Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning, where
the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim
, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. In other words, defeasible reasoning produces a contingent statement or claim.
What is a defeasible argument?
Reasoning is defeasible
when the corresponding argument is rationally compelling but not deductively valid
. The truth of the premises of a good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
What is a demonstrative argument?
A demonstrative argument
establishes a conclusion whose negation is a contradiction
. The negation of the conclusion of the inductive inference is not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction that the next piece of bread is not nourishing.
What is an example of an inductive argument?
An example of inductive logic is, “
The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny
. … Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies.” Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: “Harold is a grandfather.
What is a defeasible rule?
defeasible rules.
specify that a fact is typically a consequence of another
; undercutting defeaters. specify exceptions to defeasible rules. A priority ordering over the defeasible rules and the defeaters can be given.
What is example of demonstrative?
A word that directly indicates a person/thing or few people and few things. The demonstrative words are
that, those, this, and these
. Examples of Demonstrative Adjectives in Sentences: Give me that blue water bottle.
What are the 3 types of arguments?
There are three basic structures or types of argument you are likely to encounter in college:
the Toulmin argument, the Rogerian argument, and the Classical or Aristotelian argument
.
What means defeasible?
:
capable of being annulled or made void
a defeasible claim.
What is defeasible title?
Title
which is not absolute
but possibly may be annulled or voided at a later date.
What is syllogism reasoning?
Syllogism is
a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two or three given propositions or statements
. It uses deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning. You have to take the given statements to be true, even if they are at a variance from established facts.
What are some examples of deductive arguments?
- All men are mortal. Joe is a man. Therefore Joe is mortal. …
- Bachelors are unmarried men. Bill is unmarried. Therefore, Bill is a bachelor.
- To get a Bachelor’s degree at Utah Sate University, a student must have 120 credits. Sally has more than 130 credits.
What is argument and its types?
There are two kinds of arguments:
deductive and non-deductive
. Now, suppose you’re facing a deductive argument. If the argument is invalid, then it’s a bad argument: it’s an argument that is intended to give conclusive support for it’s conclusion, but fails to do so.
How do you identify a deductive argument?
If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion
, then the argument is deductive. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the argument is inductive.
What is a defeasible fee?
What is fee simple defeasible? Fee simple defeasible is
a legal term and type of property ownership
, where the ownership is dependent on specific conditions. If the conditions of ownership are violated, the property may be returned to the grantor or to a specified third party.
What is an undercutting defeater?
Undercutting
.
Evidence that undermines the evidential support for a belief without giving support to the opposite thesis
is called an undercutting defeater of this belief. For example, remembering that one just consumed a psychedelic drug is evidence against the belief that it is not raining.
What is defeasible a posteriori?
James Freeman proposes to classify arguments on two dimensions. An argument is “defeasible” if its warrant admits of exceptions, “conclusive” otherwise. It is “a posteriori”
if its warrant has to be backed by sense experience
, “a priori” otherwise.
