Abstract
I.T. Oakley claims that the cogency of invalid, but cogent, arguments is context independent. Robert Pargetter and John Bigelow claim that the apparent cogency of any cogent, but invalid, argument is to be explained by the existence of a corresponding valid argument. I argue that both claims are incorrect and provide my own account of the cogency of arguments.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bigelow, John and Robert Pargetter: 1998, 'No Logic of Cogency: Reply to Oakley', Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, 464–472.
Carnap, Rudolph: 1950, Logical Foundations of Probability, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Goddu, G. C.: ‘The “Most Important and Fundamental” Distinction in Logic?’, Informal Logic, forthcoming.
McCauliff, C. M. A.: 1982, ‘Burdens of Proof: Degrees of Belief, Quanta of Evidence, or Constitutional Guarantees?’, Vanderbilt Law Review 35, 1293–1335.
Oakley, I. T.: 1998, ‘The Invalidation of Induction: A Reply to Pargetter and Bigelow’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, 452–463.
Pargetter, Robert and John Bigelow: 1997, ‘The Validation of Induction’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75, 62–76.
Pollock, John: 1974, Knowledge and Justification, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rudner, Richard: 1953, ‘The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgements’, Philosophy of Science 20, 1–6.
Salmon, Wesley: 1998, ‘Scientific Explanation: How We Got from There to Here’, in E. D.
Klemke et al. (eds.), Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Prometheus Books, Amherst, pp. 241-263.
Sellars, W.: 1970, ‘Are There Non-Deductive Logics?’, in N. Rescher et al. (eds.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 83–103.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goddu, G.C. Cogency and the Validation of Induction. Argumentation 18, 25–41 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000014869.24575.5b
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000014869.24575.5b