The Unnecessary Reasoning And Investigative Hypothesis Put Forward

Non-necessity of the investigation presented hypothetical reasoning applied mainly deductive, inductive and analogical, using the assumption that the reasoning in the investigation does not necessarily require the conclusion of the investigation has inevitability but to provide direction and ideas, so the non-scientific use of the inevitability of reasoning has an important role in providing clues to the investigation, the investigation determined the object and so on. At the same time, in practice, investigators should be non-inevitability reasoning conclusion probable characteristics and related theoretical knowledge with sufficient knowledge and mastery in order to prevent detection of error in the process of applying.This paper consists of four parts, a total of about 30,000 words.The first part of the investigation focused on general assumptions and theories discussed. Assumption is based on the investigation and analysis to grasp the fact that the material on the use of logical reasoning associated with the case put forward by speculative conclusions which aims to guide the investigation. Investigators have probable hypothesis, continuity and practicality features, usually prove or disprove the model of argumentation. Therefore, investigators need to acquire the necessary scientific theories and laws of logic to find the truth in the repeated verification, which will assume an effective investigation into effective investigative conclusions.The second part focused on the non-necessity of reasoning and their characteristics discussed. Non-necessity of reasoning is reasoning with respect to the necessity of speaking, the nature and necessity of its reasoning between premise and conclusion logically linked aspects, logic and value requirements are different. And on its own characteristics, the non-necessity of having a conclusion or inference however, scalability and jumping and other characteristics.The third part mainly discusses the necessity of reasoning in the investigation for non-application model assumptions. In the non- necessity of deductive reasoning, investigators mainly through the first cell and the second cell syllogistic form hypotheses about the scope of the investigation; the use of syllogism third and fourth grid lattice form hypotheses about the nature of the case; by disjunctive reasoning negative affirmation and negation certainly two forms of interference factors preclude investigation, investigators narrow target; when there is a clue to restrict the relationship between certain conditions and mostly negative clues, investigators will use sufficient condition for false negative inference a necessary condition before or after piece Hypothetical reasoning negative piece hypothesis proposed investigation; Conversely, when most of the clues for investigators clues certainty you can use a sufficient condition Hypothetical reasoning is certainly a necessary condition after piece or hypothetical reasoning before affirmative piece hypotheses. In inductive reasoning, the investigators to explore the inherent causality main trail between the " Mill five Law" which launched the investigation hypothesis. In analogical reasoning, the investigators and the main use case investigation, investigative experiments and similar cases are three ways to make the analogy investigative hypothesis.The fourth part against falsehood and prevention recommended that non-necessity of reasoning in the investigation prone assumptions discussed. In the non-inevitable deductive reasoning, the investigators due to incorrect perception of inference rules, facts that relies on inertia of thinking, prone to logical fallacies, and therefore need to fully investigate the facts of the case, a comprehensive case, repeated confirmation, sought by guarantee true and reliable material facts and logic rules to increase the assumption of strict accuracy. In inductive reasoning, the investigators prone to hasty generalization, so lazy generalization error, and therefore need to study as much as possible to improve inductive reasoning premise differences premise project to ensure the premise and legitimate sources of authority, as well as study objects and attributes causal link between the other ways to improve the accuracy of assumptions. In analogical reasoning, investigators prone amount on behalf of quality, one-sided focus on the same property and blind logic errors analogy, therefore need to examine the same properties as much as possible between the two things, increase with the introduction of similar properties contact properties between fully consider the analogy of things to improve the accuracy of difference hypothesis.