David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Logic and Logical Philosophy 20 (1-2):7-57 (2011)
The last century has seen many disciplines place a greater priority on understanding how people reason in a particular domain, and several illuminating theories of informal logic and argumentation have been developed. Perhaps owing to their diverse backgrounds, there are several connections and overlapping ideas between the theories, which appear to have been overlooked. We focus on Peirce’s development of abductive reasoning , Toulmin’s argumentation layout , Lakatos’s theory of reasoning in mathematics , Pollock’s notions of counterexample , and argumentation schemes constructed by Walton et al. , and explore some connections between, as well as within, the theories. For instance, we investigate Peirce’s abduction to deal with surprising situations in mathematics, represent Pollock’s examples in terms of Toulmin’s layout, discuss connections between Toulmin’s layout and Walton’s argumentation schemes, and suggest new argumentation schemes to cover the sort of reasoning that Lakatos describes, in which arguments may be accepted as faulty, but revised, rather than being accepted or rejected. We also consider how such theories may apply to reasoning in mathematics: in particular, we aim to build on ideas such as Dove’s , which help to show ways in which the work of Lakatos fits into the informal reasoning community
|Keywords||Lakatos mathematics informal reasoning argumentation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Alison Pease, Alan Smaill, Simon Colton & John Lee (2009). Bridging the Gap Between Argumentation Theory and the Philosophy of Mathematics. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):111-135.
Andrew Aberdein (2005). The Uses of Argument in Mathematics. Argumentation 19 (3):287-301.
J. Anthony Blair (2001). Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. [REVIEW] Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Andrew Aberdein (2010). Argumentation Schemes and Communities of Argumentational Practice. In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. OSSA.
Douglas N. Walton (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Andrew Aberdein (2013). Mathematical Wit and Mathematical Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (2):231-250.
Floris Bex & Bart Verheij (2012). Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. [REVIEW] Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Andrew Aberdein (2010). Observations on Sick Mathematics. In Bart van Kerkhove, Jean Paul van Bendegem & Jonas de Vuyst (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Mathematical Practice. College Publications. 269--300.
Katie Atkinson (2009). Did He Jump or Was He Pushed? Abductive Practical Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
Ewa Orlowska & Joanna Golinska-Pilarek (2011). Dual Tableaux: Foundations, Methodology, Case Studies. Springer.
Victoria Iturralde (1992). Argumentación y razonamiento judicial. Theoria 7 (1/2/3):1049-1078.
Added to index2011-08-05
Total downloads35 ( #40,715 of 1,004,651 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,651 )
How can I increase my downloads?