Assumption-Based Argumentation with Preferences
... [13] for a recent overview). Whereas in AA arguments are atomic, structured argumentation formalisms usually specify the internal structure of arguments and/or attacks. Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) [15, 35, 33, 34, 58, 59, 23] is one particular structured argumentation formalism, where knowl ...
... [13] for a recent overview). Whereas in AA arguments are atomic, structured argumentation formalisms usually specify the internal structure of arguments and/or attacks. Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) [15, 35, 33, 34, 58, 59, 23] is one particular structured argumentation formalism, where knowl ...
Pragma-dialectics fallacies of relevance - UvA-DARE
... the Cooperative Principal is too general. We will see below that a clarification of the maxim of relation needs to resolve some important questions about the nature of relevance; these clarifications, obviously, must be in accordance with the Cooperation Principle. It is not a surprise, then, if the ...
... the Cooperative Principal is too general. We will see below that a clarification of the maxim of relation needs to resolve some important questions about the nature of relevance; these clarifications, obviously, must be in accordance with the Cooperation Principle. It is not a surprise, then, if the ...
Reductio ad Absurdum Argumentation in Normal Logic
... its compliance with these properties; or, innovatively, start with an arbitrary scenario, calculate its consequences, and make revisions to the initial assumptions if necessary in order to achieve 2-valued Completeness and Consistency. This is the road we propose now, revision of assumptions justifi ...
... its compliance with these properties; or, innovatively, start with an arbitrary scenario, calculate its consequences, and make revisions to the initial assumptions if necessary in order to achieve 2-valued Completeness and Consistency. This is the road we propose now, revision of assumptions justifi ...
The One Fallacy Theory
... Now my One Fallacy theory does not claim that all fallacies are deductive. Equivocation can also mediate inductively invalid arguments. If my account of allowable arguments in philosophy sees these (the allowable arguments) as deductive, it is because I conceive philosophy as deductive, not because ...
... Now my One Fallacy theory does not claim that all fallacies are deductive. Equivocation can also mediate inductively invalid arguments. If my account of allowable arguments in philosophy sees these (the allowable arguments) as deductive, it is because I conceive philosophy as deductive, not because ...
Logic Notes 2006
... Now for the study of these very general and basic questions, there are no special methods. What philosophers do can be described as organizing their thought in such a way as to help them decide which of the possible answers to the questions are true. The philosopher’s thinking about the general and ...
... Now for the study of these very general and basic questions, there are no special methods. What philosophers do can be described as organizing their thought in such a way as to help them decide which of the possible answers to the questions are true. The philosopher’s thinking about the general and ...
The Logic of Atomic Sentences
... We are told that b is to the right of c. So c must be to the left of b, since right of & left of are inverses of each other. And since b = d, c is left of d by the Indiscernibility of Identicals. But we are also told that d is left of e, and consequently c is to the left of e, by the textbftransitiv ...
... We are told that b is to the right of c. So c must be to the left of b, since right of & left of are inverses of each other. And since b = d, c is left of d by the Indiscernibility of Identicals. But we are also told that d is left of e, and consequently c is to the left of e, by the textbftransitiv ...
Logical Fallacies (Adopted from Steve Richardson, George Mason
... Definitions • Logic is the set of rules by which one can formulate convincing arguments • It is "the science of argument." • When presenting an argument, one takes a set of premises that are proven to be true, and uses logic to show how they prove a certain "foregone conclusion." • Logical errors i ...
... Definitions • Logic is the set of rules by which one can formulate convincing arguments • It is "the science of argument." • When presenting an argument, one takes a set of premises that are proven to be true, and uses logic to show how they prove a certain "foregone conclusion." • Logical errors i ...
ON KNOCKDOWN ARGUMENTS 1. Introduction A
... The Equity Thesis says only that there are knockdown philosophical arguments if there are (certain kinds of) knockdown non-philosophical arguments, not that there are, in fact, knockdown arguments for substantive philosophical conclusions. If the absence of knockdown arguments for the existence of m ...
... The Equity Thesis says only that there are knockdown philosophical arguments if there are (certain kinds of) knockdown non-philosophical arguments, not that there are, in fact, knockdown arguments for substantive philosophical conclusions. If the absence of knockdown arguments for the existence of m ...
A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
... two logically equivalent formulas are mapped to the same formula). Theorem 3.7. Given a normal form, being more conservative defines an ordering provided that only arguments which have a consequent in normal form are considered. The ordered set of all such arguments is an upper semilattice (when res ...
... two logically equivalent formulas are mapped to the same formula). Theorem 3.7. Given a normal form, being more conservative defines an ordering provided that only arguments which have a consequent in normal form are considered. The ordered set of all such arguments is an upper semilattice (when res ...
Govier`s Distinguishing A Priori from Inductive Arguments by
... has been in someone else’s body we may infer (ceteris paribus) that the act is one that no person can be compelled to perform, then the warrant is self-backed. It needs no further backing. This is not to say that all warrants used in arguments by a priori analogy need be self-evident or be self-back ...
... has been in someone else’s body we may infer (ceteris paribus) that the act is one that no person can be compelled to perform, then the warrant is self-backed. It needs no further backing. This is not to say that all warrants used in arguments by a priori analogy need be self-evident or be self-back ...
Propositional Discourse Logic
... • the existence of (and membership in) local kernels in digraphs. Meaningful information will be deduced also from inconsistent discourses, but we use only two truth-values with connectives evaluated by the standard rules. Avoiding any extraneous assumptions, which can affect what counts as an anoma ...
... • the existence of (and membership in) local kernels in digraphs. Meaningful information will be deduced also from inconsistent discourses, but we use only two truth-values with connectives evaluated by the standard rules. Avoiding any extraneous assumptions, which can affect what counts as an anoma ...
On Dummett`s Pragmatist Justification Procedure
... argument. In the proper part, in addition to the principal assumption, all other assumptions are principal assumptions of proper subarguments. In the context of canonical arguments, I call them, collectively, proper assumptions. Definition 5. The degree of a sentence A is the number of logical const ...
... argument. In the proper part, in addition to the principal assumption, all other assumptions are principal assumptions of proper subarguments. In the context of canonical arguments, I call them, collectively, proper assumptions. Definition 5. The degree of a sentence A is the number of logical const ...
Logical fallacy
... Fallacies are used frequently by pundits in the media and politics. When one politician says to another, "You don't have the moral authority to say X", this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X ...
... Fallacies are used frequently by pundits in the media and politics. When one politician says to another, "You don't have the moral authority to say X", this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X ...
Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for
... several reasons. First, they often allow a more natural treatment of priorities among conflicting defeasible rules than the standard fixed-point or model-preference approaches, such as default logic or circumscription. Second, the explicit emphasis on the manipulation and comparison of arguments – f ...
... several reasons. First, they often allow a more natural treatment of priorities among conflicting defeasible rules than the standard fixed-point or model-preference approaches, such as default logic or circumscription. Second, the explicit emphasis on the manipulation and comparison of arguments – f ...
Reason and Argument Lecture 2: Arguments and Validity
... sense that if the premisses of a valid argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. For various reasons, philosophers have an interest in conclusive arguments (at least, apparently conclusive arguments). We are going to begin to provide a systematic account of good reasoning. It turns out th ...
... sense that if the premisses of a valid argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. For various reasons, philosophers have an interest in conclusive arguments (at least, apparently conclusive arguments). We are going to begin to provide a systematic account of good reasoning. It turns out th ...
Consequence Operators for Defeasible - SeDiCI
... proof for reaching a conclusion. An argument is warranted when it ultimately prevails over other con°icting arguments. In this context, defeasible consequence relationships for modeling argument and warrant as well as their logical properties have gained particular attention. The study of logical pr ...
... proof for reaching a conclusion. An argument is warranted when it ultimately prevails over other con°icting arguments. In this context, defeasible consequence relationships for modeling argument and warrant as well as their logical properties have gained particular attention. The study of logical pr ...
An argumentation framework in default logic
... Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1993)93-132 ...
... Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1993)93-132 ...
Argumentations and logic
... lead to a surprising and disconcerting result. For example, sometimes we can think that we have deduced a conclusion thought to be false from a hypothesis augmented by premises thought to be true and then discover that the hypothesis itself played no role in the reasoning. This means that we have ar ...
... lead to a surprising and disconcerting result. For example, sometimes we can think that we have deduced a conclusion thought to be false from a hypothesis augmented by premises thought to be true and then discover that the hypothesis itself played no role in the reasoning. This means that we have ar ...
All About Arguments I. What is an Argument? II
... In philosophy, an argument is not a dispute or debate; rather, it is a structured defense of a claim (that is, a statement or assertion) about some topic. When making an argument, one does not merely state what they think is a good answer to a particular philosophical question: that would be just to ...
... In philosophy, an argument is not a dispute or debate; rather, it is a structured defense of a claim (that is, a statement or assertion) about some topic. When making an argument, one does not merely state what they think is a good answer to a particular philosophical question: that would be just to ...
Philosophy of Logic and Language
... In addition, perhaps, we might insist that a rule can only be purely inferential if every sign that appears in the formulation of the rule, apart from the one being characterised, is STRUCTURAL or SCHEMATIC. ...
... In addition, perhaps, we might insist that a rule can only be purely inferential if every sign that appears in the formulation of the rule, apart from the one being characterised, is STRUCTURAL or SCHEMATIC. ...
Show
... 1.a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute. c. Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: “sheath'd their swords for lack of argument” (Shakespeare). 2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful arg ...
... 1.a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute. c. Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: “sheath'd their swords for lack of argument” (Shakespeare). 2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful arg ...
the role of logic in teaching, learning and analyzing proof
... Hanna & de Villiers (2007) claim that understanding the relationship between argumentation and mathematical proof is essential for designing learning tasks and curricula aiming at teaching proof and proving. When researchers view mathematical proof as distinct from argumentation the educational impl ...
... Hanna & de Villiers (2007) claim that understanding the relationship between argumentation and mathematical proof is essential for designing learning tasks and curricula aiming at teaching proof and proving. When researchers view mathematical proof as distinct from argumentation the educational impl ...
Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut
... 1. Introduction One of the important aspects of instantiated argumentation [2,9,10,12] is how to precisely determine whether one argument attacks another. Suppose one considers arguments constructed using reasons, represented as rules. Many rules will be defeasible (for instance, when applying the a ...
... 1. Introduction One of the important aspects of instantiated argumentation [2,9,10,12] is how to precisely determine whether one argument attacks another. Suppose one considers arguments constructed using reasons, represented as rules. Many rules will be defeasible (for instance, when applying the a ...
Fallacies
... form could be identified with the deep grammatical structure. This would have to be universal; there should be no cases where an argument could be valid, for example, in Hebrew but invalid in Hindi. Haack is not optimistic about this but sees no reason for dismay at the interdependence between intui ...
... form could be identified with the deep grammatical structure. This would have to be universal; there should be no cases where an argument could be valid, for example, in Hebrew but invalid in Hindi. Haack is not optimistic about this but sees no reason for dismay at the interdependence between intui ...
MODULE: Argument Analysis
... a somewhat more precise definition. To begin with, make sure that you know what a sound argument is. Criterion #1 : A good argument must have true premises This means that if we have an argument with one or more false premises, then it is not a good argument. The reason for this condition is that we ...
... a somewhat more precise definition. To begin with, make sure that you know what a sound argument is. Criterion #1 : A good argument must have true premises This means that if we have an argument with one or more false premises, then it is not a good argument. The reason for this condition is that we ...