Is Reasoning the Same as Relevant Inference?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
There are two main approaches to a theory of rationality: the positive one and the negative one. The latter, which has gained increasing acceptance, is primarily concerned with rejecting what is irrational, which usually is equated with what is inconsistent. The positive approach has a quite different purpose, that of studying reasoning and, insofar as possible, enhancing the patterns or standards of our reasoning practice
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jon Williamson, Jan-Willem Romeijn, Rolf Haenni & Gregory Wheeler (2008). Logical Relations in a Statistical Problem. In Benedikt Lowe, Jan-Willem Romeijn & Eric Pacuit (eds.), Proceedings of the Foundations of the Formal Sciences VI: Reasoning about probabilities and probabilistic reasoning. College Publications
David Moshman (2004). From Inference to Reasoning: The Construction of Rationality. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):221 – 239.
Brian Lightbody & Berman Michael (2010). The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 30 (2):185-193.
Isaac Levi (1996). For the Sake of the Argument: Ramsey Test Conditionals, Inductive Inference, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
Ingo Brigandt (2010). Scientific Reasoning Is Material Inference: Combining Confirmation, Discovery, and Explanation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):31-43.
Hans Rott (2001). Change, Choice and Inference: A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Graeme S. Halford & Glenda Andrews (2004). The Development of Deductive Reasoning: How Important is Complexity? Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):123 – 145.
Added to index2009-03-06
Total downloads9 ( #293,509 of 1,781,278 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?