In general terms, we can use the term reasoning to refer to any inferential process, including tautological processes, which are considered typical of mathematics and logic, expressible or expressed in a natural language in which, based on certain statements or premises, a specific thesis or conclusion is supported or justified.
Do you want to know more about this topic? Keep reading! In this PsychologyFor article we will see together some types of reasoning and their characteristics<
In logic, inference (from Latin infer, literally “to carry within”) is the process through which a proposition is derived from the premises, that is, its truth or falsity is derived from the truth or falsity of the premises. Often in a deductive inference propositions are assumed to be true and, according to their content, the truth has been derived from another, passing from the first to the last according to the appropriate rules of inference.
Therefore, inferring is draw a conclusion as happens in the syllogism, For example. Inferring X means concluding that X is true or false). Therefore, an inference is the conclusion drawn from a set of facts or circumstances and much of the study of logic explores the validity or non-validity of inferences and implications.
Induction
Inductive reasoning attempts establish a universal law from particular cases< However, induction is not always logically valid, as it requires additional external empirical confirmation. Given the conclusion or result and the case, the rule will be assumed.
Deduction
The term deduction comes from Latin and means “to lead from.” Deductive reasoning implies, however, that From generic premises an implicit conclusion is reached< Therefore, deduction is the opposite of induction because it proceeds from the universal to the particular.
In this type of reasoning, the conclusion automatically arises from the premises, which will be implicit depending on the rule and the case.
Abduction
The term abduction, from Latin ab ducerewhich means to lead from, indicates a syllogism in which The major premise is true while the minor premise is only probable From a certain premise and a probable premise, that is, uncertain or doubtful, a conclusion is reached.
Abduction is a form of deduction characterized by the probability of the starting premises or hypotheses. However, abduction is not always logically valid without further empirical confirmation, so it is often subject to risk of error. However, if the chosen rule receives a lot of confirmation from empirical evidence in probabilistic terms, abduction will provide a good explanation of the observed facts.
Reasoning for absurdity
The demonstration by absurdity, derived from the Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum and also known as reasoning by absurdity, is a type of logical argument in which a conclusion is reached. incoherent and contradictory conclusion based on the denial of the thesis that is intended to be sustained and following a sequence of logical-deductive steps.
This result, in argumentative logic, would confirm the initial hypothesis, by falsifying its denial. Likewise, this type of reasoning is one of the main forms of mathematical proof.
Demonstration
The demonstration consists of a series of logical reasoning that, starting from a hypothesis, necessarily leads to a thesis< Therefore, it consists of verifying, in the sense of showing its reasonable truth, a predicate, a phrase.
Argumentation
Argumentation is a localized reasoning that includes statements that act as a premise and a statement that constitutes a conclusion, often making use of logical procedures. This type of reasoning is carried out within a certain context, consisting of interlocutors, knowledge, explicit or implicit premises, and accepted or otherwise recognized beliefs.
Unlike what happens in formal logic, in argumentative reasoning the premises are not necessarily true< They are only assumed to be true by the person who develops the reasoning or by the person who listens to it and evaluates it. Likewise, the truth value of what is stated in the premises depends on the level of belief of both the person stating it and the person listening to and evaluating the argument.
Fallacy
The term fallacy derives from the Latin fail, which means to deceive. The fallacies are hidden errors in reasoning that imply the violation of the rules of a correct argumentative comparison. Fallacious reasoning appears rigorous and logical, but in reality it is not valid, a concept that should not be confused with “true.” Below, we show you the difference:
Valid: It refers to the logical correctness of the arguments, such as the premises implying the conclusions.
TRUE: It refers to the veracity of the propositions with which the arguments are stated.
In most cases, these reasonings are constructed ad hoc by the one or those who propose them, with the intention of deceiving or even persuading the interlocutor. Various authors have proposed various definitions of fallacy, but all of them describe it as a linguistic logical problem characterized by a couple of aspects of appearing to be something that is not and having a form of error, invalidity or incorrectness.
Lateral thinking
The term lateral thinking, coined by the Maltese psychologist Edward De Bono, refers to a method of solving logical problems that provides for a particular approach, that is, observing the problem from different angles<
A direct solution provides for recourse to sequential logic, solving the problem based on considerations that seem more obvious, lateral thinking deviates from it (hence the term lateral) and seeks alternative points of view to find the solution.
This article is merely informative, at PsychologyFor we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.
If you want to read more articles similar to Types of reasoning and their characteristics we recommend that you enter our Cognitive Psychology category.
Bibliography
Piccari, P. (2011). Ordinary knowledge and common sense
