The English physician and philosopher David Hartley announced in his Observations on Man (1749) that a certain "ingenious Friend" had shown him a solution of the "inverse problem" of reasoning from the occurrence of an event p times and its failure q times to the "original Ratio" of causes.
When testing the relationship between BMI and verbal reasoning, both inverse U curve and linear specification were fitting the data significantly, but the inverse U curve had better explanation rate (for inverse U-curve shaped male: R = 0.02, P < 0.01; female: R = 0.02, P < 0.01; for linear specification: R = 0.015, P < 0.05; female: R = 0.015, P < 0.01).
We are currently bearing witness to an inverse example of Virchow's reasoning in a new scheme, aptly called coverage with evidence development (CED) or access with evidence development (AED) (the two terms are used interchangeably).
BMI and waist circumference are associated with verbal reasoning performance with an inverse U-shaped pattern, suggesting that both low and high BMI/waist circumference may be associated with lower verbal reasoning performance.
We also found an inverse relationship between ETS exposure and visuospatial reasoning skills.
Along this line of reasoning, we also anticipated an inverse association of kVp with PD but found no evidence for this.
And while his reasoning is in some ways the inverse of mine, we arrive at the same conclusion.
Inverse thinking challenges the orthodox linear causal chain of reasoning, as dramatic system disruptions do not necessarily need large perturbation to occur.
Our approach only requires one set of assertions and their automatically generated inverse assertions and relies on a different kind of reasoning than the deduction used by reasoners in the aforementioned projects.
His doctorate, published in 1903 as "On induction as the inverse of deduction", investigated the relationship between the two forms of reasoning, in the light of work by Jevons, Sigwart and Erdmann.
