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

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Mark Vorobej (1995). Linked Arguments and the Validity Requirement. Argumentation 9 (2):291-304.score: 324.0
    In this paper I demonstrate that most textbook accounts of the linked/convergent distinction fail to conform to the widespread intuition that all valid arguments ought to be classified as linked arguments. I also show that standard textbook accounts of linkage and convergence cannot provide a satisfactory treatment of fallacies of irrelevance and, due to their general insensitivity to the epistemic context in which arguments are offered, must be supplemented by subjective accounts of linkage and convergence which appeal (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Stoics (Part One). In Keimpe Algra & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.score: 276.0
    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  
  3. Charles Taylor (1978). The Validity of Transcendental Arguments. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 79:151 - 165.score: 270.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Chung-Ying Cheng (1967). Charles Peirce's Arguments for the Non-Probabilistic Validity of Induction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 3 (1):24 - 39.score: 270.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Leonard J. Waks (1973). Re-Examining the Validity of Arguments Against Behavioral Goals. Educational Theory 23 (2):133-143.score: 270.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. P. D. Shaw (1968). On the Validity of Arguments From Fact to Value-Judgement. Philosophical Quarterly 18 (72):249-255.score: 270.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Edgar Andrade-Lotero & Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2012). Validity, the Squeezing Argument and Alternative Semantic Systems: The Case of Aristotelian Syllogistic. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):387-418.score: 269.0
    We investigate the philosophical significance of the existence of different semantic systems with respect to which a given deductive system is sound and complete. Our case study will be Corcoran’s deductive system D for Aristotelian syllogistic and some of the different semantic systems for syllogistic that have been proposed in the literature. We shall prove that they are not equivalent, in spite of D being sound and complete with respect to each of them. Beyond the specific case of syllogistic, the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Edgar Andrade-Lotero & Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2012). Validity, the Squeezing Argument and Alternative Semantic Systems: The Case of Aristotelian Syllogistic. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):387 - 418.score: 269.0
    We investigate the philosophical significance of the existence of different semantic systems with respect to which a given deductive system is sound and complete. Our case study will be Corcoran's deductive system D for Aristotelian syllogistic and some of the different semantic systems for syllogistic that have been proposed in the literature. We shall prove that they are not equivalent, in spite of D being sound and complete with respect to each of them. Beyond the specific case of syllogistic, the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Manfred Hofer & Birgit Pikowsky (1993). Validation of a Category System for Arguments in Conflict Discourse. Argumentation 7 (2):135-148.score: 267.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Ron Leonard (2000). Testing the Validity of Conditional Arguments Using Physical Models. Informal Logic 20 (2).score: 261.0
    Direct download (20 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Mark Weinstein (1990). Towards an Account of Argumentation in Science. Argumentation 4 (3):269-298.score: 252.0
    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  
  12. Peter B. M. Vranas (2012). New Foundations for Imperative Logic Iii: A General Definition of Argument Validity. Manuscript in Preparation.score: 242.0
    Besides pure declarative arguments, whose premises and conclusions are declaratives (“you sinned shamelessly; so you sinned”), and pure imperative arguments, whose premises and conclusions are imperatives (“repent quickly; so repent”), there are mixed-premise arguments, whose premises include both imperatives and declaratives (“if you sinned, repent; you sinned; so repent”), and cross-species arguments, whose premises are declaratives and whose conclusions are imperatives (“you must repent; so repent”) or vice versa (“repent; so you can repent”). I propose a (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Lev G. Vassiliev (2003). Rational Comprehension of Arguments in Theoretical Texts: A Program for an Argumentative-Linguistic Approach. [REVIEW] Argumentation 17 (1):21-34.score: 234.0
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Friday N. Ndubuisi (2008). The Question of Validity of Law. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 40:61-66.score: 222.0
    Law is a powerful force in human civilization. The growth and stability in society are generally linked with the gradual development of a system of legal rules, in addition to the instruments for their regular and effective enforcement. Law can be used to protect or harm the interest of man. This dimension raises the issue of the ‘validity of law’. The legal positivists posit that law is a ‘moral-neutral’ entity, and once it is enacted by the appropriate authority, it (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Sinan Dogramaci (2010). Knowledge of Validity. Noûs 44 (3):403-432.score: 207.0
    What accounts for how we know that certain rules of reasoning, such as reasoning by Modus Ponens, are valid? If our knowledge of validity must be based on some reasoning, then we seem to be committed to the legitimacy of rule-circular arguments for validity. This paper raises a new difficulty for the rule-circular account of our knowledge of validity. The source of the problem is that, contrary to traditional wisdom, a universal generalization cannot be inferred just (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Julien Murzi (2014). The Inexpressibility of Validity. Analysis 74 (1):65-81.score: 207.0
    Tarski's Undefinability of Truth Theorem comes in two versions: that no consistent theory which interprets Robinson's Arithmetic (Q) can prove all instances of the T-Scheme and hence define truth; and that no such theory, if sound, can even express truth. In this note, I prove corresponding limitative results for validity. While Peano Arithmetic already has the resources to define a predicate expressing logical validity, as Jeff Ketland has recently pointed out (2012, Validity as a primitive. Analysis 72: (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. James Dominic Rooney (2009). Reconsidering the Place of Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God in the Light of the ID/Evolution Controversy. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:227 - 240.score: 207.0
    Prompted by questions raised in the public arena concerning the validity of arguments for the existence of God based on "design" in the universe, I explore traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. Using the arguments offered by Thomas Aquinas as fairly representative of this classical line of argumentation going back to Aristotle, I attempt to uncover the hidden premises and construct arguments for the existence of God which are deductive in nature. To justify the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Nathaniel Jason Goldberg (2004). Do Principles of Reason Have Objective but Indeterminate Validity? Kant-Studien 95 (4):405-425.score: 207.0
    Reason is precariously positioned in the Critique of Pure Reason. The Transcendental Analytic leaves no entry for reason in the cognitive process, and the Transcendental Dialectic restricts reason to noncognitive roles. Yet, in the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant contends that the ideas of reason can be used in empirical investigation and eventually knowledge acquisition. Given what Kant has said, how is this possible? Kant attempts to answer this in A663–A666/B691–B694 in the Appendix, where he argues that principles of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Luis M. Miller (2010). Why a Trade-Off? The Relationship Between the External and Internal Validity of Experiments. Theoria 25 (3):301-321.score: 207.0
    Much of the methodological discussion around experiments in economics and other social sciences is framed in terms of the notions of internal and external validity. The standard view is that internal validity and external validity stand in a relationship best described as a trade-off. However, it is also commonly heldthat internal validity is a prerequisite to external validity. This article addresses the problem of the compatibility of these two ideas and analyzes critically the standard (...) about the conditions under which a trade-off between internal and external validity arises. Our argument stands against common associations of internal validity and external validity with the distinction between field and laboratory experiments and assesses critically the arguments that link the artificiality of experimental settings done in the laboratory with the purported trade-off between internal and external validity. We conclude that the idea of a trade-off or tension between internal and external validity seems, upon analysis, far less cogent than its intuitive attractiveness may lead us to think at first sight. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Joseph Margolis (2013). Venturing Beyond Analytic Philosophy's “Best” Arguments to the Implied Inadequacies of Its Metaphilosophical Intuitions. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (1):97-111.score: 204.0
    Gary Gutting argues, in his recent book What Philosophers Know, that analytic philosophy provides a sizable collection of exemplary arguments that effectively yield a “disciplinary body of philosophical knowledge”—“metaphilosophy,” he names it—that is, specimens that define in a notably perspicuous way what we should understand as philosophical knowledge itself. He concedes weaknesses in the best-known specimens, and he admits that, generally, even the best specimens do not provide answers to the usual grand questions. I admire his treatment of the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Andrzej Wiśniewski (1996). The Logic of Questions as a Theory of Erotetic Arguments. Synthese 109 (1):1 - 25.score: 195.0
    This paper argues for the idea that the logic of questions should focus its attention on the analysis of arguments in which questions play the role of conclusions. The relevant concepts of validity are discussed and the concept of the logic of questions of a semantically interpreted formalized language is introduced.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Siu L. Chow (1998). Précis of Statistical Significance: Rationale, Validity, and Utility. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):169-194.score: 195.0
    The null-hypothesis significance-test procedure (NHSTP) is defended in the context of the theory-corroboration experiment, as well as the following contrasts: (a) substantive hypotheses versus statistical hypotheses, (b) theory corroboration versus statistical hypothesis testing, (c) theoretical inference versus statistical decision, (d) experiments versus nonexperimental studies, and (e) theory corroboration versus treatment assessment. The null hypothesis can be true because it is the hypothesis that errors are randomly distributed in data. Moreover, the null hypothesis is never used as a categorical proposition. Statistical (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Jonathan Berg (1992). The Point of Interpreting Arguments. Informal Logic 14 (2).score: 195.0
    It is wrong to think that questions of interpretation are significant in informal logic only to the extent that they contribute to the assessment of an argument's conclusion. For one thing, logic is essentially about validity, about that in virtue of which conclusions do or do not follow from given premises, and not about the truth or falsity of conclusions by themselves. Secondly, the evaluation of a given argument requires first determining what the given argument is. Moreover, since (...) are given in rational discourse in order to persuade-in order to arrive, by reason, at agreement-it is necessary to address the very arguments that arguers actually intend. (shrink)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Andrzej Wi'sniewski (1996). The Logic of Questions as a Theory of Erotetic Arguments. Synthese 109 (1):1-25.score: 195.0
    This paper argues for the idea that the logic of questions should focus its attention on the analysis of arguments in which questions play the role of conclusions. The relevant concepts of validity are discussed and the concept of the logic of questions of a semantically interpreted formalized language is introduced.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Dimitri Ginev (1999). The Hermeneutical Critique of Linguistic Transcendentalism: Intersubjective Validity of Argumentation or Hermeneutics of the Dialogue That We Are. Thesis Eleven 58 (1):1-18.score: 193.7
    This article addresses the ongoing debate between transcendental pragmatics and philosophical hermeneutics. I argue that Apel's version of linguistic transcendentalism is to be refuted, if one succeeds in demonstrating that the normative conditions of intersubjective validity of the argumentative discourse are `derivable' from the fore-structure of the discursive-practical medium of communication. Loci for specifically hermeneutical investigations of this fore-structure include the proto-normativity of the discursive practices, the effective-historical openness of the medium of communication, and the interplay between argumentative discourse (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Christoph Lumer (2000). Reductionism in Fallacy Theory. Argumentation 14 (4):405-423.score: 192.0
    (1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and adequate argumentation. Such reductionism has several advantages compared to an unsystematic action, which is quite usual in current fallacy but which at least in part is due to the poor state of positive argumentation theory itself. (2) After defining 'fallacy' (3) some principle ideas and (4) the exact criteria (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Georg Spielthenner (2007). A Logic of Practical Reasoning. Acta Analytica 22 (2):139-153.score: 186.0
    In this paper my primary aim is to present a logical system of practical reasoning that can be used to assess the validity of practical arguments, that is, arguments with a practical judgment as conclusion. I begin with a critical evaluation of other approaches to this issue and argue that they are inadequate. On the basis of these considerations, I explain in Sect. 2 the informal conception of practical validity and introduce in Sect. 3 the logical (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. James Crosswhite (2001). Con Amore: Henry Johnstone, Jr.'S Philosophy of Argumentation. Informal Logic 21 (1).score: 185.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Yehuda Rav (2007). A Critique of a Formalist-Mechanist Version of the Justification of Arguments in Mathematicians' Proof Practices. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (3):291-320.score: 183.0
    In a recent article, Azzouni has argued in favor of a version of formalism according to which ordinary mathematical proofs indicate mechanically checkable derivations. This is taken to account for the quasi-universal agreement among mathematicians on the validity of their proofs. Here, the author subjects these claims to a critical examination, recalls the technical details about formalization and mechanical checking of proofs, and illustrates the main argument with aanalysis of examples. In the author's view, much of mathematical reasoning presents (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Yukio Iwakuma (1987). Instantiae: An Introduction to a Twelfth Century Technique of Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 1 (4):437-453.score: 180.0
    An instantia is a technique to refute other's arguments, found in many tracts from the latter half of the twelfth century. An instantia has (or appears to have) the same form as the argument to be refuted and its falsity is more evident than that of the argument.Precursors of instantiae are among the teachings of masters active in the first half of the century. These masters produce counter-arguments against various inferential forms in order to examine their validity. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Dag Prawitz (2012). The Epistemic Significance of Valid Inference. Synthese 187 (3):887-898.score: 177.0
    The traditional picture of logic takes it for granted that "valid arguments have a fundamental epistemic significance", but neither model theory nor traditional proof theory dealing with formal system has been able to give an account of this significance. Since valid arguments as usually understood do not in general have any epistemic significance, the problem is to explain how and why we can nevertheless use them sometimes to acquire knowledge. It is suggested that we should distinguish between (...) and acts of inferences and that we have to reconsider the latter notion to arrive at the desired explanation. More precisely, the notions should be developed so that the following relationship holds: one gets in possession of a ground for a conclusion by inferring it from premisses for which one already has grounds, provided that the inference in question is valid. The paper proposes explications of the concepts of ground and deductively valid inference so that this relationship holds as a conceptual truth. Logical validity of inference is seen as a special case of deductive validity, but does not add anything as far as epistemic significance is concerned—it resides already in the deductively valid inferences. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Pierdaniele Giaretta & Giuseppe Spolaore (2012). Validity and Effectiveness of Ambiguity: A Famous Argument by Socrates. [REVIEW] Argumentation 26 (3):393-407.score: 177.0
    An argument can be superficially valid and rhetorically effective even if what is plausibly meant, what is derived from what, and how it is derived is not at all clear. An example of such an argument is provided by Socrates’s famous refutation of Euthyphro’s second definition of holy, which is generally regarded as clearly valid and successful. This paper provides a stricter logical analysis than the ones in the literature. In particular, it is shown that the argument contains a syntactically (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Gerhard Seel (2009). How Does Kant Justify the Universal Objective Validity of the Law of Right? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (1):71 – 94.score: 171.0
    Since more than 50 years Kant scholars debate the question whether the Law of Right as introduced in the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant can be justified by the Categorical Imperative. On the one hand we have those who think that Kant's theory of right depends from the Categorical Imperative, on the other hand we find a growing group of scholars who deny this. However, the debate has been flawed by confusion and misunderstanding of the crucial terms and principles. Therefore, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Thomas Hofweber (2007). Validity, Paradox, and the Ideal of Deductive Logic. In J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox. Oxford University Press.score: 168.0
    I express my dissatisfaction with the common ways to treat the semantic paradoxes. Not only do they give rise to revenge paradoxes, they ignore the wisdom contained in the ordinary reaction to paradoxes. I instead propose an account that vindicates the ordinary reaction to paradox by putting the blame on us philosophers. It is the wrong conception of what a valid inference is, one that is central to “the ideal of deductive logic” that gives rise to the problem. The solution (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Alfonso Cabanzo (2011). Métodos visuales para la verificación de argumentos y el análisis semántico. Logos 19:79-105.score: 159.0
    In this paper I will present a visual method that I have created to demonstrate the validity of propositional arguments and predicates, based on the traditional Venn diagrams. This idea was born after becoming aware of how useful visual methods are in other scientific fields, such as geometrical representations of arithmetic and algebraic concepts. This method illustrates the relationship between propositional logic, predicate logic and set theory, and it can be used to explain linguistic semantic concepts such as (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Petra Barchfeld & Beate Sodian (2009). Differentiating Theories From Evidence: The Development of Argument Evaluation Abilities in Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Informal Logic 29 (4):396-416.score: 156.0
    An argument evaluation inventory distinguishing between different levels of theory-evidence differentiation was designed corresponding to the levels of argument observed in argument generation tasks. Five scenarios containing everyday theories about a social problem, and arguments to support those theories were presented to 170 participants from two age groups (15 and 22 years) and different educational tracks. Participants had to rate the validity of arguments proposed by a story figure, to support the theory, to choose the best argument, (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Christoph Lumer (1997). Practical Arguments for Theoretical Theses. Argumentation 11 (3):329-340.score: 155.0
    Pascal‘s wager is expounded as a paradigm case of a practical,decision-theoretical argument for acting as if a proposition is true when wehave no theoretical reasons to accept or reject it (1.1.–1.2.). Thoughthe paradigm is fallacious in various respects there are valid and adequatearguments for acting as if certain propositions are true: that theoreticalentities exist, that there are material perceptual objects, that the worldis uniform across time (1.3). After this analysis of examples the author‘sgeneral approach for developing criteria for the (...) and adequacy oftypes of argument (2.1.) is applied: Having discussed some problems(2.2.–2.3.), a general epistemic principle for such ’pascal arguments‘is developed, which characterizes their premisses and, if introduced as anadditional premiss, can make them deductively valid (2.4). (shrink)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. W. De Baere (2005). On the Consequences of Retaining the General Validity of Locality in Physical Theory. Foundations of Physics 35 (1):33-56.score: 152.7
    The empirical validity of the locality (LOC) principle of relativity is used to argue in favour of a local hidden variable theory (HVT) for individual quantum processes. It is shown that such a HVT may reproduce the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics (QM), provided the reproducibility of initial hidden variable states is limited. This means that in a HVT limits should be set to the validity of the notion of counterfactual definiteness (CFD). This is supported by the empirical (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. James Crosswhite (2013). The Rhetorical Unconscious of Argumentation Theory: Toward a Deep Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):392-414.score: 147.0
    The contemporary study of argumentation has adopted a fundamentally rhetorical account of the standards of rationality, although it has also developed several ways to deny this. One is by obscuring the fact that its standards of rationality are primarily communicative and that an audience of some kind is the ultimate judge of the strength of arguments. Another is by defining “rhetoric” in such a way that it can no longer play any role in providing rational normativity. I want to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Jan J. Wilbanks (2010). Defining Deduction, Induction, and Validity. Argumentation 24 (1):107-124.score: 147.0
    In this paper I focus on two contrasting concepts of deduction and induction that have appeared in introductory (formal) logic texts over the past 75 years or so. According to the one, deductive and inductive arguments are defined solely by reference to what arguers claim about the relation between the premises and the conclusions. According to the other, they are defined solely by reference to that relation itself. Arguing that these definitions have defects that are due to their simplicity, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2001). Valid Ad Hominem Arguments in Philosophy: Johnstone's Metaphilosophical Informal Logic. Informal Logic 21 (1).score: 147.0
    This is a critical examination of Johnstone's thesis that all valid philosophical arguments are ad hominem. I clarify his notions of valid, philosophical, and ad hominem. I illustrate the thesis with his refutation ofthe claim that only ordinary language is correct. r discuss his three supporting arguments (historical, theoretical, and intermediate). And r criticize the thesis with the objections that if an ad hominem argument is valid, it is really ad rem; that it's unclear how his own theoretical (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Michael E. Dawson & Paul Reardon (1973). Construct Validity of Recall and Recognition Postconditioning Measures of Awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology 98 (2):308.score: 146.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Andrew Maul (2012). The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence. Emotion Review 4 (4):394-402.score: 145.7
    The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has drawn a great amount of scholarly interest in recent years; however, attempts to measure individual differences in this ability remain controversial. Although the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) remains the flagship test of EI, no study has comprehensively examined the full interpretive argument tying variation in observed test performance to variation in the underlying ability. Employing a modern perspective on validation, this article reviews and synthesizes available evidence and discusses sources of concern at (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Moti Mizrahi (2011). A Pedagogical Challenge in Teaching Arguments for the Existence of God. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy 11 (1):10-12.score: 144.0
    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 to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Michael Baumgartner (2013). Exhibiting Interpretational and Representational Validity. Synthese:1-25.score: 144.0
    A natural language argument may be valid in at least two nonequivalent senses: it may be interpretationally or representationally valid (Etchemendy in The concept of logical consequence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990). Interpretational and representational validity can both be formally exhibited by classical first-order logic. However, as these two notions of informal validity differ extensionally and first-order logic fixes one determinate extension for the notion of formal validity (or consequence), some arguments must be formalized by unrelated (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Nadia Creignou, Johannes Schmidt, Michael Thomas & Stefan Woltran (2011). Complexity of Logic-Based Argumentation in Post's Framework. Argument and Computation 2 (2-3):107 - 129.score: 144.0
    Many proposals for logic-based formalisations of argumentation consider an argument as a pair (Φ,α), where the support Φ is understood as a minimal consistent subset of a given knowledge base which has to entail the claim α. In case the arguments are given in the full language of classical propositional logic reasoning in such frameworks becomes a computationally costly task. For instance, the problem of deciding whether there exists a support for a given claim has been shown to be (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Elizabeth Frazer & Kimberly Hutchings (2007). Argument and Rhetoric in the Justification of Political Violence. European Journal of Political Theory 6 (2):180-199.score: 144.0
    In contrast to liberal, Christian and other pacifist ethics and to just war theory, a range of 20th-century thinkers sought to normalize the role of violence in politics. This article examines the justificatory strategies of Weber, Sorel, Schmitt, Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Fanon. They each engage in justificatory argument, deploying arguments for violence from instrumentality, from necessity and from virtue. All of these arguments raise problems of validity. However, we find that they are reinforced by the representation of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Christian Kock (2007). Norms of Legitimate Dissensus. Informal Logic 27 (2):179-196.score: 144.0
    The paper calls for argumentation theory to learn from moral and political philosophy. Several thinkers in these fields help understand the occurrence of what we may call legitimate dissensus: enduring disagreement even between reasonable people arguing reasonably. It inevitably occurs over practical issues, e.g., issues of action rather than truth, because there will normally be legitimate arguments on both sides, and these will be incommensurable, i.e., they cannot be objectively weighed against each other. Accordingly, ‘inference,’ ‘validity,’ and ‘sufficiency’ (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Herman Van Erp (2007). The Possibility and the Validity of the Categorical Imperative. Kant's Argumentation in His' Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals'. Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 69 (2):299-324.score: 143.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. James A. Woodbridge & Bradley Armour-Garb (2008). The Pathology of Validity. Synthese 160 (1):63 - 74.score: 141.0
    Stephen Read has presented an argument for the inconsistency of the concept of validity. We extend Read’s results and show that this inconsistency is but one half of a larger problem. Like the concept of truth, validity is infected with what we call semantic pathology, a condition that actually gives rise to two symptoms: inconsistency and indeterminacy. After sketching the basic ideas behind semantic pathology and explaining how it manifests both symptoms in the concept of truth, we present (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000