Logical Criticism of Buddhist Doctrines is a ‘thematic compilation’ by Avi Sion. It collects in one volume the essays that he has written on this subject over a period of some 15 years after the publication of his first book on Buddhism, Buddhist Illogic. It comprises expositions and empirical and logical critiques of many (though not all) Buddhist doctrines, such as impermanence, interdependence, emptiness, the denial of self or soul. It includes his most recent essay, regarding the (...) five skandhas doctrine. (shrink)

I begin by formulating the problem of the nature of fallacy in terms of the logic of the negative evaluation of argument, that is, in terms of a theory of logical criticism; here I discuss several features of my approach and several advantages vis-à-vis other approaches; a main feature of my approach is the concern to avoid both formalist and empiricist excesses. I then define six types of fallaciousness, labeled formal, explanatory, presuppositional, positive, semantical, and persuasive; they all (...) involve arguments whose conclusion may be said not to follow from the premises, that is, they involve the logical evaluation of relationships among propositions. I also provide a set of data consisting of four historical cases or nine specific instances of fallacious arguments; these all pertain to the Copernican controversy about the earth's motion in the seventeenth century. I end with a discussion of further problems and inquiries that deserve attention. (shrink)

The method of doubt has been used in philosophy and theology by both philosophers and theologians, among them al-Ghazālī. Al-Ghazālī’s method conveys the process of how he was cured of his epistemological and existential crisis. This study analyzes each phase of the process in terms of epistemology and logic; it explains the problems and how they appeared to al-Ghazālī.

The method of doubt has been used in philosophy and theology by both philosophers and theologians, among them al-Ghazālī. Al-Ghazālī’s method conveys the process of how he was cured of his epistemological and existential crisis. This study analyzes each phase of the process in terms of epistemology and logic; it explains the problems and how they appeared to al-Ghazālī.

The Knowability Paradox is a logical argument that, starting from the plainly innocent assumption that every true proposition is knowable, reaches the strong conclusion that every true proposition is known; i.e. if there are unknown truths, there are unknowable truths. The paradox has been considered a problem for every theory assuming the Knowability Principle, according to which all truths are knowable and, in particular, for semantic anti-realist theories. A well known criticism to the Knowability Paradox is the so (...) called restriction strategy. It bounds the scope of the universal quantification in (KP) to a set of formulas whose logical form avoids the paradoxical conclusion. Specifically, Tennant suggests to restrict the quantifier in (KP) to propositions whose knowledge is provably inconsistent. He calls them Anti-Cartesian propositions and distinguished them in three kinds. In this paper we will not be concerned with the soundness of the restriction proposal and the criticisms it has received. Rather, we are interested in analyzing the proposed distinction. We argue that Tennant’s distinction is problematic because it is not completely clear, it is not grounded on an adequate logical analysis, and it is incomplete. We suggest an alternative distinction, and we give some reasons for accepting it: it results logically grounded and more complete than Tennant’s one, inclusive of it and independent from non-epistemic notions. (shrink)

This is an extended critique of comments made by Abner Shimony and Howard Stein on Henry Stapp’s proof of the non-locality of quantum mechanics. Although I claim that ultimately Stapp’s proof does not establish its purported conclusion, yet Shimony and Stein’s criticism contains a number of weak points, which need to be clarified.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and (...) made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This paper presents the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the so-called “world-picture logic” mode of critique. It also outlines the arguments—empirical, transcendental and creationist—upon which the aesthetic framework depends that has the world relational picture as its object. By laying out these arguments and inquiring into the nature of what is human, it sketches the relational theology central to the “world-picture logic” mode of critique.

Artykuł jest próbą scharakteryzowania platońskiego idealizmu według wykładni Hermanna Cohena – filozofa w Polsce niemal zapomnianego; założyciela, a zarazem czołowego, obok Paula Natorpa i Władysława Tatarkiewicza, przedstawiciela marburskiej szkoły neokantyzmu. Tok analiz obejmuje cohenowskie tezy postawione przez filozofa w epistemologicznej pracy Platons Ideenlehre und die Mathematik. Postulaty, do których odwołuje się Cohen wiążą refleksję nad klasycznym idealizmem oraz statusem platońskiej idei z refleksją logiczno-matematyczną i zagadnieniem sichere Hypothesis jako hipotezy pewnej – hipotezy o statusie aksjomatu. W następstwie badań okazuje się, (...) że określenie roli matematyki: arytmetyki i geometrii, staje się nieodzowne w zrozumieniu idealizmu zarówno starożytnego Platona, jak również nowożytnego Kanta. Obaj, Platon i Kant, akcentują znaczenie apriorycznej myśli, logiki czystego myślenia, logicznego rozumowania, poznawczej władzy intelektu, nauki oraz krytycyzmu jako drogi poznawczego, a zarazem kształtującego charakter, postępowania podmiotu poznającego Przeprowadzony w artykule wywód, zakorzeniony w historyczno-filozoficznych analizach problemu, w podsumowaniu jest także próbą określenia znaczenia platońsko-neokantowskiego idealizmu dla współczesnych zagadnień naukowo-filozoficznych. (shrink)

The title of course is a question-beggar. But the postulate on which the argument of this article is based is that criticism is sufficiently rational a procedure to merit the claim that it has a logic underlying it. This ‘logic’ however has not the rigour and necessity which we demand in strict deductive logical connexions. From this however it does not follow that the title is a misnomer or should be misleading. It is concerned to examine the relationships (...) that exist within that complex of activities we call criticism and to establish that these relationships have norms which entitle them in however diluted a sense to be called ‘logical’. (shrink)

1960년대에 집중적으로 제기된 논리경험주의에 대한 대다수의 철학적 공격은 이른바 논리경험주의의 ‘수용된 견해’를 향한 것이었고, 이후 과학철학자들이 공공연히 ‘논리경험주의는 죽었다’라는 표현을 쓸 정도로까지 논리경험주의 과학철학의 위상은 낮아졌다. 문제는 이와 같은 논리경험주의의 ‘수용된 견해’가 대부분 비엔나 학파를 대표하는 카르납의 철학적 관점을 반영하고 있다는 데 있다. 최근의 논리경험주의에 대한 역사철학적 탐구가 보여주듯, 논리경험주의 내에 다양성이 존재했고 특히 카르납으로 대표되는 비엔나 학파와 라이헨바흐로 대표되는 베를린 학파 사이에는 중요한 철학적 입장의 차이가 있었다. 만약 우리가 라이헨바흐의 과학철학적 입장을 카르납과 비견될 만한 논리경험주의의 중요한 인식론적 입장이라고 간주한다면, (...) 과연 그의 입장이 이후 논리경험주의에 대해 제시된 각종 비판을 견딜 수 있는지 다시 점검해 볼 필요가 있다. 이를 위해 우선 나는 논리경험주의의 입장과 이에 대한 비판을 체계적으로 정리하는 과학철학자 수피(Suppe)의 논의를 검토한 후, 논리경험주의에 대한 후대 철학자들의 비판이 결정적이지는 않았음을 보인다. 다음으로 나는 ‘과학적 철학’ 개념, ‘발견의 맥락’과 ‘정당화의 맥락’ 구분, ‘과학 이론의 합리적 재구성’, ‘과학자와 철학자의 노동 분업’ 등 논리경험주의의 주요 인식론적 논제에 관한 라이헨바흐의 입장을 재구성한다. 이러한 재구성을 통해 나는, 라이헨바흐의 인식론적 입장이 구체적인 과학 이론의 인식론적 의의와 함축을 도출해내는데 있어 여전히 유효한 입장이라는 것을 보일 것이다. 실제로 라이헨바흐가 주장한 ‘이론 구체적인 인식론적 분석’은 오늘날에도 여전히 유용하고 필요한 철학적 방법론이며, 이 방법론은 논리경험주의에 반대하면서 얻어진 것이 아니라 논리경험주의가 오늘날의 과학철학에 남긴 소중한 유산이라고 보아야 한다. (shrink)

After more than a decade teaching ancient Greek history and philosophy at University College, Oxford, British philosopher and political theorist Bernard Bosanquet resigned from his post to spend more time writing. He was particularly interested in contemporary social theory, and was involved with the Charity Organisation Society and the London Ethical Society. He wrote numerous articles before beginning this book, which was his first and was published in 1885 as a response to the Principles of Logic, published in 1883, by (...) his contemporary F. H. Bradley. Bosanquet, who was deeply influenced by the German philosopher Hegel, argues that there are 'signs of a philosophical movement in this country which may assimilate what is really great in European philosophy, without forfeiting the distinctive merits of English thought'. With this as the framework, the book examines the relationship of judgment and logic to knowledge. (shrink)

The ‘cultural turn’ in social thought, and the rise of interpretive modes of social analysis, have raised the issue of how social criticism can legitimately be undertaken given the central role of actors’ understandings in constituting social reality. In this article I examine this issue by exploring debates around Winch’s interpretive approach. I suggest that Winch’s arguments usefully identify problems with external criticism, that is, criticism that attempts to contrast actors’ beliefs with the social world as it (...) really is. However, I also argue that Winch’s Wittgensteinian account of rule-following, on a plausible interpretation, places excessively strong restrictions on the possibility of internal criticism. In order to show the problems with such restrictions, I critically appraise two accounts of social criticism that are compatible with Winch’s arguments, those of Pleasants and Giddens, arguing that neither offers a satisfactory analysis. I then argue that if a viable notion of internal criticism is to be established Winch’s account of rule-following needs to be rejected. Having briefly offered an alternative, I suggest that it allows a more convincing conception of internal criticism, in which the understandings of actors can be criticized on the basis of their internal contradictions. The article then attempts to meet a possible objection to this position: that the logical judgements of contradiction and coherence required for immanent critique are not cross-culturally valid. I claim that such judgements are generally valid, and develop an argument for this position based on a critique of Lukes’s arguments. (shrink)

What rational foundation underlies argument-critical judgements? What are the canons of argument criticism and how are they to be "justified"? This paper explores an analogy between art- and argument-criticism and argues that the analogy promises not only to illuminate the nature of argument criticism and capture the central goals of instruction in informal logic, but also to resolve fundamental problems at the foundations of normative theory of argument concerning the "justification" of standards of reasoning.

The aim of this paper is to reconstruct Brouwer’s justification for the intuitionistic revision of logic and mathematics. It is attempted to show that pivotal premisses of his argument are supplied by his philosophy. To this end, the basic tenets of his philosophical doctrine are discussed: the concepts of mind, causal attention, intuition of two-ity and his repudiation of realism.The restriction of intuitionistically allowable objects to spreads and species is traced back to Brouwer’s concept of intuition that is a defining (...) feature of his notion of mind. On the other hand, it is argued that his objections to some laws of classical logic result from the rejection of the rule of double negation elimination, which in turn follows from both, the claim that rules of logic should preserve evidence for assertions rather than truth, and too restrictive a concept of evidence. (shrink)

In the paper, I have presented a portrait of Jerzy Pelc as a teacher. He followed in the footsteps of Kazimierz Twardowski and his direct disciples and tried to develop his students’ skills of critical thinking and clear speaking—the basics of good work in philosophy. These skills are connected with methodological postulates of criticism and precision which were shared by all the members of the Lvov-Warsaw School. Jerzy Pelc treated these postulates also as didactic postulates arising out of the (...) conceptions of logical culture and general logic. In my article, I have sketched a general picture of the relation between logic and didactics, I have presented the aforementioned postulates, the concepts of logical culture and general logic and its curriculum. (shrink)

Educational Theory, Volume 71, Issue 6, Page 717-741, December 2021. -/- Gert Biesta has criticized Anglo-American and German models of emancipatory education. According to Biesta, emancipation is understood in these models as liberation that results from a process in which a teacher transmits objective knowledge to his or her students and cultivates student capabilities. He claims that this so-called modern logic of emancipation does not lead to freedom because it installs inequality, dependency, and mistrust in the pedagogical relationship. In this (...) article, Antti Moilanen and Rauno Huttunen analyze whether German models of emancipatory education share the modern logic of emancipation and if they can escape Biesta's criticisms. For this purpose, they interpret Biesta's critique of the modern logic of emancipation and explicate central ideas related to the German models of critical education. They also compare the modern logic of emancipation to the German one, and they then assess German models of emancipatory pedagogy from the viewpoint of Biesta's criticisms. Moilanen and Huttunen conclude that the German models of emancipatory education present at least a partial alternative to the modern logic of emancipation. Despite this, the German models are based on the idea of education as cultivation. Because Biesta criticizes the theory of education as cultivation, it is possible to conclude that he would not accept the German models of emancipatory education. However, the German models of critical pedagogy provide answers to the following question: how can students achieve independence in the pedagogical relationship? When students take part in designing educational processes, they are summoned to assess the validity of the taught knowledge, and they practice independent decision-making at school; the pedagogical relationship, based on authority, can foster student self-determination. (shrink)

K. R. Popper distinguished between two main uses of logic, the demonstrational one, in mathematical proofs, and the derivational one, in the empirical sciences. These two uses are governed by the following methodological constraints: in mathematical proofs one ought to use minimal logical means (logical minimalism), while in the empirical sciences one ought to use the strongest available logic (logical maximalism). In this paper I discuss whether Popper’s critical rationalism is compatible with a revision of logic in (...) the empirical sciences, given the condition of logical maximalism. Apparently, if one ought to use the strongest logic in the empirical sciences, logic would remain immune to criticism and, thus, non-revisable. I will show that critical rationalism is theoretically compatible with a revision of logic in the empirical sciences. However, a question that remains to be clarified by the critical rationalists is what kind of evidence would lead them to revise the system of logic that underlies a physical theory, such as quantum mechanics? Popper’s falsificationist methodology will be compared with the recently advocated extension of the abductive methodology from the empirical sciences to logic by T. Williamson, since both of them arrive at the same conclusion concerning the status of classical logic. (shrink)

Two books have been particularly influential in contemporary philosophy of science: Karl R. Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, and Thomas S. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both agree upon the importance of revolutions in science, but differ about the role of criticism in science's revolutionary growth. This volume arose out of a symposium on Kuhn's work, with Popper in the chair, at an international colloquium held in London in 1965. The book begins with Kuhn's statement of his position followed (...) by seven essays offering criticism and analysis, and finally by Kuhn's reply. The book will interest senior undergraduates and graduate students of the philosophy and history of science, as well as professional philosophers, philosophically inclined scientists, and some psychologists and sociologists. (shrink)

Francesco Patrizi da Cherso's Discussiones peripateticae (1581) are one of the most comprehensive analyses of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy to be published before Werner Jaeger's Aristoteles. The main thrust of the argument in the Discussiones is that whatever Aristotle had said that was true was not new, and that whatever he had said that was new was not true. The article shows how Patrizi proves this with respect to the Organon, and deals with the implications for the history af (...) ancient philosophy in general implied by his stance. (shrink)