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

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. George Bowles (1999). The Asymmetry Thesis and the Diversity of "Invalid" Argument-Forms. Informal Logic 19 (1).score: 188.0
    According to the Asymmetry Thesis, whereas there are many kinds of argument-forms that make at least some of their instances valid, there is none that makes any of its instances invalid. To refute this thesis, a counterexample has been produced in the form of an argument-form whose premise-form's instances are all logically true and whose conclusion form's instances are all logically false. The purpose of this paper is to show that there are many more kinds of argument-forms that make some (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Nancy D. Simco (1973). Note on Instances of Invalid Elementary Argument Forms. Southern Journal of Philosophy 11 (1-2):149-150.score: 148.0
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Barton Moffatt (2010). Alternate Accounts of Rationality Invalidate Kaposy's Argument. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 1 (4):43-44.score: 138.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2007). Arguments, Meta-Arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. [REVIEW] Argumentation 21 (3):253-268.score: 116.0
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Evan Heit & Caren M. Rotello (2012). The Pervasive Effects of Argument Length on Inductive Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):244 - 277.score: 99.0
    Three experiments examined the influence of argument length on plausibility judgements, in a category-based induction task. The general results were that when arguments were logically invalid they were considered stronger when they were longer, but for logically valid arguments longer arguments were considered weaker. In Experiments 1a and 1b when participants were forewarned to avoid using length as a cue to judging plausibility, they still did so. Indeed, participants given the opposite instructions did not follow those instructions (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kristin Mickelson, The Zygote Argument Is Invalid--Now What?score: 93.0
    Alfred Mele’s Zygote Argument is widely considered to be among the most powerful arguments for free-will incompatibilism. In this paper, I explain how a common equivocation on the term “incompatibilism” has obscured the fact that the original Zygote Argument is invalid. I argue that if the original, diagnostic conclusion of the Zygote Argument is to be preserved, the argument must be supplemented with a best-explanation argument that identifies deterministic laws as menacing. By the same reasoning, it follows that every (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Danny Frederick (2013). Hoppe’s Derivation of Self-Ownership From Argumentation: Analysis and Critique. Reason Papers 35 (1):92-106.score: 93.0
    Hans-Hermann Hoppe contends that the fact that a person has the capacity to argue entails that she has the moral right of exclusive control over her own body. Critics of Hoppe’s argument do not appear to have pinpointed its flaws. I expose the logical structure of Hoppe’s argument, distinguishing its pragmatic-contradiction and its mutual-recognition components. I provide three counterexamples to show that Hoppe’s mutual-recognition argument is invalid and I argue that the truth that appears to motivate the argument is simply (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Catherine Legg (2008). Argument-Forms Which Turn Invalid Over Infinite Domains: Physicalism as Supertask? Contemporary Pragmatism 5 (1):1-11.score: 93.0
    Argument-forms exist which are valid over finite but not infinite domains. Despite understanding of this by formal logicians, philosophers can be observed treating as valid arguments which are in fact invalid over infinite domains. In support of this claim I will first present an argument against the classical pragmatist theory of truth by Mark Johnston. Then, more ambitiously, I will suggest the fallacy lurks in certain arguments for physicalism taken for granted by many philosophers today.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Stoics (Part One). In Keimpe Algra & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.score: 92.0
    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 to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Janet L. Travis (1971). A Criticism of the Use of the Concept of "Dominant Group" in Arguments for Evolutionary Progressivism. Philosophy of Science 38 (3):369-375.score: 90.0
    I criticize the particular argument for evolutionary progressivism which is based on the concept of a series of "dominant life forms." My procedure is to show that there is no rigorous definition for the concept of "dominant life form." I examine several attempts to define this concept by Julian Huxley and a new formulation of the concept by G. G. Simpson and show that none of the criteria either of these men develop for determining which groups of organisms can be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Lynne Rudder Baker (2008). The Irrelevance of the Consequence Argument. Analysis 68 (297):13–22.score: 87.0
    Peter van Inwagen has offered two versions of an influential argument that has come to be called ‘the Consequence Argument’. The Consequence Argument purports to demonstrate that determinism is incompatible with free will.1 It aims to show that, if we assume determinism, we are committed to the claim that, for all propositions p, no one has or ever had any choice about p. Unfortunately, the original Consequence Argument employed an inference rule (the β-rule) that was shown to be invalid. (McKay (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. James Franklin (2002). Stove's Discovery of the Worst Argument in the World. Philosophy 77 (4):615-624.score: 87.0
    The winning entry in David Stove's Competition to Find the Worst Argument in the World was: “We can know things only as they are related to us/insofar as they fall under our conceptual schemes, etc., so, we cannot know things as they are in themselves.” That argument underpins many recent relativisms, including postmodernism, post-Kuhnian sociological philosophy of science, cultural relativism, sociobiological versions of ethical relativism, and so on. All such arguments have the same form as ‘We have eyes, therefore (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Vadim Batitsky (1998). A Formal Rebuttal of the Central Argument for Functionalism. Erkenntnis 49 (2):201-20.score: 87.0
    The central argument for functionalism is the so-called argument from multiple realizations. According to this argument, because a functionally characterized system admits a potential infinity of structurally diverse physical realizations, the functional organization of such systems cannot be captured in a law-like manner at the level of physical description (and, thus, must be treated as a principally autonomous domain of inquiry). I offer a rebuttal of this argument based on formal modeling of its premises in the framework of automata theory. (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Mikkel Gerken (2008). Is There a Simple Argument for Higher-Order Representation Theories of Awareness Consciousness? Erkenntnis 69 (2):243-259.score: 87.0
    William Lycan has articulated “a simple argument” for higher-order representation (HOR) theories of a variety of consciousness sometimes labeled ‘awareness consciousness’ (Lycan, Analysis 61.1, January 3–4, 2001). The purpose of this article is to critically assess the influential argument-strategy of the simple argument. I argue that, as stated, the simple argument fails since it is invalid. Moreover, I argue that an obvious “quick fix” would beg the question against competing same-order representation (SOR) theories of awareness consciousness. I then provide a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Garry Young (2009). Case Study Evidence for an Irreducible Form of Knowing How To: An Argument Against a Reductive Epistemology. Philosophia 37 (2):341-360.score: 87.0
    Over recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in arguments favouring intellectualism—the view that Ryle’s epistemic distinction is invalid because knowing how is in fact nothing but a species of knowing that. The aim of this paper is to challenge intellectualism by introducing empirical evidence supporting a form of knowing how that resists such a reduction. In presenting a form of visuomotor pathology known as visual agnosia, I argue that certain actions performed by patient DF can be (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. David Efird (2010). The Subtraction Argument for the Possibility of Free Mass. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (1):50-57.score: 87.0
    Could an object have only mass and no other property? In giving an affirmative answer to this question, Jonathan Schaffer (2003, pp. 136-8) proposes what he calls ‘the subtraction argument’ for ‘the possibility of free mass’. In what follows, we aim to assess the cogency of this argument in comparison with an argument of the same general form which has also been termed a subtraction argument, namely, Thomas Baldwin’s (1996) subtraction argument for metaphysical nihilism, which is the claim that there (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Norman C. Gillespie (1975). A Valid Deduction of the Generalization Argument. Ethics 86 (1):87-91.score: 87.0
    Critics of marcus singer's deduction of the generalization argument from the principle of consequences and the generalization principle ("generalization in ethics," page 66) insist that his use of "everyone" in that deduction is ambiguous, I.E., "everyone" is used both collectively and distributively, And that the deduction is invalid. In this paper, I provide a valid deduction of the generalization argument from those premises which avoids this difficulty entirely. I argue that the conclusion so deduced is logically and morally equivalent to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Neil A. Dorman (1964). The Refutation of the Generalization Argument. Ethics 74 (2):150-154.score: 87.0
    Marcus singer's deduction of the generalization argument in "generalization in ethics" is not sound. The argument itself is invalid, But there is a valid moral principle which is very similar to the one singer thinks he has proved. This valid principle is that if the consequences of not having a rule against x would be undesirable, Then there should be a rule against x. But this is not the same as to say that if the consequences of everyone's doing x (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Hans Günther Ruß (2002). Aktive Sterbehilfe: Ungereimtheiten in der Euthanasie-Debatte. [REVIEW] Ethik in der Medizin 14 (1):11-19.score: 81.0
    Definition of the problem: Concerning the debate on euthanasia, a widely held position is that it should be accepted in its so-called passive and indirect form, while so-called active euthanasia should be rejected. The problem, now, is that at least some of the usual arguments to defend this view are invalid. Arguments: Three kinds of failures are examinded: First, if taken seriously, some of the arguments against active euthanasia undermine the accepted passive and indirect forms, too. For (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Douglas Walton (2001). Are Some Modus Ponens Arguments Deductively Invalid? Informal Logic 22 (1).score: 78.0
    This article concerns the structure of defeasible arguments like: 'If Bob has red spots, Bob has the measles; Bob has red spots; therefore Bob has the measles.' The issue is whether such arguments have the form of modus ponens or not. Either way there is a problem. If they don't have the form of modus ponens, the common opinion to the contrary taught in leading logic textbooks is wrong. But if they do have the form of modus ponens, (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor (2013). Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.score: 76.7
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Sebastian McEvoy (1999). The Construction of Issues: Pleading Theory and Practice, Relevance in Pragmatics, and the Confrontation Stage in the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 13 (1):43-52.score: 76.7
    Legal theory and practice, particularly on the exchange of pleadings, are referred to as a means of examining current thinking in pragmatics on relevance. The rules of pleadings suggest that the concept of relevance as used in pragmatics is emptied of any meaning and that theories of argumentation have not sufficiently taken into account the preliminary construction which issues to be argued about require.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Leo Groarke (2002). Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument. Argumentation 16 (3):277-286.score: 76.7
    This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for both (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Christoph Lumer (2010). Pragma-Dialectics and the Function of Argumentation. Argumentation 24 (1):41-69.score: 76.7
    This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and rationalistic elements (Sect. 3). The problematic philosophical underpinnings of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Christopher W. Tindale (2002). A Concept Divided: Ralph Johnson's Definition of Argument. [REVIEW] Argumentation 16 (3):299-309.score: 76.7
    Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000) is a major contribution to the field of informal logic, but the concept of argument that is central to its project suffers from a tension between the components that comprise it. This paper explores and addresses that tension by examining the implications of each of five aspects of the definition of ‘argument’.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Mark Weinstein (1990). Towards an Account of Argumentation in Science. Argumentation 4 (3):269-298.score: 76.7
    In this article it is argued that a complex model that includes Toulmin's functional account of argument, the pragma-dialectical stage analysis of argumentation offered by the Amsterdam School, and criteria developed in critical thinking theory, can be used to account for the normativity and field-dependence of argumentation in science. A pragma-dialectical interpretation of the four main elements of Toulmin's model, and a revised account of the double role of warrants, illuminates the domain specificity of scientific argumentation and the restrictions to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Katarzyna Budzynska, Michal Araszkiewicz, Barbara Bogołȩbska, Piotr Cap, Tadeusz Ciecierski, Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska, Barbara Dunin-Kȩplicz, Marcin Dziubiński, Michał Federowicz, Anna Gomolińska, Andrzej Grabowski, Teresa Hołówka, Łukasz Jochemczyk, Magdalena Kacprzak, Paweł Kawalec, Maciej Kielar, Andrzej Kisielewicz, Marcin Koszowy, Robert Kublikowski, Piotr Kulicki, Anna Kuzio, Piotr Lewiński, Jakub Z. Lichański, Jacek Malinowski, Witold Marciszewski, Edward Nieznański, Janina Pietrzak, Jerzy Pogonowski, Tomasz A. Puczyłowski, Jolanta Rytel, Anna Sawicka, Marcin Selinger, Andrzej Skowron, Joanna Skulska, Marek Smolak, Małgorzata Sokół, Agnieszka Sowińska, Piotr Stalmaszczyk, Tomasz Stawecki, Jarosław Stepaniuk, Alina Strachocka, Wojciech Suchoń, Krzysztof Szymanek, Justyna Tomczyk, Robert Trypuz, Kazimierz Trzȩsicki, Mariusz Urbański, Ewa Wasilewska-Kamińska, Krzysztof A. Wieczorek, Maciej Witek, Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska, Olena Yaskorska, Maria Załȩska, Konrad Zdanowski & Żure (2014). The Polish School of Argumentation: A Manifesto. Argumentation 28 (3):267-282.score: 76.7
    Building on our diverse research traditions in the study of reasoning, language and communication, the Polish School of Argumentation integrates various disciplines and institutions across Poland in which scholars are dedicated to understanding the phenomenon of the force of argument. Our primary goal is to craft a methodological programme and establish organisational infrastructure: this is the first key step in facilitating and fostering our research movement, which joins people with a common research focus, complementary skills and an enthusiasm to work (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Taeda Jovičić (2006). The Effectiveness of Argumentative Strategies. Argumentation 20 (1):29-58.score: 76.7
    In this article, I further analyze the notion of the effectiveness of argumentative strategies, introduced in Jovičić, 2001. The most relevant achievements of the theories of reasonable discussion and the theories of persuasion are called to mind with the aim of explaining the mechanism of the argumentative effectiveness. As a result, a procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of argumentative strategies is suggested.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Marcin Selinger (2014). Towards Formal Representation and Evaluation of Arguments. Argumentation 28 (3):379-393.score: 76.7
    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.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2010). Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values of Argumentation: The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (4):453-474.score: 75.3
    I distinguish four current strategies for integrating a rhetorical perspective within normative models for argumentation. Then I propose and argue for a fifth one by defending a conception of acts of arguing as having a rhetorical dimension that provides conditions for characterizing good argumentation, understood as argumentation that justifies a target-claim.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Toivo J. Holopainen (2007). Anselm's Argumentum and the Early Medieval Theory of Argument. Vivarium 45 (1):1-29.score: 74.7
    The article aims at elucidating the argumentation in Anselm's Proslogion by relating some aspects of it to the early medieval theory of argument. The focus of the analysis is on the "single argument" (unum argumentum), the discovery of which Anselm announces in the Preface to the Proslogion. Part 1 of the article offers a preliminary description of the single argument by describing the reductio ad absurdum technique based on the notion "that than which a greater cannot be thought". Part 2 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Vasco Correia (2012). The Ethics of Argumentation. Informal Logic 32 (2):222-241.score: 74.7
    Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2004). Toulmin's Model of Argument and the Question of Relativism (J. A. Blair Prize, 2005). Informal Logic 24 (2).score: 74.7
    In The Uses of Argument, Toulmin proposed a distinction between fielddependent and field-invariant standards for argument appraisal that gave rise to a relativistic understanding of his theory. The main goal of this paper is to show that epistemological relativism is not a necessary consequence ofToulmin's model of argument. To this end, I will analyze the role that fields are to play within this model, given a certain conception of one of its key elements: the warrant of an argument.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Fred J. Kauffeld (1998). Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation 12 (2):245-266.score: 74.0
    This paper joins the voices warning against hasty transference of legal concepts of presumption to other kinds of argumentation, especially to deliberation about future acts and policies. Comparison of the pragmatics which respectively constitute the illocutionary acts of accusing and proposing reveals important differences in the ways presumptions prompt accusers and proposers to undertake probative responsibilities and, also, points to corresponding differences in their probative duties. This comparison has theoretically important implication regarding the norms governing persuasive argumentation. The paper is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Richard A. Cherwitz & Thomas J. Darwin (1995). On the Continuing Utility of Argument in a Postmodern World. Argumentation 9 (1):181-202.score: 74.0
    In this essay we contend that traditional theories of argument are consonant with and enrich the project of postmodernity. Reading postmodernity as ‘a rhetoric’ underscores how the process of discursively resolving conflicts is occasionally threatened by politically motivated efforts to misuse the methods of argument; it alerts us to the egregious acts that are and can be performed ‘in the name of,’ but not because of, rationality. Postmodernity is thus an attempt by a new generation of theorists to recast and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2010). Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation. Argumentation 24 (1):85-105.score: 74.0
    I propose a characterization of the dialectical dimension of argumentation by considering the activity of arguing as involving a “second order intersubjectivity”. I argue that argumentative communication enables this kind of intersubjectivity as a matter of the recursive nature of acts of arguing—both as justificatory and as persuasive devices. Calling attention to this feature is a way to underline that argumentative discourses represent the explicit part of a dynamic activity, “a mechanism of rational validation”, as Rescher (Dialectics. A controversy oriented (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Panu Raatikainen (2002). McCall's Gödelian Argument is Invalid. Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.score: 72.0
    <span class='Hi'>Storrs</span> McCall continues the tradition of Lucas and Penrose in an attempt to refute mechanism by appealing to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (McCall 2001). That is, McCall argues that Gödel’s theorem “reveals a sharp dividing line between human and machine thinking”. According to McCall, “[h]uman beings are familiar with the distinction between truth and theoremhood, but Turing machines cannot look beyond their own output”. However, although McCall’s argumentation is slightly more sophisticated than the earlier Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments, in the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jerome C. Wakefield (2006). High Mental Disorder Rates Are Based on Invalid Measures: Questions About the Claimed Ubiquity of Mutation-Induced Dysfunction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):424-426.score: 72.0
    Three reservations about Keller & Miller's (K&M's) argument are explored: Serious validity problems afflict epidemiological criteria discriminating disorders from non-disorders, so high rates may be misleading. Normal variation need not be mild disorder, contrary to a possible interpretation of K&M's article. And, rather than mutation-selection balance, true disorders may result from unselected combinations of normal variants over many loci. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Jon Cogburn (2003). Manifest Invalidity: Neil Tennant's New Argument for Intuitionism. Synthese 134 (3):353 - 362.score: 72.0
    In Chapter 7 of The Taming of the True, Neil Tennant provides a new argument from Michael Dummett's ``manifestation requirement'' to the incorrectness of classical logic and the correctness of intuitionistic logic. I show that Tennant's new argument is only valid if one interprets crucial existence claims occurring in the proof in the manner of intuitionists. If one interprets the existence claims as a classical logician would, then one can accept Tennant's premises while rejecting his conclusion of logical revision. Thus, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. James Crosswhite (2001). Con Amore: Henry Johnstone, Jr.'S Philosophy of Argumentation. Informal Logic 21 (1).score: 72.0
    Henry Johnstone's philosophical development was guided by a persistent need to reform the concept of validity -either by reinterpreting it or by finding a substitute for it. This project lead Johnstone into interesting confrontations with the concept of rhetoric and especiaUy with the work of Chaim Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. The project culminated in a failed attempt to develop a formal ethics of rhetoric and argumentation, but this attempt was itself not consistent with some of Johnstone's other characterizations ofan ethics of (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Frans H. Van Eemeren (1995). A World of Difference: The Rich State of Argumentation Theory. Informal Logic 17 (2).score: 72.0
    This paper surveys the contributions to the study of argumentation in the two decades since the work of Toulmin and Perelman. Developments include Radical Argumentativism (Anscombre and Ducot), Communication and Rhetoric (American Speech Communication Theory), Informal Logic (Johnson and Blair), Formal Analyses of Fallacies (Woods and Walton), Formal Dialectics (Barth and Krabbe), and Pragma-Dialectics (van Eemeren and Grootendorst). From the survey it is concluded that argumentation theory has been considerably enriched. If the contributions can be made to converge, a sound (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Mark Weinstein (2008). Three Naturalistic Accounts of the Epistemology of Argument. Informal Logic 26 (1):63-89.score: 72.0
    Three contrasting approaches to the epistemology of argument are presented. Each one is naturalistic, drawing upon successful practices as the basis for epistemological virtue. But each looks at very different sorts of practices and they differ greatly as to the manner with which relevant practices may be described. My own contribution relies on a metamathematical reconstruction of mature science, and as such, is a radical break with the usual approaches within the theory of argument.
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. David J. Godden & Douglas Walton (2007). Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. Informal Logic 27 (3):267-292.score: 72.0
    This paper begins a working through of Blair’s (2001) theoretical agenda concerning argumentation schemes and their attendant critical questions, in which we propose a number of solutions to some outstanding theoretical issues. We consider the classification of schemes, their ultimate nature, their role in argument reconstruction, their foundation as normative categories of argument, and the evaluative role of critical questions.We demonstrate the role of schemes in argument reconstruction, and defend a normative account of their nature against specific criticisms due to (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Aaron Ben-Zeev (1995). Analysis of Argument Strategies of Attack and Cooption: Stock Cases, Formalization, and Argument Reconstruction. Informal Logic 17 (2).score: 72.0
    Three common strategies used by informal logicians are considered: (1) the appeal to standard cases, (2) the attempt to partially formalize so-called "informal fallacies," and (3) restatement of arguments in such a way as to make their logical character more perspicuous. All three strategies are found to be useful. Attention is drawn to several advantages of a "stock case" approach, a minimalist approach to formalization is recommended, and doubts are raised about the applicability, from a logical point of view, (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. John E. Opfer & Vladimir Sloutsky (2011). On the Design and Function of Rational Arguments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):85-86.score: 72.0
    It is unclear how an argumentative environment would select for better reasoning given three general findings. First, argument rationality typically fails to persuade poor reasoners. Second, reasoned argumentation competes with more persuasive and less rational arguments for limited cognitive resources. Third, those poor at reasoning fail to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. Reasoning, therefore, is poorly designed for argument.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley (1996). A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.score: 70.7
    We present a computational model of dialectical argumentation that could serve as a basis for legal reasoning. The legal domain is an instance of a domain in which knowledge is incomplete, uncertain, and inconsistent. Argumentation is well suited for reasoning in such weak theory domains. We model argument both as information structure, i.e., argument units connecting claims with supporting data, and as dialectical process, i.e., an alternating series of moves by opposing sides. Our model includes burden of proof as a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Don S. Levi (1994). The Zen of Argument Analysis: Reflections on Informal Logic's Argument Evaluation Contest. Informal Logic 16 (2).score: 70.7
    An argumentative passage that might appear to be an instance of denying the antecedent will generally admit of an alternative interpretation, one on which the conditional contained by the passage is a preface to the argument rather than a premise of it. On this interpretation. which generally is a more charitable one, the conditional plays a certain dialectical role and, in some cases, a rhetorical role as welL Assuming only a very weak principle of exigetical charity, I consider what it (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Robert Ricco & Anthony Sierra (2011). Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation. Argumentation 25 (1):37-61.score: 70.0
    The present study explored several dispositional factors associated with individual differences in lay adult’s interpretation of when an arguer is, or is not, committed to a statement. College students were presented with several two-person arguments in which the proponent of a thesis conceded a key point in the last turn. Participants were then asked to indicate the extent to which that concession implied a change in the proponent’s attitude toward any of the previous statements in the argument. Participants designated (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Marcin Koszowy & Michał Araszkiewicz (2014). The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 28 (3):283-300.score: 70.0
    The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. A. Theodorakakou (2005). What is at Issue in Argumentation? Judgment in the Hellenistic Doctrine of Krinomenon. Argumentation 19 (2):239-250.score: 70.0
    This paper offers an account of the Hellnistic doctrine of krinomenon, elaborating on the idea of rhetoric’s restoration as a major tool of contemporary research and philosophical study. As opposed to theories of argumentation that identify judgment with its propositional version and establish legitimization on speaker-audience identity, failing to acknowledge difference and controversy, the doctrine of krinomenon focuses on the question posed, connecting rhetoric to judgment. The crucial difference from classical rhetoric lies in the concept of zētēma: In the doctrine (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000