Deduction without Dogmas:The Case of Moral Analogical Argumentation

Authors

  • Lilian Bermejo-Luque University of Granada, Spain

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v34i3.4112

Keywords:

Analogical argumentation, a priori analogical argumentation, deductivism, linguistic normative model, defeasibility

Abstract

a recent paper, Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013) proposes a defence of Waller’s deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation. This defence has several flaws, the most important of them being that many good analogical arguments would be deemed bad or deficient. Additionally, Shecaira misrepresents my alternative account as something in between deductivism and non-deductivism. This paper is both an attempt at solving this misunderstanding and an analysis and criticism of Waller and Shecaira’s forms of deductivism.

Downloads

Published

2014-09-16

Issue

Vol. 34 No. 3 (2014)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .