This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
142 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 142
  1. R. P. Anschutz (1942). Aristotle and Syllogism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 20 (3):228 – 231.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Maroun Aouad & Gregor Schoeler (2002). The Poetic Syllogism According to Al-Farabi: An Incorrect Syllogism of the Second Figure. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 12 (2):185-196.
    It is well-known that the Arab philosophers of the Aristotelian tradition, like some of their Alexandrian predecessors, attached rhetoric and poetics to logic, and supported this inclusion by the idea that the principal poetic procedure - that is, essentially, metaphor - is a kind of syllogism: the poetic syllogism. However, until now, no texts prior to those of Avicenna had been identified which render the structure of this syllogism explicit. In the present contribution, we present and translate a passage from (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. A. Bain (1878). Mill's Theory of the Syllogism. Mind 3 (9):137-141.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Gregor Betz (2012). On Degrees of Justification. Erkenntnis 77 (2):237-272.
    This paper gives an explication of our intuitive notion of strength of justification in a controversial debate. It defines a thesis' degree of justification within the bipolar argumentation framework of the theory of dialectical structures as the ratio of coherently adoptable positions according to which that thesis is true over all coherently adoptable positions. Broadening this definition, the notion of conditional degree of justification, i.e.\ degree of partial entailment, is introduced. Thus defined degrees of justification correspond to our pre-theoretic intuitions (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Gregor Betz (2010). Petitio Principii and Circular Argumentation as Seen From a Theory of Dialectical Structures. Synthese 175 (3):327-349.
    This paper investigates in how far a theory of dialectical structures sheds new light on the old problem of giving a satisfying account of the fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question. It defends that (i) circular argumentation on the one hand and petitio principii on the other hand are two distinct features of complex argumentation, and that (ii) it is impossible to make general statements about the defectiveness of an argumentation that exhibits these features. Such an argumentation, in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Max Black (1945). A New Method of Presentation of the Theory of the Syllogism. Journal of Philosophy 42 (17):449-455.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Brand Blanshard (1954/1999). On Philosophical Style. St. Augustine's Press.
  8. V. A. Bocharov (1986). Boolean Algebra and Syllogism. Synthese 66 (1):35 - 54.
    This article contains the proof of equivalence boolean algebra and syllogistics arc2. The system arc2 is obtained as a superstructure above the propositional calculus. Subjects and predicates of syllogistic functors a, E, J, O may be complex terms, Which are formed using operations of intersection, Union and complement. In contrast to negative sentences the interpretation of affirmative sentences suggests non-Empty terms. To prove the corresponding theorem we demonstrate that boolean algebra is included into syllogistics arc2 and vice versa.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David Braybrooke (2003). Toward an Alliance Between the Issue-Processing Approach and Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. Argumentation 17 (4):513-535.
    On the approach to discussions of policy choices that treats such discussions as instances of issue-processing, the joint use of the logic of questions and the logic of rules gives precise formulation to two sorts of issues. To one sort of issue belong issue-circumscribing questions; to another sort, issues-simplicter, which consist of disjunctions of policy proposals – so many proposed social rules – that are answers, in the case of each disjunction, to a given issue-circumscribing question. Work in pragma-dialectics can (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Gregory Brazeal (2011). Webs of Faith as a Source of Reasonable Disagreement. Critical Review 23 (4):421-448.
    Abstract An individual's beliefs can be seen as rationally related to one another in a kind of web. These beliefs, however, may not form a single, seamless web. There may exist smaller, largely self-contained webs with few or no rational relations to the larger web. Such ?webs of faith? make it possible for reasonable deliberators to persist in a disagreement even under ideal deliberative conditions. The possibility of reasonable disagreement challenges the assumption that rationality should lead to consensus and presents (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Richmond Campbell & Lanning Snowden (eds.) (1985). Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation: Prisoner's Dilemma and Newcomb's Problem. University of British Columbia Press.
    1 Background for the Uninitiated RICHMOND CAMPBELL Paradoxes are intrinsically fascinating. They are also distinctively ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Michael Clark (1980). The Place of Syllogistic in Logical Theory. Nottingham University Press.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. H. B. Curry (1936). A Mathematical Treatment of the Rules of the Syllogism. Mind 45 (178):209-216.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. A. J. Dale (1984). The Disjunctive Syllogism and Subjunctive Conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 34 (135):152-156.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Marcelo Dascal, Dichotomies and Types of Debate.
    Dichotomies are ubiquitous in deliberative thinking, in decision making and in arguing in all spheres of life.[i] Sticking uncompromisingly to a dichotomy may lead to sharp disagreement and paradox, but it can also sharpen the issues at stake and help to find a solution. Dichotomies are particularly in evidence in debates, i.e., in argumentative dialogical exchanges characterized by their agonistic nature. The protagonists in a debate worth its name hold positions that are or that they take to be opposed; they (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Douglas D. Daye (1991). On Whether the Buddhist 'Syllogism' (Par Rth Num Na) is a Sui Generis Inference. Asian Philosophy 1 (2):175 – 183.
  17. Theodore de Laguna (1912). Opposition and the Syllogism. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 9 (15):393-400.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Max Deutsch (2010). Intuitions, Counter-Examples, and Experimental Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):447-460.
    Practitioners of the new ‘experimental philosophy’ have collected data that appear to show that some philosophical intuitions are culturally variable. Many experimental philosophers take this to pose a problem for a more traditional, ‘armchair’ style of philosophizing. It is argued that this is a mistake that derives from a false assumption about the character of philosophical methods; neither philosophy nor its methods have anything to fear from cultural variability in philosophical intuitions.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Georg J. W. Dorn (2006). Deskriptive Argumente und Argumenthierarchien. In Günther Kreuzbauer & Georg J. W. Dorn (eds.), Argumentation in Theorie und Praxis: Philosophie und Didaktik des Argumentierens. LIT Verlag.
    Es werden vier verbreitete Verwendungsweisen des Wortes ‘Argument’ beschrieben, an Beispielen erläutert und dann schrittweise expliziert. Die wichtigsten Explikata sind: ‘eine Satzfolge x ist ein deskriptives Argument in Standardform’, ‘ein deskriptives Argument x in Standardform ist bei der subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilung p stark (bzw. schwach)’, ‘ein Aussagesatz x ist bei der subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilung p ein Argument für (bzw. gegen) einen Aussagesatz y’, ‘ein geordneter Tripel x von deskriptiven Argumenten in Standardform, von Argumentebenen und von Argumentsträngen ist eine deskriptive Argumenthierarchie in Standardform’, (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Georg J. W. Dorn (2005). Eine komparative Theorie der Stärke von Argumenten. Kriterion 19 (1):34–43.
    This article presents a comparative theory of subjective argument strength simple enough for application. Using the axioms and corollaries of the theory, anyone with an elementary knowledge of logic and probability theory can produce an at least minimally rational ranking of any set of arguments according to their subjective strength, provided that the arguments in question are descriptive ones in standard form. The basic idea is that the strength of argument A as seen by person x is a function of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Andreas Dorschel (2010). Ideengeschichte. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    What are ideas? How have new ideas emerged? How have ideas been preserved or altered? Whoever ‘has got an idea’ may believe it fell from the skies. Yet in so far as they become intelligible, ideas must have grown out of some tradition, and in so far as they are significant, new ideas grow from them. In a nutshell: Ideas are always connected historically. How such connections are to be explored constitutes the subject matter of this book, focussing on method.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Andreas Dorschel (1993). Gefühl Als Argument? In Andreas Dorschel, Matthias Kettner, Wolfgang Kuhlmann & Marcel Niquet (eds.), Transzendentalpragmatik. Ein Symposion für Karl-Otto Apel. Suhrkamp. 167-186.
    Does having some feeling or other ever count as an argument – and, should it? As a matter of fact, not just do persons sometimes refer to their feelings to make a point in debate. Often, they even treat them as irrefutable arguments; for they are, of course, certain of their own feelings. To make a point in debate by reference to one’s feelings, one has got to articulate them. As language is the core medium of debate (though it can (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. James Duerlinger (1968). Aristotle's Conception of Syllogism. Mind 77 (308):480-499.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Frans H. Eemeren (2013). In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation 27 (1):49-70.
    According to van Eemeren, argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline, because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary approach, combining descriptive and normative insights. He points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but in modern argumentation (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. William Elton (1945). Professor Hartshorne's Syllogism: Criticism. Philosophical Review 54 (5):506.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Wiland Eric (2013). In the Beginning Was the Doing: The Premises of the Practical Syllogism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43 (3):303-321.
    (2013). In the beginning was the doing: the premises of the practical syllogism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 303-321.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Danny Frederick (2015). The Contrast Between Dogmatic and Critical Arguments. Organon F 22 (1):9-20.
    Karl Popper lamented the prevalence of dogmatic argument in philosophy and commended the kind of critical argument that is found in the sciences. David Miller criticises the uncritical nature of so-called critical thinking because of its attachment to dogmatic arguments. I expound and clarify Popper’s distinction between critical and dogmatic arguments and the background to it. I criticise some errors in Miller’s discussion. I reaffirm the need for philosophers to eschew dogmatic arguments in favour of critical ones.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Joseph S. Fulda (2010). Vann McGee’s Counterexample to Modus Ponens: An Enthymeme. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (1):271-273.
    Solves Vann McGee's counterexample to Modus Ponens within classical logic by disclosing the suppressed premises and bringing them /within/ the argument.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1954). The End of the Probability Syllogism? Philosophical Studies 5 (2):31 - 32.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Benjamin Ives Gilman (1923). The Paradox of the Syllogism Solved by Spatial Construction. Mind 32 (125):38-49.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. David Godden (forthcoming). On the Priority of Agent-Based Argumentative Norms. Topoi:1-13.
    This paper argues against the priority of pure, virtue-based accounts of argumentative norms [VA]. Such accounts are agent-based and committed to the priority thesis: good arguments and arguing well are explained in terms of some prior notion of the virtuous arguer arguing virtuously. Two problems with the priority thesis are identified. First, the definitional problem: virtuous arguers arguing virtuously are neither sufficient nor necessary for good arguments. Second, the priority problem: the goodness of arguments is not explained virtuistically. Instead, being (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. David Godden (2014). Modeling Corroborative Evidence: Inference to the Best Explanation as Counter–Rebuttal. Argumentation 28 (2):187-220.
    Corroborative evidence has a dual function in argument. Primarily, it functions to provide direct evidence supporting the main conclusion. But it also has a secondary, bolstering function which increases the probative value of some other piece of evidence in the argument. This paper argues that the bolstering effect of corroborative evidence is legitimate, and can be explained as counter–rebuttal achieved through inference to the best explanation. A model (argument diagram) of corroborative evidence, representing its structure and operation as a schematic (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. David Godden (2010). The Importance of Belief in Argumentation: Belief, Commitment and the Effective Resolution of a Difference of Opinion. Synthese 172 (3):397 - 414.
    This paper examines the adequacy of commitment change, as a measure of the successful resolution of a difference of opinion. I argue that differences of opinion are only effectively resolved if commitments undertaken in argumentation survive beyond its conclusion and go on to govern an arguer’s actions in everyday life, e.g., by serving as premises in her practical reasoning. Yet this occurs, I maintain, only when an arguer’s beliefs are changed, not merely her commitments.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. David Godden (2010). Corroborative Evidence. In Chris Reed & Christopher W. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications. 201-212.
    Corroborative evidence can have a dual function in argument whereby not only does it have a primary function of providing direct evidence supporting the main conclusion, but it also has a secondary, bolstering function which increases the probative value of some other piece of evidence in the argument. It has been argued (Redmayne, 2000) that this double function gives rise to the fallacy of double counting whereby the probative weight of evidence is overvalued by counting it twice. Walton has proposed (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. David Godden (2008). On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric 41 (2):pp. 101-129.
    Typically, common knowledge is taken as grounds for the acceptability of a claim, while appeals to popularity are seen as fallacious attempts to support a claim. This paper poses the question of whether there is any categorical difference between appeals to common knowledge and appeals to popular opinion as argumentative moves. In answering this question, I argue that appeals to common knowledge do not, on their own, provide adequate grounds for a claim’s acceptability.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. David Godden (2006). The Impact of Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence. In F. H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. L. Erlbaum Associates. 287-299.
    In this chapter, we explore the development and importance of the connection between argumentation and artificial intelligence. Specifically, we show that the influence of argumentation on AI has occurred within a framework that is consistent with the basic approach of Pragma-Dialectics. While the pragma-dialectical approach is typically conceived of as applying primarily to argumentation occurring between human agents, we show that the basic features of this approach can consistently be applied in a virtual context, whereby the goal-directed activities of, and (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. David Godden (2005). Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy: A Reply to Groarke's Defense of Reconstructive Deductivism. Argumentation and Advocacy: Journal of the American Forensic Association 41:168-183.
    Deductivism has been variously presented as an evaluative thesis and as an interpretive one. I argue that deductivism fails as a universal evaluative thesis, and as such that its value as an interpretive thesis must be supported on other grounds. As a reconstructive strategy, deductivism is justified only on the grounds that an arguer is, or ought to be, aiming at the deductive standard of evidence. As such, the reconstruction of an argument as deductive must be supported by contextual and (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. David Godden (2003). Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation. Argumentation 17 (2):219-243.
    The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. David Godden & William H. Brenner (2010). Wittgenstein and the Logic of Deep Disagreement. Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 2:41-80.
    In “The logic of deep disagreements” (Informal Logic, 1985), Robert Fogelin claimed that there is a kind of disagreement – deep disagreement – which is, by its very nature, impervious to rational resolution. He further claimed that these two views are attributable to Wittgenstein. Following an exposition and discussion of that claim, we review and draw some lessons from existing responses in the literature to Fogelin’s claims. In the final two sections (6 and 7) we explore the role reason can, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. David Godden & Douglas Walton (2004). Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model. Informal Logic 24 (3):219-243.
    The standard account of denying the antecedent (DA) is that it is a deductively invalid form of argument, and that, in a conditional argument, to argue from the falsity of the antecedent to the falsity of the consequent is always fallacious. In this paper, we argue that DA is not always a fallacious argumentative strategy. Instead, there is a legitimate usage of DA according to which it is a defeasible argument against the acceptability of a claim. The dialectical effect of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Thomas F. Gordon & Douglas Walton (2012). A Carneades Reconstruction of Popov V Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):37-56.
    Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Paula Gottlieb (2006). The Practical Syllogism. In Richard Kraut (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Blackwell Pub.. 218--233.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Elisa Grimi (2012). The Rediscovery of Practical Syllogism in in GEM Anscombe's Philosophy. Acta Philosophica 21 (2):351 - 362.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Gary Gutting (2009). What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
    Part I : how does that go? : the limits of philosophical argument -- Quine's "Two dogmas" : argument or imagination? -- Argument and intuition in Kripke's Naming and necessity -- The rise and fall of counterexamples : Gettier, Goldman, and Lewis -- Reflection : pictures, intuitions, and philosophical knowledge -- Part II : arguments and convictions -- Turning the tables : Plantinga and the rise of philosophy of religion -- Materialism and compatibilism : two dogmas of analytic philosophy? -- (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Alfred E. Haefner (1961). The Ethical Syllogism. Ethics 71 (4):289-295.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Charles Hartshorne (1945). Professor Hartshorne's Syllogism: Rejoinder. Philosophical Review 54 (5):506-508.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Paul Henle (1949). On the Fourth Figure of the Syllogism. Philosophy of Science 16 (2):94-104.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 142