Deduction

Presented to: Madam Fozia Akram

Presented by: Moazam Iftikhar
Main Points:

 Deductive reasoning
 Syllogism
 Symbolic logic
 Arguments
 Inferences
 Deductive reasoning
 Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion
is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the
premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This
is distinguished from abductive and inductive reasoning, where the
premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not
ensure that the conclusion is true. For instance, beginning with the
premises "sharks are fish" and "all fish have fins", you may conclude
that "sharks have fins". or
 A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that it is
impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus,
the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences.
In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the
claim (conclusion).
 Example:
 All birds have feathers,
 Socrates has no feathers,
 Therefore Socrates is no bird.

 In symbols, this is:

 A→B,
 not B,
 not A.
 definite description
An expression that claims to refer to the single
being that possesses some unique feature. Russell
showed nearly a century ago that the proper
analysis of such expressions, as the
joint assertion of several distinct propositions,
resolves a number of otherwise troubling
difficulties.
Popular misuses of the term

It is occasionally taught that deductive reasoning proceeds from the general

to the particular, while inductive reasoning proceeds from the particular to the
general. This is false - or at least, it is not the way logicians use these terms.
There are deductively valid arguments that proceed from the particular to the
general (Oscar is grouchy, therefore something is grouchy) and inductive
arguments that proceed from the general to the particular (most
Rice University students are smart, therefore this particular Rice University
student is smart).

Sherlock Holmes frequently describes his methods as involving deductive

reasoning in the various stories about the character. However, most of his
"deductions" in fact used inductive or abductive reasoning; very few were
actually deductive in nature. There was nearly always some conceivable, if
vanishingly unlikely, way his conclusions could have turned out to be
incorrect, a fact exploited by many parodies of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
The Foundations of Philosophy

Isee you young and soft oh little baby

Little feet, little hands, little baby
One year of cryin’ and the words creep up inside
Creep into your mind
So much to say, so much to say, so much to say,
so much to say…
—Dave Matthews Band
 Claims:

 As the foundational unit of the metric system is the meter, the foundational
unit of philosophy is the claim. A claim is simply any statement that can have
a truth value.[1] (Note that we don’t have to know the truth value of a claim;
“there is life on another planet” is a claim whose truth value is currently
unknown.)
 Claims can be phrased in either the positive or the negative. Claims that are
phrased in the negative are called counter-factual claims. “The time is 5 PM”
and “the time is not 5 PM” are both claims, and they can both be proven true
or false. Both claims state that things are a certain way; in fact, every factual
claim implies a counter-factual claim, and every counter-factual claim
implies a factual claim. The claim that “the time is 5 PM” implies the claim
that “the time is not 4:59 PM”; likewise, the claim that “the time is not 5 PM”
implies the claim that “the time is something other than 5 PM”.
 What, then, of the old saw “you can’t prove a negative”? Clearly, plenty of
counter-factual claims can be proven; furthermore, there is no distinction
between factual and counter-factual claims that renders one phrasing provable
and the other phrasing not. If no counter-factual claim could be proven, then
no factual could be proven either — and vice-versa! We’ll be able to settle
this issue once we’ve distinguished between two fundamental types of logic.