Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning [Book Review]

Argumentation 27 (3):337-344 (2013)

Abstract This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-012-9290-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 45,685
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics.Carl Wellman - 1971 - Philosophical Review 83 (2):254-259.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Defense of Conduction: A Reply to Adler.J. Anthony Blair - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (2):109-128.
Are Conductive Arguments Possible?Jonathan Adler - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):245-257.
Self-Defeating Arguments.John L. Pollock - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
The Myth of Conductive Arguments.Kevin Possin - 2012 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 27 (3):29-33.
Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence.Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning.Robert L. Causey - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-14

Total views
26 ( #351,704 of 2,280,830 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #195,919 of 2,280,830 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature