User:Phlsph7/Rule of inference - In various fields

In various fields

Rules of inference are relevant to many fields, especially the formal sciences, such as mathematics and computer science, where they are used to prove theorems. Mathematical proofs often start with a set of axioms to describe the logical relationships between mathematical constructs. To establish theorems, mathematicians apply rules of inference to these axioms, aiming to demonstrate that the theorems are logical consequences. Mathematical logic, a subfield of mathematics and logic, uses mathematical methods and frameworks to study rules of inference and other logical concepts.

Computer science also relies on deductive reasoning, employing rules of inference to establish theorems and validate algorithms. Logic programming frameworks, such as Prolog, allow developers to represent knowledge and use computation to draw inferences and solve problems. These frameworks often include an automatic theorem prover, a program that uses rules of inference to generate or verify proofs automatically. Expert systems utilize automatic reasoning to simulate the decision-making processes of human experts in specific fields, such as medical diagnosis, and assist in complex problem-solving tasks. They have a knowledge base to represent the facts and rules of the field and use an inference engine to extract relevant information and respond to user queries.

Rules of inference are central to the philosophy of logic regarding the contrast between deductive-theoretic and model-theoretic conceptions of logical consequence. Logical consequence, a fundamental concept in logic, is the relation between the premises of a deductively valid argument and its conclusion. Conceptions of logical consequence explain the nature of this relation and the conditions under which it exists. The deductive-theoretic conception relies on rules of inference, arguing that logical consequence means that the conclusion can be deduced from the premises through a series of inferential steps. The model-theoretic conception, by contrast, focuses on how the non-logical vocabulary of statements can be interpreted. According to this view, logical consequence means that no counterexamples are possible: under no interpretation are the premises true and the conclusion false.

Cognitive psychologists study mental processes, including logical reasoning. They are interested in how humans use rules of inference to draw conclusions, examining the factors that influence correctness and efficiency. They observe that humans are better at using some rules of inference than others. For example, the rate of successful inferences is higher for modus ponens than for modus tollens. A related topic focuses on biases that lead individuals to mistake formal fallacies for valid arguments. For instance, fallacies of the types affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are often mistakenly accepted as valid. The assessment of arguments also depends on the concrete meaning of the propositions: individuals are more likely to accept a fallacy if its conclusion sounds plausible.

References

Sources

• Schechter, Joshua (2013). "Deductive Reasoning". In Pashler, Harold (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Mind. Sage. pp. 226–230. ISBN 978-1-4129-5057-2.
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2005). "Deductive Reasoning". In Holyoak, Keith J.; Morrison, Robert G. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge University Press. pp. 169–184. ISBN 978-0-521-82417-0.
• McKeon, Matthew. "Logical Consequence". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 28 March 2025.
• McKeon, Matthew W. (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-4331-0645-3.
• Beall, Jc; Restall, Greg; Sagi, Gil (2024). "Logical Consequence". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
• Butterfield, Andrew; Ngondi, Gerard Ekembe (2016). A Dictionary of Computer Science. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-968897-5.
• Fetzer, James H. (1996). "Computer Reliability and Public Policy: Limits of Knowledge of Computer-Based Systems". In Paul, Ellen Frankel; Miller, Fred Dycus; Paul, Jeffrey (eds.). Scientific Innovation, Philosophy, and Public Policy: Volume 13, Part 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 229–266. ISBN 978-0-521-58994-9.
• Williamson, Jon; Russo, Federica (2010). Key Terms in Logic. Continuum. ISBN 978-1-84706-114-0.
• Horsten, Leon (2023). "Philosophy of Mathematics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 March 2025.
• Polkinghorne, John (2011). Meaning in Mathematics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-960505-7.
• Porta, Marcela; Maillet, Katherine; Mas, Marta; Martinez, Carmen (2011). "Towards a Strategy to Fight the Computer Science Declining Phenomenon". In Ao, Sio-Iong; Amouzegar, Mahyar; Rieger, Burghard B. (eds.). Intelligent Automation and Systems Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 231–242. ISBN 978-1-4614-0373-9.
• Dent, David (2024). The Nature of Scientific Innovation, Volume I: Processes, Means and Impact. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-031-75212-4.