David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Trobok Majda, Miscevic Nenad & Zarnic Berislav (eds.), Between logic and reality : modeling inference, action and understanding, (Logic, epistemology, and the unity of science, vol. 25). Springer 101--120 (2012)
What is informal logic, is it ``logic" at all? Main contemporary approaches are briefly presented and critically commented. If the notion of consequence is at the heart of logic, does it make sense to speak about ``informal" consequence? A valid inference is truth preserving, if the premises are true, so is the conclusion. According to Prawitz two further conditions must also be satisfied in the case of classical logical consequence: (i) it is because of the logical form of the sentences involved and not because of their specific content that the inference is truth preserving; (ii) it is necessary that if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion. According to the prevalent criteria of informal logic an argument is cogent if and only if (i) its premises are rationally Acceptable, (ii) its premises are Relevant to its conclusion and (iii) its premises constitute Grounds adequate for accepting the conclusion (the ``ARG" conditions according to Govier). The ARG criteria characterize a certain broad kind of consequence relation. We do not (in general) have truth preservence in cogent arguments but if the premises are acceptable and other criteria are met, then so is the conclusion. We can speak about form in a loose sense and finally, there is rational necessity of the grounding or support relation. So a certain broad notion of logical consequence emerges from this comparison. The norms of ARG are norms of elementary scientific methodology in which argument is seen as embodying reasoning within a process of inquiry or of belief formation in subject areas accessible to every informed intellectual.
|Keywords||informal logic logical consequence|
|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
Andrew Aberdein (2006). Managing Informal Mathematical Knowledge: Techniques From Informal Logic. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4108:208--221.
Ralph H. Johnson (1999). The Relation Between Formal and Informal Logic. Argumentation 13 (3):265-274.
James B. Freeman (2004). Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem. Cambridge University Press.
Matthew W. McKeon (2010). The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Peter Lang Pub..
Leo Groarke (1996). Informal Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jc Beall & Greg Restall (2000). Logical Pluralism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):475 – 493.
Jose Saguillo (2009). Methodological Practice and Complementary Concepts of Logical Consequence: Tarski's Model-Theoretic Consequence and Corcoran's Information-Theoretic Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (1):21-48.
Jc Beall & Greg Restall (2005). Logical Pluralism. Oxford University Press.
Greg Restall (2004). Logical Pluralism and the Preservation of Warrant. In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer 163--173.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.
Mario Gómez-torrente (1998). Logical Truth and Tarskian Logical Truth. Synthese 117 (3):375-408.
Added to index2012-10-06
Total downloads29 ( #164,725 of 1,902,892 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #446,006 of 1,902,892 )
How can I increase my downloads?