Critical Reasoning Methods

Glossary

Inference Methods

• Abductive Reasoning (Observation to Explanations)

• Deductive Reasoning (Premises to Conclusion)

• Inductive Reasoning (Particulars to Universals)

Methods of Proof

• Proof by Contradiction

• Proof by Contraposition

• Proof by Deduction

• Proof by Induction

Plausability Arguments

• Analogical Reasoning (Similarity arguments)

• Probabilistic Reasoning (Likelihood arguments)

• Relativistic Reasoning (Subjectivity arguments)

The Problem of Induction

Logical skepticism leads us to ask: "why from this experience [do] we form any conclusion beyond those past instances, of which we have had experience" (Hume, 1739; Mills, 2022) . We all use inductive reasoning daily to generalise our experiences and make sense of other experiences. But statements believed to be true based on inductive reasoning can turn out to be false. Inductive reasoning is effectively an argument for plausability. The unreliability of inductive reasoning is captured formally in the concept of a 'proof by induction', which despite it's name; requires deduction to count as a proof. From that sense, inductive reasoning is justifiable only when it's modelled from deductive reasoning (Henderson, 2022) . Inductive reasoning that's non-deductive but assumed to be critical, leads to what's historically known as 'soft science'.

Linguistic Philosophy

Lingustic philosophy is the intepretation of philosophical problems as instances of linguistic ambiguity. As a researcher, I've observed that examining any question from the perspective of linguistic philosophy, i.e. giving attention to syntax, semantics and pragmatic connotations of the question; will always provides details that affect the answer to the question; and therefore I'd argue that linguistic-philosophical reasoning is essential to critical reasoning, or the formation of judgements from available facts. From this persective, linguistic-philosophical facts complement empirical evidence and enable science.