• In short, a valid deductive argument with accurate evidence shows that that theory or argument is correct.
• Deductive arguments are classed in one of two ways; either valid or invalid. If a theory is valid, and the evidence backing up this claim is correct, then the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the theory is true: A valid argument that has accurate foundations cannot have an incorrect conclusion. Within a standard deductive argument, the evidence, or premise, is there to offer an assurance of the conclusion's certainty, whereas an inductive argument uses the evidence to support apparent truth.
• However, there are those who believe that an argument, and the reasoning behind its theory, is evaluated by criteria set out within the philosophical field of informal logic, in particular argumentation theory. It is offered that an argument's validity can be deduced in a mathematical form, of sorts. The legitimacy of an argument rests not on the actual truth or inaccuracy of its evidence, but merely on whether or not the hypothesis as a usable rational form.
This school of thought argues that the 'soundness' of an argument is no assurance that the argument is based in truth, it merely means that a person's argument may use incorrect evidence resulting in an incorrect outcome.
• Deductive arguments are classed in one of two ways; either valid or invalid. If a theory is valid, and the evidence backing up this claim is correct, then the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the theory is true: A valid argument that has accurate foundations cannot have an incorrect conclusion. Within a standard deductive argument, the evidence, or premise, is there to offer an assurance of the conclusion's certainty, whereas an inductive argument uses the evidence to support apparent truth.
• However, there are those who believe that an argument, and the reasoning behind its theory, is evaluated by criteria set out within the philosophical field of informal logic, in particular argumentation theory. It is offered that an argument's validity can be deduced in a mathematical form, of sorts. The legitimacy of an argument rests not on the actual truth or inaccuracy of its evidence, but merely on whether or not the hypothesis as a usable rational form.
This school of thought argues that the 'soundness' of an argument is no assurance that the argument is based in truth, it merely means that a person's argument may use incorrect evidence resulting in an incorrect outcome.
