves. Unless the observations are exhaustive (I’ve observed all horses), the conclusion is only a guess. An inductive argument is better than a guess in that the strength of an inductive argument can be increased; the more evidence that is truly representative is provided, the more compelling will the inductive conclusion be. "100,000 horses from every country on the earth were observed, and all of them had hooves. Therefore, it seems likely that all horses have
In order to prove an argument, one has to provide reasons to support it. To do so, one begins with plausible assumptions, the premises (axioms) and then show that those assumptions logically entails a conclusion (theorem).
The logical form of an argument shows whether the argument is valid or invalid. Let’s assume that …show more content…
However, one can argue that the second premise is false given the following reason: Considering the fact that the earth has land and water surfaces and assuming that the apple was in good condition, if it was released below earth’s surface, in water, it would have risen. Whether the apple falls or rise depends on the point (above or below earth’s surface) from which it is being released. In the following argument, the defect of invalidity of the original argument is repaired with true premises.
An unsupported object, when released a few feet from the earth’s surface, falls to earth due to the law of universal gravitation.
In example 3, the first premise is true because we know that an invisible force called gravity acts upon it. However, if the apple was released into space, the apple would have unlikely fallen. This is because in space, gravitational force is weaker for objects having relatively less mass. Since, the premises specify that the apple is released “a few feet from the earth’s surface”, we know that the apples are neither released below earth’s surface nor in space. Hence, the statements in the argument are true and …show more content…
The conclusion is a conjecture as further observations may support or contradict the conclusion; the 100,001st horse may not have hooves. Unless the observations are exhaustive (I’ve observed all horses), the conclusion is only a guess. An inductive argument is better than a guess in that the strength of an inductive argument can be increased; the more evidence that is truly representative is provided, the more compelling will the inductive conclusion be. "100,000 horses from every country on the earth were observed, and all of them had hooves. Therefore, it seems likely that all horses have