inference

(redirected from Rational inference)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia.
Related to Rational inference: reasonableness, deductive reasoning

Inference

In the law of evidence, a truth or proposition drawn from another that is supposed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. A logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact not presented by direct evidence but which, by process of logic and reason, a trier of fact may conclude exists from the established facts. Inferences are deductions or conclusions that with reason and common sense lead the jury to draw from facts which have been established by the evidence in the case.

inference

n. a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is "proved" by presenting other "facts" which lead to only one reasonable conclusion--that if A and B are true, then C is. The process is called "deduction" or "deductive reasoning," and is a persuasive form of circumstantial evidence. (See: circumstantial evidence)

inference

noun allusion, assumption, conclusio, coniectura, conjecture, deduction, guess, hint, hypothesis, illation, implication, impression, inkling, judgment, observation, postulate, postulation, premise, presupposal, presupposition, speculation, supposal, supposition, surmise, suspicion, theorem, theory, thesis, understanding
Associated concepts: evidentiary inference, favorable inferrnce, legal inference, legitimate inference, presumption
Foreign phrases: Expressa nocent, non expressa non nooent.Things expressed may be prejudicial; that which is not expressed will not.
See also: conclusion, conjecture, connotation, construction, determination, generalization, hint, hypothesis, idea, innuendo, insinuation, intimation, mention, presumption, reference, referral, signification, speculation, suggestion, suspicion, uncertainty

INFERENCE. A conclusion drawn by reason from premises established by proof.
     2. It is the province of the judge who is to decide upon the facts to draw the inference. When the facts are submitted to the court, the judges draw the inference; when they are to be ascertained by a jury, it is their duty to do so. The witness is not permitted as a general rule to draw an inference, and testify that to the court or jury. It is his duty to state the facts simply as they occurred. Inferences differ from presumptions. (q.v.)

References in periodicals archive ?
As Lewis and others have shown, the existence of rational inference cannot be explained in terms of purely materialistic causes.
But again it seems to me that he has ample resources to answer it if he returns to the important idea that rational inference must be explanatory.
How this impacts rational inference is a bit harder to explain, but involves, at least partly, the thesis that abstract concepts are largely metaphorical--that certain domains of concepts "map onto" other domains, and in so doing inherit the inferential structure of the original domain.
He calls it "rational causation," which consists, briefly, in the manifestation of a mental ability self-consciously to represent rational inferences holding between propositions (and sometimes actions).