Informal Logic 30 (1):34-61 (2010)
We contend that it is possible to argue reasonably for and against arguments from classifications and definitions, provided they are seen as defeasible (subject to exceptions and critical questioning). Arguments from classification of the most common sorts are shown to be based on defeasible reasoning of various kinds represented by patterns of logical reasoning called defeasible argumentation schemes. We show how such schemes can be identified with heuristics, or short-cut solutions to a problem. We examine a variety of arguments of this sort, including argument from abductive classification, argument from causal classification, argument from analogy-based classification and arguments from classification based on generalizations
|Keywords||inference classifications argumentation schemes common knowledge|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
What Students' Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education. [REVIEW]Fabrizio Macagno & Aikaterini Konstantinidou - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):225-243.
Similar books and articles
Inferences About Members of Kinds: The Generics Hypothesis.Sangeet Khemlani, Sarah-Jane Leslie & Sam Glucksberg - 2012 - Language and Cognitive Processes 27:887-900.
Monotone Inductive Definitions in Explicit Mathematics.Michael Rathjen - 1996 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (1):125-146.
Correspondences Between Classifications and Between Classes of Entities in Molecular Genetics.Gavril Acalugaritei - 1990 - Acta Biotheoretica 38 (2):103-111.
The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning.Robert L. Causey - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
Rules for Reasoning From Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (3):355-376.
Added to index2011-01-24
Total downloads93 ( #55,759 of 2,172,657 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #325,028 of 2,172,657 )
How can I increase my downloads?