Bookmark and Share

Logic and Philosophy of Logic

Edited by Aleksandra Samonek (Jagiellonian University)
Most recently added entries found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 827
  1. added 2017-01-18
    Herzberg Frederik (forthcoming). Arrovian Aggregation of Generalised Expected-Utility Preferences: Possibility Results by Means of Model Theory. Studia Logica:1-21.
    Cerreia-Vioglio et al. :341–375, 2011) have proposed a very general axiomatisation of preferences in the presence of ambiguity, viz. Monotonic Bernoullian Archimedean preference orderings. This paper investigates the problem of Arrovian aggregation of such preferences—and proves dictatorial impossibility results for both finite and infinite populations. Applications for the special case of aggregating expected-utility preferences are given. A novel proof methodology for special aggregation problems, based on model theory, is employed.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. added 2017-01-17
    Khudairi Hasen (forthcoming). 'Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy'.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. added 2017-01-17
    Yanjing Wang (forthcoming). A Logic of Goal-Directed Knowing How. Synthese:1-21.
    In this paper, we propose a decidable single-agent modal logic for reasoning about goal-directed “knowing how”, based on ideas from linguistics, philosophy, modal logic, and automated planning in AI. We first define a modal language to express “I know how to guarantee \ given \” with a semantics based not on standard epistemic models but on labeled transition systems that represent the agent’s knowledge of his own abilities. The semantics is inspired by conformant planning in AI. A sound and complete (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. added 2017-01-17
    Gil Sagi (forthcoming). Contextualism, Relativism and the Liar. Erkenntnis:1-16.
    Contextualist theories of truth appeal to context to solve the liar paradox: different stages of reasoning occur in different contexts, and so the contradiction is dispelled. The word ‘true’ is relativized by the contextualists to contexts of use. This paper shows that contextualist approaches to the liar are committed to a form of semantic relativism: that the truth value of some sentences depends on the context of assessment, as well as the context of use. In particular, it is shown how (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. added 2017-01-17
    Raymundo Gama (forthcoming). The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation. Argumentation:1-18.
    This paper explores two persistent questions in the literature on presumptions: the place and the nature of presumptions in law and legal argumentation. These questions were originally raised by James Bradley Thayer, one of the masters of the Law of Evidence and the author of the classic chapter devoted this subject in A preliminary treatise on Evidence. Like Thayer, I believe that these questions deserve attention. First the paper shows that the connection between presumptions and argumentation is a constant feature (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. added 2017-01-17
    Volker Halbach & Shuoying Zhang (forthcoming). Yablo Without Gödel. Analysis:anw062.
    We prove Yablo’s paradox without the diagonal lemma or the recursion theorem. Only a disquotation schema and axioms for a serial and transitive ordering are used in the proof. The consequences for the discussion on whether Yablo’s paradox is circular or involves self-reference are evaluated.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. added 2017-01-17
    Godden David & Zenker Frank (forthcoming). A Probabilistic Analysis of Argument Cogency. Synthese:1-26.
    This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. added 2017-01-17
    Olav Vassend, Elliott Sober & Branden Fitelson (forthcoming). The Philosophical Significance of Stein’s Paradox. European Journal for Philosophy of Science:1-23.
    Charles Stein discovered a paradox in 1955 that many statisticians think is of fundamental importance. Here we explore its philosophical implications. We outline the nature of Stein’s result and of subsequent work on shrinkage estimators; then we describe how these results are related to Bayesianism and to model selection criteria like AIC. We also discuss their bearing on scientific realism and instrumentalism. We argue that results concerning shrinkage estimators underwrite a surprising form of holistic pragmatism.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. added 2017-01-17
    Justin Eckstein (forthcoming). Radiolab’s Sound Strategic Maneuvers. Argumentation:1-18.
    How might argumentation scholars approach sound? Using the analytics afforded by strategic maneuvering, this essay identifies three unique features of sonic presentational devices: they are immersive, immediate and embodied. Although these features offer arguers presentational resource, they also pose new problems to the reasonable resolution of disagreement: immersion hazards overlap, immediacy risks rate of delivery beyond reflection, and materiality can coerce listeners. To theorize strategic use of sound, I reconstruct and analyze a popular Radiolab segment “The Unconscious Toscanini of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. added 2017-01-17
    Catarina Dutilh Novaes & Herman Veluwenkamp (2017). Reasoning Biases, Non‐Monotonic Logics and Belief Revision. Theoria 83 (1):29-52.
    A range of formal models of human reasoning have been proposed in a number of fields such as philosophy, logic, artificial intelligence, computer science, psychology, cognitive science, etc.: various logics, probabilistic systems, belief revision systems, neural networks, among others. Now, it seems reasonable to require that formal models of human reasoning be empirically adequate if they are to be viewed as models of the phenomena in question. How are formal models of human reasoning typically put to empirical test? One way (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. added 2017-01-17
    P. Dwyer Christopher (2017). Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines. Cambridge University Press.
    Dwyer's book is unique and distinctive as it presents and discusses a modern conceptualisation of critical thinking - one that is commensurate with the exponential increase in the annual output of knowledge. The abilities of navigating new knowledge outputs, engaging in enquiry and constructively solving problems are not only important in academic contexts, but are also essential life skills. Specifically, the book provides a modern, detailed, accessible and integrative model of critical thinking that accounts for critical thinking sub-skills and real-world (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. added 2017-01-17
    Oliver Laas (2017). Disagreements Over Analogies. Metaphilosophy 48 (1-2):153-182.
    This essay presents a dialogical framework for treating philosophical disagreements as persuasion dialogues with analogical argumentation, with the aim of recasting philosophical disputes as disagreements over analogies. This has two benefits: it allows us to temporarily bypass conflicting metaphysical intuitions by focusing on paradigmatic examples, similarities, and the plausibility of conclusions for or against a given point of view; and it can reveal new avenues of argumentation regarding a given issue. This approach to philosophical disagreements is illustrated by studying the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. added 2017-01-17
    Sven Ove Hansson (2017). The Paradox of Useful Research. Theoria 83 (1):1-3.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. added 2017-01-17
    Paul A. Gregory (2017). Formal Logic. Broadview Press.
    _Formal Logic_ is an undergraduate text suitable for introductory, intermediate, and advanced courses in symbolic logic. The book’s nine chapters offer thorough coverage of truth-functional and quantificational logic, as well as the basics of more advanced topics such as set theory and modal logic. Complex ideas are explained in plain language that doesn’t presuppose any background in logic or mathematics, and derivation strategies are illustrated with numerous examples. Translations, tables, trees, natural deduction, and simple meta-proofs are taught through over 400 (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. added 2017-01-17
    Linker Maureen, Commentary On: “Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy of Appeal to Sex”.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. added 2017-01-17
    F. Aikin Scott, A Defense of Fallacy Theory.
    Fallacy theory has three significant challenges to it: the generality, scope, and negativity problems. To the generality problem, the connection between general types of bad arguments and tokens is a matter of refining the use of the vocabulary. To the scope problem, the breadth of fallacy’s instances is cause for development. To the negativity problem, fallacy theory must be coordinated with a program of adversariality-management.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. added 2017-01-17
    Santibanez Yanez Cristian, “Strategically Wrong”: Bias and Argumentation.
    The brain is composed of mutually inconsistent modules that contain contradictory beliefs. What consequences could this view have on argumentation? In order to sketch an answer, first the family of concepts of what is called generalized deception is discussed; then, this discussion is applied to the problem of the social influence bias to observe both how the mind works strategically wrong and what kind of arguments are used within this mental design in a social argumentative context.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. added 2017-01-17
    R. Wohlrapp Harald, The Concept of Argument: Introductory Statement.
    How to provide, in only 10 minutes, a kind of insight into the conception of argument that I have displayed in my book? This book has 500 pages and is the result of more than 25 years of work with my research group in Hamburg. Therefore it is a delicate task to give a substantive information about it in just some minutes. Despite this, I will start with something outside that task: I will deeply thank my commentators to have studied (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. added 2017-01-17
    van Laar Jan Albert, Commentary on Ralph H. Johnson’s “On Distinguishing Between an Objection and a Criticism”.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. added 2017-01-17
    I. Anger Beverley & Hundleby Catherine, Ad Stuprum: The Fallacy of Appeal to Sex.
    Arguments sometimes appeal to sex by invoking the sexuality of a model or a person or the promise of sexual gratification. When sexual gratification is not a relevant consideration, the appeal seems to be fallacious. We will address when this may be an appropriate line of reasoning -- there is such a thing as “sex appeal”--and when it may be biased to assume the relevance of sexuality. Advertising, which provides infinite examples of appeal to sex, may be questionable as a (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. added 2017-01-17
    D. Scott Blake, Agnotology and Argumentation: A Rhetorical Taxonomy of Not-Knowing.
    This paper attempts to integrate an agnotological taxonomy of “not-knowing” with argumentation theory. Given rhetoric’s emphasis on what arguers choose to make present for their audience, it is argued that the rhetorical approach is best suited to accommodate the proposed taxonomy. In doing so we can improve the capacities of both arguers and audiences to detect adverse elements such as prejudices, implicit biases, and ideologies, which can restrict an argument’s claim to objectivity.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. added 2017-01-17
    Konishi Takuzo, When Different Perspectives Interact: A Historical Account of Informal Logic Between 1983 and 1987.
    This paper will describe what happened to the community of informal logicians between 1983 and 1987, when they started to interact with communication scholars, rhetoricians and Pragma-Dialecticians. Special attention will be paid to key events, such as the Second International Symposiums on Informal Logic, the founding of AILACT in 1983, the start of journal Informal logic in 1984, and the international conference on argumentation held at Amsterdam in 1986.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. added 2017-01-17
    Blair John Anthony, Commentary on Andrew Aberdein’s “Virtue Argumentation and Bias”.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. added 2017-01-17
    A. Yong-Set Michael, A Ludological Perspective on Argument.
    This introductory paper explores a new perspective on argumentation that draws upon the resources of ludology – the critical and academic of study of games qua games. In the Philosophical Investigations, one of the later Wittgenstein’s more mysterious suggestions is that if one understands how games work, then one would be able to understand how natural language works. Similarly, it will be argued that if we look to how games function as games, we will be able to understand how the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. added 2017-01-17
    Bondy Patrick, Bias in Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments.
    This paper is about bias and ad hominem arguments. It will begin by rehearsing some reasons for thinking that there are both legitimate and illegitimate ad hominems, as well as reasons for thinking that biases can be both justified and unjustified. It will explain that justified biases about people with certain social identities can give rise to both legitimate and illegitimate ad hominem attacks, while unjustified biases only give rise to illegitimate ad hominems. The paper will then describe Audrey Yap’s (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. added 2017-01-17
    Von Burg Ron, Dialogues in Argumentation.
    This volume focuses on dialogue and argumentation in contexts which are marked by truculence and discord. The contributors include well known argumentation scholars who discuss the issues this raises from the point of view of a variety of disciplines and points of view. The authors seek to address theoretically challenging issues in a way that is relevant to both the theory and the practice of argument. The collection brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. added 2017-01-17
    Lauer Ilon & Lauer Thomas, America Vs. Apple: The Argumentative Function of Metonyms.
    : Our study of public argumentation surrounding iPhone encryption addresses the argumentative function of the metonym. Metonyms accomplish general and specific argumentative purposes. Generally, metonyms help define and redefine the argumentative framework for a dispute. Within a controversy, metonyms operate as inference generators. We isolate and analyze several metonyms and elaborate their warrant-generating valences. Metonyms are inference generating tools capable of instantiating normative frameworks, invoking flexible and indeterminate senses of causality.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. added 2017-01-17
    Guarini Marcello, Commentary on Trudy Govier’s “Some Outstanding Questions About Analogies”.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. added 2017-01-17
    Mohammed Dima, What's in a Good Argument About Evaluative Claims? Argumentation in Accountability Practices.
    What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature. The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. added 2017-01-17
    Herman Thierry, Revising Toulmin’s Model: Argumentative Cell and the Bias of Objectivity.
    This paper presents what we call with Plantin an argumentative cell as an unit which is inspired by Toulmin’s layout of arguments, in order to analyse two major effects of pseudo-objectivity in argumentation. Four problems of Toulmin's layout will be tackled: Data are only described as facts, the definition of Backing is blurred, but it may be linked with sources of information and extended to Data, the dialectical component of the Rebuttal needs to be extended to concessions, and dealing with (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. added 2017-01-17
    Fields John, Commentary on Arguments From Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. added 2017-01-17
    Dufour Michel, On the Difference Between Fallacy and Sophism.
    The translation into French of the English word “fallacy” opens a discussion on the difference between fallacy and sophism in English. The two words are sometimes synonyms, but a difference is sometimes made on the ground that a sophism is deliberate and a fallacy is non-deliberate. In a second part of the paper this distinctive criterion is taken seriously to discuss the relative frequency of sophisms and of fallacies for a typical kind of fallacious argument. I claim that this aspect (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. added 2017-01-17
    Campolo Chris, Mark Twain, Argumentation Theorist.
    Commentators have read Twain’s Is Shakespeare Dead? as the strained work of a man worried about his own literary legacy. But it is actually an essay about argumentation. Twain writes about the burden of argument, premise relevance, understanding and inference, and norms and practices of argumentation. I will argue that what is taken to be a thoroughgoing cynicism on Twain’s part is best understood as a thoughtful scepticism about the scope of reasoning.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. added 2017-01-17
    S. W. Patterson, Commentary on E. Popa’s “Normative Argumentation Theory Without Fundamental Principles”.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. added 2017-01-17
    A. Bowell Tracy, Commentary on Explicating and Negotiating Bias in Interdisciplinary Argumentation Using Abductive Tools.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. added 2017-01-17
    Aakhus Mark, Commentary on “Objectivity in Newsmaking: An Argumentative Perspective”: Reflections on Argument in Practice.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. added 2017-01-17
    Mamolo Ami, Commentary on Visser on Computer Support for Pragma-Dialectic Argumentation Analysis.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. added 2017-01-17
    H. Cohen Daniel & Stevens Katharina, Virtuous Vices: On Objectivity, Bias, and Virtue in Argumentation.
    How is it possible that biases are cognitive vices, objectivity is an exemplary intellectual virtue, and yet objectivity is itself a bias? In this paper, we argue that objectivity is indeed a kind of bias but is still an argumentative virtue. In common with many biases – and many virtues – its effects are neither uniformly negative nor uniformly positive. Consequences alone are not enough to determine which character traits are argumentative virtues. Context matters. The opening section addresses the problem (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. added 2017-01-17
    Hamby Benjamin, Why NOT Teach Critical Thinking.
    There is a mounting case to be made for not teaching critical thinking. Given recent evidence suggesting that cognitive biases are intractable, that students who receive comprehensive, long term, explicit instruction for critical thinking “across the curriculum” reap negligible benefits, and meta-analyses that suggest only certain limited approaches to critical thinking instruction produce meaningful gains, this paper offers a critical challenge to teaching critical thinking, especially as a general education requirement for a baccalaureate degree.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. added 2017-01-17
    David Jakobsen & Peter Øhrstrøm, Conceptual and Metaphysical Origins and Relevance of Temporal Logic.
    Logic has sometimes been seen as an alternative to metaphysics and to speculation. In this paper it is argued that a different story should be told when it comes to temporal logic and tense-logic in particular. A.N. Prior’s first formulation of tense logic was mainly established in order to qualify the discussion of certain metaphysical and conceptual problems. Although temporal logic has now been developed in various abstract and rather technical ways, it may still serve as a great help for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. added 2017-01-17
    Nuccetelli Susana, Commentary on Dima Mohammed’s “How to Argue About Evaluative Standpoints? Argumentation in Accountability Practice”.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. added 2017-01-17
    Adam Arazim & Michal Dancak (eds.) (2016). Logica Yearbook 2015. College Publications.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. added 2017-01-17
    G. Schär Rebecca, Reply to Commentary on Uses of Arguments From Definition in Children's Argumentation.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. added 2017-01-17
    Bermejo-Luque Lilian, What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like?
    Within the epistemological approach to Argumentation Theory, there are two opposing views on what a theory of argumentation should look like. On the one hand, there are those interested in providing epistemological criteria for good argumentation. For these theorists, the main question is "should we accept this claim on the basis of those reasons?". On the other hand, there are those interested in “characterizing” what is good argumentation. For them, the main question is: "does this piece of argumentation count as (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. added 2017-01-17
    Muhammad Intisar-Ul-Haque, Study of Logical Paradoxes.
    By a paradox we understand a seemingly true statement or set of statements which lead by valid deduction to contradictory statements. Logical paradoxes - paradoxes which involve logical concepts - are in fact as old as the history of logic. The Liar paradox, for instance, goes back to Epimenides. In the late 19th century a new impetus v/as given to the investigation of logical paradoxes by the discovery of new logico-mathematical paradoxes such as those of Russell and Burali- Porti. This (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. added 2017-01-17
    A. Finocchiaro Maurice, Economic Reasoning and Fallacy of Composition: Pursuing a Woods-Walton Thesis.
    Woods and Walton deserve credit for including a discussion of “economic reasoning” and its susceptibility to the “fallacy of composition.” Unfortunately, they did not sufficiently pursue the topic, and argumentation scholars have apparently ignored their pioneering effort. Yet, obviously, economic argumentation is extremely important, and economists constantly harp on this fallacy. This paper calls attention to this problem, elaborating my own approach, which is empirical, historical, and meta-argumentational.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. added 2017-01-17
    Dare Tim, The Normative Significance of Deep Disagreement.
    Some normative problems are difficult because of the number and complexity of the issues they involve. Rational resolution might be hard but it seems at least possible. Other problems are not merely complex and multi-faceted but ‘deep’. They have a logical structure that precludes rational resolution. Treatments of deep disagreement often hint at sinister implications. If doubt is cast on our 'final vocabulary', writes Richard Rorty, we are left with "no noncircular argumentative recourse.... [B]eyond them there is only helpless passivity (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. added 2017-01-17
    Giovanni Scarafile & Leah Gruenpeter Gold (eds.) (2016). Paradoxes of Conflict. Springer.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. added 2017-01-17
    Fabio Paglieri, Don’T Worry, Be Gappy! On the Unproblematic Gappiness of Alleged Fallacies.
    The history of fallacy theory is long, distinguished and, admittedly, checkered. I offer a bird eye view on it, with the aim of contrasting the standard conception of fallacies as attractive and universal errors that are hard to eradicate with the contemporary preoccupation with “non-fallacious fallacies”, that is, arguments that fit the bill of one of the traditional fallacies but are actually respectable enough to be used in appropriate contexts. Godden and Zenker have recently argued that reinterpreting alleged fallacies as (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. added 2017-01-17
    E. Kraus Manfred & Kraus Manfred, Comments on Christopher W. Tindale’s The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 827