Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty. However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs - mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning differs from abductive reasoning by the direction of the reasoning relative to the conditionals. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, whereas abductive reasoning goes in the opposite direction to that of the conditionals.
An example of an argument using deductive reasoning:
The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal." The second premise states that "Socrates" is classified as a "man" - a member of the set "men." The conclusion then states that "Socrates" must be "mortal" because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a "man."
Modus ponens (also known as "affirming the antecedent" or "the law of detachment") is the primary deductive rule of inference. It applies to arguments that have as first premise a conditional statement () and as second premise the antecedent () of the conditional statement. It obtains the consequent () of the conditional statement as its conclusion. The argument form is listed below:
In this form of deductive reasoning, the consequent () obtains as the conclusion from the premises of a conditional statement () and its antecedent (). However, the antecedent () cannot be similarly obtained as the conclusion from the premises of the conditional statement () and the consequent (). Such an argument commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The following is an example of an argument using modus ponens:
Since the measurement of angle is greater than 90° and less than 180°, we can deduce from the conditional (if-then) statement that is an obtuse angle. However, if we are given that is an obtuse angle, we cannot deduce from the conditional statement that 90° < < 180°. It might be true that other angles outside this range are also obtuse.
Modus tollens (also known as "the law of contrapositive") is a deductive rule of inference. It validates an argument that has as premises a conditional statement () and the negation of the consequent () and as conclusion the negation of the antecedent (). In contrast to modus ponens, reasoning with modus tollens goes in the opposite direction to that of the conditional. The general expression for modus tollens is the following:
The following is an example of an argument using modus tollens:
The law of syllogism takes two conditional statements and forms a conclusion by combining the hypothesis of one statement with the conclusion of another. Here is the general form:
The following is an example:
We deduced the final statement by combining the hypothesis of the first statement with the conclusion of the second statement. We also allow that this could be a false statement. This is an example of the transitive property in mathematics. Another example is the transitive property of equality which can be stated in this form:
An argument is "valid" if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. In other words, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. An argument can be "valid" even if one or more of its premises are false.
An argument is "sound" if it is valid and the premises are true.
It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically valid but is not sound. Fallacious arguments often take that form.
The following is an example of an argument that is "valid", but not "sound":
The example's first premise is false - there are people who eat carrots who are not quarterbacks - but the conclusion would necessarily be true, if the premises were true. In other words, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore, the argument is "valid", but not "sound". False generalizations - such as "Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback" - are often used to make unsound arguments. The fact that there are some people who eat carrots but are not quarterbacks proves the flaw of the argument.
In this example, the first statement uses categorical reasoning, saying that all carrot-eaters are definitely quarterbacks. This theory of deductive reasoning - also known as term logic - was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic.
Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with inductive reasoning, in regards to validity and soundness. In cases of inductive reasoning, even though the premises are true and the argument is "valid", it is possible for the conclusion to be false (determined to be false with a counterexample or other means).
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2015)
In one sense [...] one can see the psychology of deductive reasoning as being as old as the study of logic, which originated in the writings of Aristotle.