Talk:Inference

Circumvents "Getting to Philosophy"

Hi! This page forms part of the loop:

Reason --> Logic --> Logical Reasoning --> Inference --> Reason

 Atomic putty? Rien!  16:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Review the Web Pages of the Network Links Below and Take Necessary Actions.

Rule of inference

Talk:Rule of inference/Archives/2025/January#Review the Web Pages of the Network Links Below and Take Necessary Actions.

List of rules of inference

Talk:List of rules of inference#The table with 3 columns and 12 rows under the heading "Table: Rules of Inference" is currently missing 8 different rows. 88.241.82.180 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

tangential potential flaw in example reasoning

In the example about a siberian soccer team from a secret research city winning a seemingly abnormal amount because they have the best players available I'm not sure if a city full of scientists with full time research jobs have much spare time to practice soccer or that having a big scientific talent pool would imply having a big athletic talent pool too. 205.175.106.17 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20031209221248/http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Philosophie/Fuhrmann/papers/nomoLog.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The invalid form example #1 mixes operational logic with mathematical equality

I was looking at the section demonstrating an invalid inference form (the apples/bananas/fruit example), and the current explanation is logically confusing because it switches paradigms halfway through. To put it simply: In computer science/operational logic, A = B means A gets B (assignment/predication). In standard math, A = B means they are exactly the same (identity). The article currently uses the CS/directional logic to write the two premises ("Apples get the property of fruit", "Bananas get the property of fruit"). But then, it judges the conclusion entirely by mathematical equality ("Bananas are not the exact same as apples, therefore false").

The explanation should be updated to address the structural/mechanical error, rather than just relying on knowing the fact prior that an apple isn't a banana. Rationalcausality (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)