Two varieties of conditionals and two kinds of defeaters help reveal two fundamental types of reasoning
Mind and Language 21 (4):484–503 (2006)
|Abstract||Two notions from philosophical logic and linguistics are brought together and applied to the psychological study of defeasible conditional reasoning. The distinction between disabling conditions and alternative causes is shown to be a special case of Pollock's (1987) distinction between 'rebutting' and 'undercutting' defeaters. 'Inferential' conditionals are shown to come in two varieties, one that is sensitive to rebutters, the other to undercutters. It is thus predicted and demonstrated in two experiments that the type of inferential conditional used as the major premise of conditional arguments can reverse the heretofore classic, distinctive effects of defeaters.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mikael Janvid (2008). Defeaters and Rising Standards of Justification. Acta Analytica 23 (1):45-54.
Andrea Manfrinati, Pierdaniele Giaretta & Paolo Cherubini (2007). Conditionals and Conditional Thinking. Mind and Society 7 (1):21-34.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
Sara Verbrugge & Hans Smessaert (2010). On the Argumentative Strength of Indirect Inferential Conditionals. Argumentation 24 (3):337-362.
Guy Politzer (2007). Reasoning with Conditionals. Topoi 26 (1).
Jean Baratgin, David E. Over & Guy Politzer (2011). Betting on Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 16 (3):172-197.
Stephen E. Newstead (1997). Conditional Reasoning with Realistic Material. Thinking and Reasoning 3 (1):49 – 76.
Sara Verbrugge, Kristien Dieussaert, Walter Schaeken, Hans Smessaert & William Van Belle (2007). Pronounced Inferences: A Study on Inferential Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (2):105 – 133.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #113,901 of 548,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,799 of 548,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?