Deductive Reasoning In Research

Reason as a way of knowing is what we use when we need to make a choice. Reasoning occurs on all of us through instincts where we plan and think on the appropriate route to take almost intuitively, which depends on our past experiences that also involves these similar situations. There are other three vital ways of knowing; Perception, Emotions and Intuition. These ways of knowing have been used on a daily basis to collect information. However, reason has held as one of the supreme ways of knowing as it is the way in which we can be associated with logic, rationality, comparison and judgement, which can also be linked together. As reason can help us obtain information, it has a variety of advantages, but it may not be as reliable as you think

Logic is a syllogism as it is defined as integrating knowledge from the knowledge that has already existed. There are two different types of reasoning which can use logic; Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning. Inductive Reasoning goes from a general statement and it is examined to make a specific conclusion by using a number of specific statements. For example: All birds can fly and some birds are blue jays. Therefore, all blue jays can fly. This point has two true premises and a true conclusion, in which this creates a logic from inductive reasoning. So reason as a logic is used in these basic and complex ways of making sense of the world. However, logic can also be misleading where as the conclusion is valid, it may not be true due to the false premises. The conclusion can also be invalid, for example: All fishes are aquatic animals, some fishes are blue. Therefore, all aquatic animals are blue. This tells us that logic is not always reliable because this does not always provide an accurate statement, even though there are a lot of examples you find to justify your theory, which you think that this is correct. So the things we have thought that are true and false may be

They fall into two categories; formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacy is the way there is an error in logic as this provides two true premises and a false conclusion. For example: All birds can fly, all penguins are birds, so therefore, all penguins can fly. As a fallacy we may tell that penguins can fly, but it is not reliable as there is evidence through sense perception where we can see that penguins cannot fly, but they can swim. However, even though we are unable to say that through certainty, we can surely tell that penguins are birds, but there is a problem with the logic of the structure. This is an example of a formal fallacy that is known as the undistributed middle as the middle term “bird” is used and the first use clearly refers to “all birds”, which is therefore distributed across the whole of it and so can be use to connect the other two terms; fly and penguin. However, the conclusion does not follow the logic from the premises, which makes the sentence unreliable. Informal fallacy is a vice versa of a formal fallacy where the stated premises in an argument has failed to support its conclusion. For example: Person A thinks that Liverpool is better than Arsenal, Person B tells that he is a bigger football fan than Person A, therefore Arsenal is the best. This is argumentum ad hominem where this is an argument of an actual topic where Person B evades that topic and he directly attacks his opponent