Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidence

Pragmatics and Cognition 19 (1):92-116 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines his conclusion and what he considers to be in the paradigm of negated alternatives. If we negate only two of the several possible alternatives, even if they are the most probable, the conclusion will be weak. However, if we deny all possible alternatives, the reasoning will be strong, and even in some cases deductively valid.

Similar books and articles

Negative mechanistic reasoning in medical intervention assessment.Jesper Jerkert - 2015 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 36 (6):425-437.
Reasoning about knowledge using defeasible logic.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Argument and Computation 2 (2-3):131 - 155.
Argumentation and evidence.R. E. G. Upshur & Errol Colak - 2003 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (4):283-299.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
1,687 (#6,018)

6 months
297 (#7,302)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Fabrizio Macagno
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa
Douglas Walton
Last affiliation: University of Windsor

References found in this work

Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Studies in the Way of Words.Paul Grice - 1989 - Philosophy 65 (251):111-113.
Semantic Considerations on nonmonotonic Logic.Robert C. Moore - 1985 - Artificial Intelligence 25 (1):75-94.

View all 10 references / Add more references