This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
The content of Reasoning was merged into Reason. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
"Deduction is generally an inference by reasoning from the general to the specific." <-- from the section on deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning.
Quite simply, no, it isn't. Deductive reasoning has no essential relationship with generality OR particularity, and for that matter neither do the other two species. It's about *entailment* vs. *probability*, and that's *all* it's about.
I actually teach logic at College. If any myth about deductive vs. non-deductive logic needs to DIE, it's this one about "generality" and "particularity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia! Please feel free to make changes yourself. I've removed the statement for now, since it wasn't cited. If anyone objects, they should post here. If they do, a link to a textbook or other academic work you're aware of that discusses the issue might be useful. Sunrise(talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The idea of deduction going from the general to the specific and induction from the specific to the general goes back to Aristotle. It is preserved in the difference between mathematics and science. The pattern in mathematics, set in place by Euclid, is Axiom, Definition, Theorem, Proof. You cannot deduce the truth of a theorem without axioms and definitions (and, in modern mathematical logic, a proof schema, e.g. If A is true, and A implies B, then B is true.) Since Axioms and definitions are general statements, deduction necessarily goes from the general. Since theorems are less general, requiring hypotheses as well as conclusions, they are more specific, though the applications of theorems to particular cases are more specific still. Maybe the sentence objected to should read "Deduction is reasoning from general axioms and definitions to less general theorems which only hold under certain hypotheses." Another property of deduction is that it is (or, at least, nobody has ever been able to show that it isn't) absolute ("entailment"?) while induction is falsifiable ("probability"?). Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In any case, and maybe this is what you are saying, the sentence seemed to contain something worth getting right. I think we should try to replace with something which allows for the tradition plus modern definitions. I do hope our new contributor can be dragged into the crazy world of Wikipedia!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The United States National Institutes of Health says "acupuncture appears to be a reasonable option". Here is some of the history. Here is a discussion of the lead first paragraph for the acupuncture article.[ Please comment and contribute. [User:FloraWilde|FloraWilde]] (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is. The Talk:Reason page is for discussions relating to the article subject, not entirely unrelated matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And please don't edit your posts after they have been replied to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, there was an edit conflict as I modified my comment at the same time you replied. I will be more careful. I posted here because the NIH use the word reason" in a way that editors of this article may be able to help explicate. If my edit here is not appropriate, please delete the part (or whole) of it that should not be here. FloraWilde (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)