0
valid
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What should a deductive argument never be characterized as?
True
What are the differences between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of history?
Philosophy of science is more theoretical in nature, while the philosophy of history deals with events and how they happen. I will draw upon two examples that illustrate their differences:Philosophy of science:David Hume's Problem of Induction is an epistemological argument that states that inductive logic that can never be fully supported. That is to say that there is a risk involved when using inductive logic. Inductive logic is used daily by us, however. An example of this would be the sun has risen every day before now, so it will rise tomorrow. While this seems obviously true, it's not. Just because it happened before does not guarantee that it will happen tomorrow. This type of logic is what science is based on: what happens in a controlled experiment should happen in other experiments with the same control. That being said, while inductive logic shouldn't work all the time, it seems to with science. So, this is more theoretical.Philosophy of History:G. W. F. Hegel approached history in a dialectical format. A dialectic represents history as follows: A + ~A (B) = C. In other words, Thesis (Event A) + Antithesis (Event B) = Synthesis (Event C). An example of the utilization of this dialectical method can be noted in the philosophy of Karl Marx. He insisted that there would be a rebellion of the proletariat (Thesis) against the bourgeoisie (Antithesis) to lead to a classless society (Synthesis).Hopefully this was clear enough for you.
What does kant mean by always treat yourself and others as ends in themselves never just as a means?
Kant ment that you should never use people, or yourself and always treat them as rational beings.
Can an argument be both valid and fallacious?
A fallacious argument is often plausible. It is never valid. fallacies are deceptions used to manipulate perceptions. They can sometimes be misunderstandings or mistakes of fact, but one fallacious by their words and deeds are hardly innocent. The plausibility of fallacious arguments is merely the well crafted plot of their deception. They make their lies plausible by regurgitating facts, factoids, hearsay arguments, shameless appeals to authority all projected with an air of authority so that their intended victims might demurely defer to the superior debater. Examples of fallacious arguments are: George Bush arguing the threat of WMD's in Iraq. Plausible, not valid. Parents don't have the right to home school their children. This fallacy isn't even plausible. Rights are granted by governments. Plausible, not valid. HIV causes AIDS. Plausible, unable to validate. Individual gun ownership is the greatest threat to world peace today. Not even plausible. The welfare state and a rigorous war on poverty will lift the poor out of poverty and into affluence. Not even plausible. Driving is a privilege and not a right. Not plausible yet people not only find it plausible, some will actually engage in fallacious arguments of their own defending this lie. There are no absolutes. Not plausible. The truth can not be known. Not plausible. All are fallacious arguments, none are valid.
What are the values of the gift of the magi?
The cost was never given in the story. O'Henry was trying to show that something given should be from the heart and he didn't give values on purpose.
What should deductive arguments never be characterized as?
True
What should a deductive argument never be characterized as?
True
What is an example of inductive arguments?
an inductive argument is when a person gives facts and evidence then draws a conclusion. a good example of the is the Declaration of Independence.
What arguments could be called arguments of consequence?
If Mansa Musa had never converted to Islam, Mali would have never become wealthy. stion…
How should you agree to handle arguments?
you should always try to talk things over and NEVER let your emotions take over you. okay and if that dont work then just try to stay alone for a little bit. okay.
What is a one rebuttal debate?
I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me that it is a debate with only one rebuttal per side. A rebuttal is a speech where a team is allowed to make arguments on pre-existing arguments, but they are not allowed to bring up new arguments.
What is a one-rebuttal debate?
I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me that it is a debate with only one rebuttal per side. A rebuttal is a speech where a team is allowed to make arguments on pre-existing arguments, but they are not allowed to bring up new arguments.
Do you often have arguments with your parents?
its solely dependent upon parents and children and there thinking...if they never listened to you in past..you are definitely going to have arguments in future as you will always think that you don't get importance in family..but if they have always listened to you..then its a chance you may have less arguments..but as teenagers, we often have arguments with parents, because we are constantly changing our views (but our parents aren't), so of course this leads to arguments.
Which marine biome is characterized by deep water depths that never receive sunlight?
deep zone.
What is the advantage to having a coexecutor for a will?
I've never seen an advantage. They always seem to get into arguments with each other.
Did Breezepelt ever fight or argue with his father?
They had many arguments, but Breezepelt and Crowfeather never had a battle. Not yet anyway.
Is inductive or deductive reasoning the best way to approach a geometric proof?
Please remember proof gives absolute truth, which means it HAS to be true for all cases satisfying the condition. Hence, inductive reasoning will NEVER be able to be used for that ---- it only supposes that the OBSERVED is true than the rest must, that's garbage, if it's observed of course it's true (in Math), no one knows what will come next. But it's a good place to start, inductive reasoning gives a person incentive to do a full proof. Do NOT confuse inductive reasoning with inductive proof. Inductive reasoning: If a1 is true, a2 is true, and a3 is true, than a4 should be true. Inductive Proof: If a1 is true (1), and for every an, a(n+1) is true as well (2), then, since a1 is true (1), then a2 is true (2), then a3 is true (2). You see, in inductive proof, there is a process of deductive reasoning ---- proving (1) and (2). (1) is usually, just plugin case 1. (2) provides only a generic condition, asking you to derive the result (a (n+1) being true), that is deductive reasoning. In other words, proof uses implications a cause b, and b cause c hence a cause c. Inductive says though a causes c because I saw one example of it.
