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:
179 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 179
  1. Andrew Aberdein (forthcoming). Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. Argumentation:1-7.
  2. Cassian Agera (1989). Cut the Syllogism to its Size! Some Reflections on Indian Syllogism. Indian Philosophical Quarterly 16 (4):465.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. A. Amiri (unknown). The Role of Middle Term in Conjunctive Syllogism. Kheradnameh Sadra Quarterly 24.
    In the present article, the author deals with the role of the middle term in the four figures of conjunctive syllogism. In this regard, he refers to the views of logicians such as Ibn Sina, Fakhr al-Din Razi, Muhaqqiq Tusi, Urmawi, Athir al-Din Abhari as well as Mulla Sadra. The author is of the view that many difficulties in syllogisms arise out of linguistic deficiencies.By resorting to Mulla Sadra's view, the author concludes that we are not compelled to divide the (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. R. P. Anschutz (1942). Aristotle and Syllogism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 20 (3):228 – 231.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Adam Auch, Virtuous Argumentation and the Challenges of Hype. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation 10: Virtues of Argumentation.
    In this paper, I consider the virtue of proportionality in relation to reasoning in what I call ‘hype contexts’ . I conclude that a virtuous arguer is one that neither accepts nor rejects a claim based on its ubiquity alone, but who evaluates its importance with reference to the social context in which it is made.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. A. Bain (1878). Mill's Theory of the Syllogism. Mind 3 (9):137-141.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. V. Balowitz (1980). The Rules of the Syllogism Without Distribution. International Logic Review 22:99.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Steven James Bartlett (1971). A Relativistic Theory of Phenomenological Constitution: A Self-Referential, Transcendental Approach to Conceptual Pathology. Dissertation, Universite de Paris X (Paris-Nanterre) (France)
    A RELATIVISTIC THEORY OF PHENOMENOLOCICAL CONSTITUTION: A SELF-REFERENTIAL, TRANSCENDENTAL APPROACH TO CONCEPTUAL PATHOLOGY. (Vol. I: French; Vol. II: English) -/- Steven James Bartlett -/- Doctoral dissertation director: Paul Ricoeur, Université de Paris Other doctoral committee members: Jean Ladrière and Alphonse de Waehlens, Université Catholique de Louvain Defended publically at the Université Catholique de Louvain, January, 1971. -/- Universite de Paris X (France), 1971. 797pp. -/- The principal objective of the work is to construct an analytically precise methodology which can serve (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10. Gregor Betz (forthcoming). Truth in Evidence and Truth in Arguments Without Logical Omniscience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv015.
    Science advances by means of argument and debate. Based on a formal model of complex argumentation, this article assesses the interplay between evidential and inferential drivers in scientific controversy, and explains, in particular, why both evidence accumulation and argumentation are veritistically valuable. By improving the conditions for applying veritistic indicators , novel evidence and arguments allow us to distinguish true from false hypotheses more reliably. Because such veritistic indicators also underpin inductive reasoning, evidence accumulation and argumentation enhance the reliability of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Gregor Betz (2013). Justifying Inference to the Best Explanation as a Practical Meta-Syllogism on Dialectical Structures. Synthese 190 (16):3553-3578.
    This article discusses how & lt ; span class =' Hi '& gt ; inference & lt ;/ span & gt ; to the best explanation can be justified as a practical meta - argument. It is, firstly, justified as a practical argument insofar as accepting the best explanation as true can be shown to further a specific aim. And because this aim is a discursive one which proponents can rationally pursue in — and relative to — a complex controversy, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12. 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 (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13. 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. Gregor Betz (2009). Evaluating Dialectical Structures. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (3):283 - 312.
    This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework represents an (argument-based) approach to non-monotonic, or defeasible reasoning. Debates are analysed as dialectical structures, i.e. argumentation systems with an attack- as well as a support-relationship. The recursive status assignment over the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  15. Gregor Betz (2008). Evaluating Dialectical Structures with Bayesian Methods. Synthese 163 (1):25-44.
    This paper shows how complex argumentation, analyzed as dialectical structures, can be evaluated within a Bayesian framework by interpreting them as coherence constraints on subjective degrees of belief. A dialectical structure is a set of arguments (premiss-conclusion structure) among which support- and attack-relations hold. This approach addresses the observation that some theses in a debate can be better justified than others and thus fixes a shortcoming of a theory of defeasible reasoning which applies the bivalence principle to argument evaluations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Brand Blanshard (1954/1999). On Philosophical Style. St. Augustine's Press.
  18. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Ingo Brigandt (2016). Why the Difference Between Explanation and Argument Matters to Science Education. Science and Education 25:251-275.
    Contributing to the recent debate on whether or not explanations ought to be differentiated from arguments, this article argues that the distinction matters to science education. I articulate the distinction in terms of explanations and arguments having to meet different standards of adequacy. Standards of explanatory adequacy are important because they correspond to what counts as a good explanation in a science classroom, whereas a focus on evidence-based argumentation can obscure such standards of what makes an explanation explanatory. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  23. Marc Champagne, We, the Professional Sages: Analytic Philosophy’s Arrogation of Argument. Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    One claim reiterated with increasing boldness by the “analytic” tradition in philosophy is that what sets it apart from long-time rivals is a shared adherence to proper norms of argumentation. Gradated deviancy from this canon by English-speaking practitioners has therefore raised important questions about who can repair under the banner “professional philosopher.” We will portray as deeply worrisome the idea that argumentation should secure not just conclusions, but disciplinary membership as well.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Michael Clark (1980). The Place of Syllogistic in Logical Theory. Nottingham University Press.
    Chapter 1 presents BS, a basic syllogistic system based on Aristotle's logic, in natural deduction form. Chapters 2 and 3 treat the metatheory of BS: consitency, soundness, independence, and completeness. Chapter 4 and 5 deal with syllogistic and, in turn, propositional and predicate logic, chapter 6 is on existential import, chapter 7 on subject and predicate and chapter 8 on classes. Chapter 9 adds negative variables to BS, and proves its soundness and completeness.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  25. Hannah Clark-Younger (2012). Is Imperative Inference Impossible? The Argument From Permissive Presuppositions. In James Maclaurin (ed.), Rationis Defensor.
    Standard definitions of validity are designed to preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. However, it seems possible to construct arguments that contain sentences in the imperative mood. Such sentences are incapable of being true or false, so the standard definitions cannot capture the validity of these imperative arguments. Bernard Williams offers an argument that imperative inference is impossible: two imperatives will always have different permissive presuppositions, so a speaker will have to change his mind before uttering a second (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  27. A. J. Dale (1984). The Disjunctive Syllogism and Subjunctive Conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 34 (135):152-156.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Douglas D. Daye (1991). On Whether the Buddhist 'Syllogism' (Par Rth Num Na) is a Sui Generis Inference. Asian Philosophy 1 (2):175 – 183.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Augustus De Morgan (1863). On the Syllogism, No. V. And on Various Points of the Onymatic System. Printed by C.J. Clay at the University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Augustus De Morgan (1860). On the Syllogism, No. Iv, and on the Logic of Relations. From the Trans., Cambr. Phil. Society.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Augustus De Morgan (1860). On the Syllogism, No. Iv. And on the Logic of Relations. Printed by C.J. Clay at the University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Augustus De Morgan (1858). On the Syllogism, No. Iii. And on Logic in General. Printed by C.J. Clay at the University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  36. 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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Georg J. W. Dorn (2005). Eine komparative Theorie der Stärke von Argumenten. Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. 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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. 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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. James Duerlinger (1968). Aristotle's Conception of Syllogism. Mind 77 (308):480-499.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. William Elton (1945). Professor Hartshorne's Syllogism: Criticism. Philosophical Review 54 (5):506.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Danny Frederick (2015). The Contrast Between Dogmatic and Critical Arguments. Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1954). The End of the Probability Syllogism? Philosophical Studies 5 (2):31 - 32.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 179