Editing Deductive reasoning (section)

{{Short description|Form of reasoning}}
'''Deductive reasoning''' is the process of drawing valid [[inference]]s. An inference is [[Validity (logic)|valid]] if its conclusion follows [[logic]]ally from its [[premise]]s, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and "[[Socrates]] is a man" to the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is deductively valid. An [[argument]] is ''[[Soundness|sound]]'' if it is valid ''and'' all its premises are true. One approach defines deduction in terms of the intentions of the author: they have to intend for the premises to offer deductive support to the conclusion. With the help of this modification, it is possible to distinguish valid from invalid deductive reasoning: it is invalid if the author's belief about the deductive support is false, but even invalid deductive reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning. 

'''Deductive logic''' studies under what conditions an argument is valid. According to the [[semantic]] approach, an argument is valid if there is no possible [[Interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] of the argument whereby its premises are true and its conclusion is false. The [[syntactic]] approach, by contrast, focuses on [[rules of inference]], that is, schemas of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises based only on their [[logical form]]. There are various rules of inference, such as [[modus ponens]] and [[modus tollens]]. Invalid deductive arguments, which do not follow a rule of inference, are called [[formal fallacies]]. Rules of inference are definitory rules and contrast with strategic rules, which specify what inferences one needs to draw in order to arrive at an intended conclusion.

Deductive reasoning contrasts with non-deductive or [[ampliative]] reasoning. For ampliative arguments, such as [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] or [[Abductive reasoning|abductive arguments]], the premises offer weaker support to their conclusion: they indicate that it is most likely, but they do not guarantee its truth. They make up for this drawback with their ability to provide genuinely new information (that is, information not already found in the premises), unlike deductive arguments.

[[Cognitive psychology]] investigates the mental processes responsible for deductive reasoning. One of its topics concerns the factors determining whether people draw valid or invalid deductive inferences. One such factor is the form of the argument: for example, people draw valid inferences more successfully for arguments of the form modus ponens than of the form modus tollens. Another factor is the content of the arguments: people are more likely to believe that an argument is valid if the claim made in its conclusion is plausible. A general finding is that people tend to perform better for realistic and concrete cases than for abstract cases. Psychological theories of deductive reasoning aim to explain these findings by providing an account of the underlying psychological processes. ''Mental logic theories'' hold that deductive reasoning is a language-like process that happens through the manipulation of representations using rules of inference. ''Mental model theories'', on the other hand, claim that deductive reasoning involves models of possible states of the world without the medium of language or rules of inference. According to ''[[dual-process theories]]'' of reasoning, there are two qualitatively different cognitive systems responsible for reasoning.

The problem of deduction is relevant to various fields and issues. [[Epistemology]] tries to understand how [[Justification (epistemology)|justification]] is transferred from the [[belief]] in the premises to the belief in the conclusion in the process of deductive reasoning. [[Probability logic]] studies how the probability of the premises of an inference affects the probability of its conclusion. The controversial thesis of [[deductivism]] denies that there are other correct forms of inference besides deduction. [[Natural deduction]] is a type of proof system based on simple and self-evident rules of inference. In philosophy, the geometrical method is a way of philosophizing that starts from a small set of self-evident axioms and tries to build a comprehensive logical system using deductive reasoning.