Inquiry 11 (1-4):282 – 294 (1968)
|Abstract||Three polemical exchanges between Bertrand Russell and F. H. Bradley, F. C. S. Schiller, and the prosecutor in Russell's trial for violating the Defence of the Realm Act in 1916 are examined in order to bring to light some paradigms of informal reasoning, with a view to encouraging research into the logic of natural language. Ten such paradigms are expressed, e.g., Agree with the contention but not for the reasons given; Agree that the criticism is valid and report that one has modified the criticized doctrine but not in the manner suggested|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul Arthur Schilpp (1952). The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell. New York, Tudor Pub. Co..
T. Allan Hillman (2008). The Early Russell on the Metaphysics of Substance in Leibniz and Bradley. Synthese 163 (2):245 - 261.
Jaime Nubiola (1994). Russell, Crexells, and d'Ors: Barcelona, 1920. Russell: The Journal of the Betrand Russell Archives 14 (2):155-161.
Gary Ostertag (2000). Russell's Modal Logic? Review of Jan Dejnožka, Bertrand Russell on Modality and Logical Relevance. Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies 20 (2):165-72.
Bertil RolF (1982). Russell's Theses on Vagueness. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (1):69-83.
Bertrand Russell (ed.) (1973). Bertrand Russell, the Social Scientist. Bertrand Russell Supranational Society.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-03-05
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?