Sentence examples for adding premises from inspiring English sources

One could keep adding normative facts ad infinitum without providing an answer to the question, in the same way that Achilles could keep adding premises without meeting the Tortoise's challenge.

Context dependence must in this regard be distinguished from non-monotonicity: Monotonicity and its contrary concern relations among inductive arguments or inferences; a sound inductive argument can be converted into an unsound argument by adding premises.

The same holds for non-probabilistic induction: Adding premises to a good induction may weaken its strength: That the patient presents flu-like symptoms supports the hypothesis that he has the flu.

One could keep on adding such premises ad infinitum and yet not get the Tortoise to accept (Z).

Further, induction differs from deductive proof or demonstration (in first-order logic, at least) not only in induction's failure to preserve truth (true premises may lead inductively to false conclusions) but also in failing of monotonicity: adding true premises to a sound induction may make it unsound.

Hempel appreciated the point, recognizing that some statistical arguments that satisfy his conditions on explanation have the property that, even though all the premises are true, the support they lend to the conclusion would be radically undermined by adding extra premises.

As a result, adding further premises can alter the force of the argument.

The import of monotony is that one cannot pre-empt conclusions by adding new premises.

It is important to note that this strategy forces reasoning to be non-monotonic: adding further premises to a theory can make inferences invalid that were valid before.

For instance, adding the premise that Tim and Harry are former business partners who still have some financial matters to discuss, to the premises that they had a terrible row some time ago and that they were just seen jogging together may no longer warrant you to infer that they are friends again, even if let us suppose the last two premises alone do warrant that inference.

Another notable difference is that when B logically entails A, adding a premise C cannot undermine the entailment i.e., (C·B) must entail A as well.