Search results for 'invalidity of arguments' (try it on Scholar)

  1.  10
    Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2007). Arguments, Meta-Arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. [REVIEW] Argumentation 21 (3):253-268.
    Krabbe (2003, in F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 641–644) defined a metadialogue as a dialogue about one or more dialogues, and a ground-level dialogue as a dialogue that is not a metadialogue. Similarly, I define a meta-argument as an argument about one or more arguments, and a ground-level argument as one which is not a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  2. Craig French & Lee Walters (forthcoming). The Invalidity of the Argument From Illusion. American Philosophical Quarterly.
    The argument from illusion attempts to establish the bold claim that we are never perceptually aware of ordinary material objects. The argument has rightly received a great deal critical of scrutiny. But here we develop a criticism that, to our knowledge, has not hitherto been explored. We consider the canonical form of the argument as it is captured in contemporary expositions. There are two stages to our criticism. First, we show that the argument is invalid. Second, we identify premises that (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Stoics (Part One). In Keimpe Algra & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press
    ABSTRACT: A detailed presentation of Stoic logic, part one, including their theories of propositions (or assertibles, Greek: axiomata), demonstratives, temporal truth, simple propositions, non-simple propositions(conjunction, disjunction, conditional), quantified propositions, logical truths, modal logic, and general theory of arguments (including definition, validity, soundness, classification of invalid arguments).
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  4
    Pascale Hugon (2016). Phya Pa Chos Kyi Seng Ge and His Successors on the Classification of Arguments by Consequence Based on the Type of the Logical Reason. Journal of Indian Philosophy 44 (5):883-938.
    The Tibetan Buddhist logician Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge devoted a large part of his discussion on argumentation to arguments by consequence. Phya pa distinguishes in his analysis arguments by consequence that merely refute the opponent and arguments by consequence that qualify as probative. The latter induce a correct direct proof which corresponds to the reverse form of the argument by consequence. This paper deals with Phya pa’s classification of probative consequences based on the type of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. John Corcoran (1994). The Founding of Logic. Ancient Philosophy 14 (1):9-24.
    Since the time of Aristotle's students, interpreters have considered Prior Analytics to be a treatise about deductive reasoning, more generally, about methods of determining the validity and invalidity of premise-conclusion arguments. People studied Prior Analytics in order to learn more about deductive reasoning and to improve their own reasoning skills. These interpreters understood Aristotle to be focusing on two epistemic processes: first, the process of establishing knowledge that a conclusion follows necessarily from a set of premises (that is, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  6.  10
    Matthew Braddock (2016). Debunking Arguments and the Cognitive Science of Religion. Theology and Science 14 (3):268-287.
    Do the cognitive origins of our theistic beliefs debunk them or explain them away? This paper develops an empirically-motivated debunking argument and defends it against objections. First, we introduce the empirical and epistemological background. Second, we develop and defend the main argument, the debunking argument from false god beliefs. Third, we characterize and evaluate the most prominent religious debunking argument to date, the debunking argument from insensitivity. It is found that insensitivity-based arguments are problematic, which makes them less promising (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  81
    Moti Mizrahi (2011). A Pedagogical Challenge in Teaching Arguments for the Existence of God. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy 11 (1):10-12.
    In this paper, I describe the way in which I introduce arguments for the existence of God to undergraduate students in Introduction to Philosophy.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  34
    Birgit Kellner (2011). Self-Awareness (Svasaṃvedana) and Infinite Regresses: A Comparison of Arguments by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. [REVIEW] Journal of Indian Philosophy 39 (4-5):411-426.
    This paper compares and contrasts two infinite regress arguments against higher-order theories of consciousness that were put forward by the Buddhist epistemologists Dignāga (ca. 480–540 CE) and Dharmakīrti (ca. 600–660). The two arguments differ considerably from each other, and they also differ from the infinite regress argument that scholars usually attribute to Dignāga or his followers. The analysis shows that the two philosophers, in these arguments, work with different assumptions for why an object-cognition must be cognised: for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  10
    Marcin Selinger (2014). Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments. Argumentation 28 (3):379-393.
    The aim of this paper is to propose foundations for a formal model of representation and numerical evaluation of a possibly broad class of arguments, including those that occur in natural discourse. Since one of the most characteristic features of everyday argumentation is the occurrence of convergent reasoning, special attention should be paid to the operation ⊕, which allows us to calculate the logical force of convergent arguments with an accuracy not offered by other approaches.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10.  28
    Marilyn Ford (2005). Human Nonmonotonic Reasoning: The Importance of Seeing the Logical Strength of Arguments. Synthese 146 (1-2):71 - 92.
    Three studies of human nonmonotonic reasoning are described. The results show that people find such reasoning quite difficult, although being given problems with known subclass-superclass relationships is helpful. The results also show that recognizing differences in the logical strengths of arguments is important for the nonmonotonic problems studied. For some of these problems, specificity – which is traditionally considered paramount in drawing appropriate conclusions – was irrelevant and so should have lead to a “can’t tell” response; however, people could (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  9
    Lev G. Vassiliev (2003). Rational Comprehension of Arguments in Theoretical Texts: A Program for an Argumentative-Linguistic Approach. [REVIEW] Argumentation 17 (1):21-34.
    A method of linguistically-oriented reasoning comprehension is proposed. It is based on semiological principles of text comprehension. Both content and form are essential for comprehending argumentative texts. A text recipient is viewed as a rational judge trying to detect all the components of the argument he/she considers and thus to see if the argument is consistent. Elementary and higher level argumentative units of the text are discovered by applying a modified S. Toulmin's model of argumentative functions. Validity and correctness of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  7
    James F. Voss, Rebecca Fincher-Kiefer, Jennifer Wiley & Laurie Ney Silfies (1993). On the Processing of Arguments. Argumentation 7 (2):165-181.
    This paper is concerned with the processing of informal arguments, that is, arguments involving “probable truth.” A model of informal argument processing is presented that is based upon Hample's (1977) expansion of Toulmin's (1958) model of argument structure. The model postulates that a claim activates an attitude, the two components forming a complex that in turn activates reasons. Furthermore, the model holds occurrence of the reason, or possibly the claim and the reason, activates values. Three experiments are described (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13. Andrew R. Bailey, The Unsoundness of Arguments From Conceivability.
    It is widely suspected that arguments from conceivability, at least in some of their more notorious instances, are unsound. However, the reasons for the failure of conceivability arguments are less well agreed upon, and it remains unclear how to distinguish between sound and unsound instances of the form. In this paper I provide an analysis of the form of arguments from conceivability, and use this analysis to diagnose a systematic weakness in the argument form which reveals all (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Michael McKenna (2012). Moral Responsibility, Manipulation Arguments, and History: Assessing the Resilience of Nonhistorical Compatibilism. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 16 (2):145-174.
    Manipulation arguments for incompatibilism all build upon some example or other in which an agent is covertly manipulated into acquiring a psychic structure on the basis of which she performs an action. The featured agent, it is alleged, is manipulated into satisfying conditions compatibilists would take to be sufficient for acting freely. Such an example used in the context of an argument for incompatibilism is meant to elicit the intuition that, due to the pervasiveness of the manipulation, the agent (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   24 citations  
  15.  16
    Bo R. Meinertsen (2016). A Method for Evaluation of Arguments From Analogy. Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 7 (2):109-123.
    It is a common view that arguments from analogy can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, while this reflects an important insight, I propose instead a relatively simple method for their evaluation based on just (i) their general form and (ii) four core questions. One clear advantage of this proposal is that it does not depend on any substantial (and controversial) view of similarity, unlike influential current alternative methods, such as Walton’s. Following some initial clarification of the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  93
    Sonja J. Ellis (2002). Moral Reasoning and Homosexuality: The Acceptability of Arguments About Lesbian and Gay Issues. Journal of Moral Education 31 (4):455-467.
    In the political arena, lesbian and gay issues have been contested typically on grounds of human rights, but with variable success. Using a moral developmental framework, the purpose of this study was to explore preferences for different types of moral arguments when thinking about moral dilemmas around lesbian and gay issues. The analysis presented here comprised data collected from 545 students at UK universities who completed a questionnaire, part of which comprised a moral dilemma task. Findings of the study (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17. Scott Brewer, Logocratic Method and the Analysis of Arguments in Evidence.
    Legal analysis is dominated by legal arguments, and the assessment of any legal claim requires the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of those arguments. The ‘logocratic’ method is a systematic method for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. More specifically, it is a method designed to help the analyst determine what degree of warrant the premises of an argument provide for its conclusion. Although the method is applicable to any type of argument, this essay focuses (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  2
    Masamichi Sakai (2015). Dharmottara’s Re-Use of Arguments From the Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhi in the Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā. Journal of Indian Philosophy 43 (2-3):171-182.
    Dharmottara, one of the most outstanding commentators of Dharmakīrti, re-uses arguments in the Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, his broad commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścaya, from his independent essay, the Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhi. By analyzing contents of re-used arguments in the Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, this paper clarifies Dharmottara’s intention of paraphrasing his arguments in his commentarial work on Dharmakīrti. I argue that, in terms of content, such arguments are original and never fit into Dharmakīrti’s own system. It can be said that Dharmottara has a clear (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  27
    Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  20.  16
    Sarah von der Mühlen, Tobias Richter, Sebastian Schmid, Elisabeth Marie Schmidt & Kirsten Berthold (2015). Judging the Plausibility of Arguments in Scientific Texts: A Student–Scientist Comparison. Thinking and Reasoning 22 (2):221-249.
    ABSTRACTThe ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences. Readers spontaneously validate presented information against their knowledge and beliefs but differ in their ability to strategically evaluate the soundness of informal arguments. The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate informal arguments. Using a think-aloud procedure, we identified the specific strategies students and scientists apply when judging the plausibility of (...) and classifying common argumentation fallacies. Results indicate that students, compared to scientists, have difficulties forming these judgements and base them on intuition and opinion rather than the internal consistency of arguments. Our findings are discussed using the mental model theory framework. Although introductory students validate scientific information against their knowledge and beliefs, the.. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  38
    Jochen Runde (1990). Keynesian Uncertainty and the Weight of Arguments. Economics and Philosophy 6 (2):275.
    In Chapter 12 of the General Theory, on “The State of Long-Term Expectation,” Keynes writes: “It would be foolish, in forming our expectations, to attach great weight to matters which are very uncertain”. In a footnote to this sentence, Keynes points out that by “very uncertain” he does not mean the same as “very improbable” and refers to the chapter on “The Weight of Arguments” in his earlier Treatise on Probability. The purpose of this article, in the first place, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  22.  43
    Douglas I. Campbell, Jack Copeland & Zhuo-Ran Deng (forthcoming). The Inconceivable Popularity of Conceivability Arguments. Philosophical Quarterly.
    Famous examples of conceivability arguments include (i) Descartes’ argument for mind-body dualism, (ii) Kripke's ‘modal argument’ against psychophysical identity theory, (iii) Chalmers’ ‘zombie argument’ against materialism, and (iv) modal versions of the ontological argument for theism. In this paper, we show that for any such conceivability argument, C, there is a corresponding ‘mirror argument’, M. M is deductively valid and has a conclusion that contradicts C's conclusion. Hence, a proponent of C—henceforth, a ‘conceivabilist’—can be warranted in holding that C's (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  20
    J. Katzav & C. A. Reed (2004). On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18 (2):239-259.
    We develop conceptions of arguments and of argument types that will, by serving as the basis for developing a natural classification of arguments, benefit work in artificial intelligence. Focusing only on arguments construed as the semantic entities that are the outcome of processes of reasoning, we outline and clarify our view that an argument is a proposition that represents a fact as both conveying some other fact and as doing so wholly. Further, we outline our view that, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  24. James B. Freeman, What Types of Arguments Are There?
    Our typology is based on two ground adequacy factors, one logical and one epistemic. Logically, the step from premises to conclusion may be conclusive or only ceteris paribus. Epistemically, warrants may be backed a priori or a posteriori. Hence there are four types of arguments: conclusive a priori, defeasible a priori, defeasible a posteriori, and prima facie conclusive a posteriori. We shall give an example of each and compare our scheme with other typologies.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  42
    Alec Fisher (2004). The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge Univeristy Press.
    This new and expanded edition of The Logic of Real Arguments explains a distinctive method for analysing and evaluating arguments. It discusses many examples, ranging from newspaper articles to extracts from classic texts, and from easy passages to much more difficult ones. It shows students how to use the question 'What argument or evidence would justify me in believing P?', and also how to deal with suppositional arguments beginning with the phrase 'Suppose that X were the case.' (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   51 citations  
  26.  5
    Vadim Verenich (2012). Charles Sanders Peirce, A Mastermind of (Legal) Arguments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 25 (1):31-55.
    In this article, we try to trace the relationship between semiotics and theory of legal reasoning using Peirce’s idea that all reasoning must be necessarily in signs: every act of reasoning/argumentation is a sign process, leading to “the growth of knowledge. The broad scope and universal character of Peirce’s sign theory of reasoning allows us to look for new conciliatory paradigms, which must be presented in terms of possible synthesis between the traditional approaches to argumentation. These traditional approaches are strongly (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  54
    James Williams (2010). Immanence and Transcendence as Inseparable Processes: On the Relevance of Arguments From Whitehead to Deleuze Interpretation. Deleuze Studies 4 (1):94-106.
    It is argued in this paper that recent work on immanence and transcendence in Whitehead scholarship, notably by Basile and Nobo, provides helpful guidelines and ideas for work on problems regarding immanence in Deleuze's philosophy. By following arguments on theism and naturalism in the reception of Whitehead, it argues that Deleuze's philosophy depends on reciprocal relations between that actual and the virtual such that they cannot be considered as separate without also being incomplete. It is then shown that Deleuze's (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  11
    Wim J. Steen (1983). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology II. Appraisal of Arguments Against Adaptationism. Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3).
    Methodological analysis shows that the concepts of fitness and adaptation are more complex than the literature suggests. Various arguments against adaptationism are inadequate since they are couched in terms of unduly simplistic notions.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  29.  1
    Luís Duarte D’Almeida & Cláudio Michelon (forthcoming). The Structure of Arguments by Analogy in Law. Argumentation:1-35.
    Successful accounts of analogy in law have two burdens to discharge. First, they must reflect the fact that the conclusion of an argument by analogy is a normative claim about how to decide a certain case. Second, they must not fail to accord relevance to the fact that the source case was authoritatively decided in a certain way. We argue in the first half of this paper that the common view of the structure of analogical arguments in law cannot (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  4
    William Rehg (2005). Assessing the Cogency of Arguments: Lbree Kinds of Merits. Informal Logic 25 (2):95-115.
    This article proposes a way of connecting two levels at which scholars have studied discursive practices from a normative perspective: on the one hand, local transactions-face-to-face arguments or dialogues-and broadly dispersed public debates on the other. To help focus my analysis, I select two representatives of work at these two levels: the pragmadialectical model of critical discussion and Habermas's discourse theory of politicallegal deliberation. The two models confront complementary challenges that arise from gaps between their prescriptions and contexts of (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31.  4
    David Goodwin (1992). The Dialectic of Second-Order Distinctions: The Structure of Arguments About Fallacies. Informal Logic 14 (1).
    Arguments about fallacies generally attempt to distinguish real from apparent modes of argumentation and reasoning. To examine the structure of these arguments, this paper develops a theory of dialectical distinction. First, it explores the connection between Nicholas Rescher's concept of distinction as a "dialectical countermove" and Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteca's "dissociation of ideas." Next, it applies a theory of distinction to Aristotle's extended arguments about fallacies in De Sophisticis Elenchis, primarily with a view to analyzing its (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32. John-Michael Kuczynski (2006). THE ANALOGUE-DIGITAL DISTINCTION AND THE COGENCY OF KANT'S TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS. Existentia: An International Journal of Philosophy (3-4):279-320.
    Hume's attempt to show that deduction is the only legitimate form of inference presupposes that enumerative induction is the only non-deductive form of inference. In actuality, enumerative induction is not even a form of inference: all supposed cases of enumerative induction are disguised cases of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), so far as they aren't simply cases of mentation of a purely associative kind and, consequently, of a kind that is non-inductive and otherwise non-inferential. The justification for IBE lies (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  25
    Rudi A. Te Velde (2003). ‘The First Thing to Know About God’: Kretzmann and Aquinas on the Meaning and Necessity of Arguments for the Existence of God. Religious Studies 39 (3):251-267.
    This paper examines critically Kretzmann's reconstruction of the project of natural theology as exemplified by Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles. It is argued that the notion of natural theology, as understood and advocated by Kretzmann, is particularly indebted to the epistemologically biased natural theology of modernity with its focus on rational justification of theistic belief. As a consequence, Kretzmann's view of the arguments for the existence of God and their place within Aquinas's theological project is insufficiently sensitive to the ontological (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  2
    Rudi A. Te Velde (2003). The First Thing to Know About God: Kretzmann and Aquinas on the Meaning and Necessity of Arguments for the Existence of God. Religious Studies 39 (3):251-267.
    This paper examines critically Kretzmann's reconstruction of the project of natural theology as exemplified by Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles. It is argued that the notion of natural theology, as understood and advocated by Kretzmann, is particularly indebted to the epistemologically biased natural theology of modernity with its focus on rational justification of theistic belief. As a consequence, Kretzmann's view of the arguments for the existence of God and their place within Aquinas's theological project is insufficiently sensitive to the ontological (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. J. R. Lucas, The Lay-Out of Arguments.
    Arguments have been much misunderstood. Not only has it been assumed that they must be deductive, but it has been assumed also that, although often expressed in loose and elliptical form, they must be capable, if they are valid at all, of being expressed with absolute precision, as a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the action in question to be appropriate. Mathematical arguments are capable of being stated precisely, and it has long been a reproach to (...)
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Wim Van Der Steen (1983). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology II. Appraisal of Arguments Against Adaptationism. Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3):217-222.
    Methodological analysis shows that the concepts of fitness and adaptation are more complex than the literature suggests. Various arguments against ‘adaptationism’ are inadequate since they are couched in terms of unduly simplistic notions.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Fabrizio Macagno (2010). Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof. In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on the conclusion. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Benjamin James Fraser (2014). Evolutionary Debunking Arguments and the Reliability of Moral Cognition. Philosophical Studies 168 (2):457-473.
    Recent debate in metaethics over evolutionary debunking arguments against morality has shown a tendency to abstract away from relevant empirical detail. Here, I engage the debate about Darwinian debunking of morality with relevant empirical issues. I present four conditions that must be met in order for it to be reasonable to expect an evolved cognitive faculty to be reliable: the environment, information, error, and tracking conditions. I then argue that these conditions are not met in the case of our (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  39. Robert Stern (2000). Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism: Answering the Question of Justification. Oxford University Press.
    Robert Stern investigates how scepticism can be countered by using transcendental arguments concerning the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience, language, or thought. He shows that the most damaging sceptical questions concern neither the certainty of our beliefs nor the reliability of our belief-forming methods, but rather how we can justify our beliefs.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  40. Pamela Hieronymi (2013). The Use of Reasons in Thought (and the Use of Earmarks in Arguments). Ethics (1):114-127.
    Here I defend my solution to the wrong-kind-of-reason problem against Mark Schroeder’s criticisms. In doing so, I highlight an important difference between other accounts of reasons and my own. While others understand reasons as considerations that count in favor of attitudes, I understand reasons as considerations that bear (or are taken to bear) on questions. Thus, to relate reasons to attitudes, on my account, we must consider the relation between attitudes and questions. By considering that relation, we not only solve (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  41.  26
    Matthew Inglis & Juan Pablo Mejía-Ramos (2009). On the Persuasiveness of Visual Arguments in Mathematics. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):97-110.
    Two experiments are reported which investigate the factors that influence how persuaded mathematicians are by visual arguments. We demonstrate that if a visual argument is accompanied by a passage of text which describes the image, both research-active mathematicians and successful undergraduate mathematics students perceive it to be significantly more persuasive than if no text is given. We suggest that mathematicians’ epistemological concerns about supporting a claim using visual images are less prominent when the image is described in words. Finally (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42.  38
    John Greco (2000). Putting Skeptics in Their Place: The Nature of Skeptical Arguments and Their Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Cambridge University Press.
    This book is about the nature of skeptical arguments and their role in philosophical inquiry. John Greco delineates three main theses: that a number of historically prominent skeptical arguments make no obvious mistake, and therefore cannot be easily dismissed; that the analysis of skeptical arguments is philosophically useful and important, and should therefore have a central place in the methodology of philosophy; and that taking skeptical arguments seriously requires us to adopt an externalist, reliabilist epistemology. Greco (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   53 citations  
  43.  7
    Nghia Chi Nguyen (2013). Examination of Existing Arguments on Business Oriented Towards Poverty Reduction with the Case of People with Disabilities in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 2 (2):147-161.
    With an eye ultimately to answering the question of how business can alleviate poverty completely, the paper examines existing arguments about the approach of business to poverty reduction with the case of people with disabilities living in poverty in Vietnam. The paper suggests that business should take the knowledge and potential of poor people into consideration in its interfaces with different types of poor people: consumers, workers, property owners, etc. Furthermore, investigating how business can help reduce poverty while still (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  4
    Jeroen Van Bouwel, Erik Weber & Leen De Vreese (2011). Indispensability Arguments in Favour of Reductive Explanations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 42 (1):33 - 46.
    Instances of explanatory reduction are often advocated on metaphysical grounds; given that the only real things in the world are subatomic particles and their interaction, we have to try to explain everything in terms of the laws of physics. In this paper, we show that explanatory reduction cannot be defended on metaphysical grounds. Nevertheless, indispensability arguments for reductive explanations can be developed, taking into account actual scientific practice and the role of epistemic interests. Reductive explanations might be indispensable to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  4
    Andrada Parvu, Gabriel Roman, Silvia Dumitras, Rodica Gramma, Mariana Enache, Stefana Maria Moisa, Radu Chirita, Catalin Iov & Beatrice Ioan (2012). Arguments in Favor of a Religious Coping Pattern in Terminally Ill Patients. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 11 (31):88-112.
    A patient suffering from a severe illness that is entering its terminal stage is forced to develop a coping process. Of all the coping patterns, the religious one stands out as being a psychological resource available to all patients regardless of culture, learning, and any age. Religious coping interacts with other values or practices of society, for example the model of a society that takes care of it's elder members among family or in an institutionalized environment or the way the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  1
    Adrian Paul Iliescu (2010). The Autonomy of Morals. Two Analytic Arguments. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 9 (26):3-17.
    The theist thesis that any true ethics must be a religious one is criticized from two different angles; it is shown that: (i) in order to avoid divine voluntarism, theism uses a supposition the acceptance of which makes arguments against autonomous ethics un- acceptable, for they inevitably beg the question; (ii) it assumes a kind of moral foun- dationalism which is, according to some Wittgensteinean arguments, utterly superfluous; the idea that any authoritative ethics needs the absolute authority of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  37
    John Corcoran (1987). Three Rules of Distribution: One Counterexample. Journal of Symbolic Logic 52:886-887.
    This self-contained one page paper produces one valid two-premise premise-conclusion argument that is a counterexample to the entire three traditional rules of distribution. These three rules were previously thought to be generally applicable criteria for invalidity of premise-conclusion arguments. No longer can a three-term argument be dismissed as invalid simply on the ground that its middle is undistributed, for example. The following question seems never to have been raised: how does having an undistributed middle show that an argument's (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  7
    Manfred Hofer & Birgit Pikowsky (1993). Validation of a Category System for Arguments in Conflict Discourse. Argumentation 7 (2):135-148.
    Theories of individuation predict systematic differences in argumentative behavior between adolescent girls and their mothers. In order to reveal the nature and functions of this kind of discourse, two studies were carried out on 110 mother-daughter pairs. The second study (n=80) replicated and extended the first study (n=30) on an independent sample. The mother-daughter pairs were asked to discuss a subject that had recently been at issue between them. To assess the argumentative behavior, a category system was developed that reflects (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  5
    Bianca Bernardi & Emanuela Antolini (1996). Structural Differences in the Production of Written Arguments. Argumentation 10 (2):175-196.
    The purpose of this study is to analyse the structure of written argumentative texts produced by pupils in grades 3, 5, 7 and 11 in relation to three different tasks: Group A — subjects are assigned a topic question consisting of a single statement (open question); Group B — subjects are given a topic question consisting of both a statement and its opposite (opposite opinions); Group C — subjects are given an initial and a final sentence of a text, which (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  4
    J. Anthony Blair (2016). An Early Exchange on the Interpretation of Arguments in Texts. Informal Logic 36 (1):83-91.
    These letters between Irving Copi and Anthony Blair exchanged in 1981 are of poss ible interest for the history of informal logic.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  51. Nothing found.