View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories
Subcategories:See also:History/traditions: Reasoning

240 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
1 — 50 / 240
Material to categorize
  1. Voluntarist Reasons and the Sources of Normativity.Ruth Chang - 2009 - In David Sobel & Steven Wall (eds.), Reasons for Action. Cambridge University Press. pp. 243-71.
    This paper investigates two puzzles in practical reason and proposes a solution to them. First, sometimes, when we are practically certain that neither of two alternatives is better than or as good as the other with respect to what matters in the choice between them, it nevertheless seems perfectly rational to continue to deliberate, and sometimes the result of that deliberation is a conclusion that one alternative is better, where there is no error in one’s previous judgment. Second, there are (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  2. Book Review of 'Interpretar y Argumentar'. [REVIEW]Ambrosio Velasco G.�mez - 2011 - Theoría. Revista del Colegio de Filosofía 24:103-106.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Reasoning: A Social Picture. [REVIEW]Adam Morton - 2013 - Philosophical Quarterly 63 (253):843-846.
    review of Laden's *Reasoning: a social picture* praising the aim and expressing puzzlement at the details,.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Alfredo Deaño and the Non-Accidental Transition of Thought.María G. Navarro - 2016 - Archives for the Philosohy and History of Soft Computing (1):1-13.
    If the cultural variations concerning knowledge and research on ordinary reasoning are part of cultural history, what kind of historiographical method is needed in order to present the history of its evolution? This paper proposes to introduce the study of theories of reasoning into a historiographic perspective because we assume that the answer to the previous question does not only depend of internal controversies about how reasoning performance is explained by current theories of reasoning. [...].
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Poor People of the World Unite! Poverty and the Future of Research in Heuristics.María G. Navarro - 2014 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3 (2):19-21.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Relevance and Reason Relations.Niels Skovgaard‐Olsen, Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer - 2017 - Cognitive Science 41 (S5):1202-1215.
    This paper examines precursors and consequents of perceived relevance of a proposition A for a proposition C. In Experiment 1, we test Spohn's assumption that ∆P = P − P is a good predictor of ratings of perceived relevance and reason relations, and we examine whether it is a better predictor than the difference measure − P). In Experiment 2, we examine the effects of relevance on probabilistic coherence in Cruz, Baratgin, Oaksford, and Over's uncertain “and-to-if” inferences. The results suggest (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7. Reasoning with Reasons.Daniel Star - forthcoming - In Conor McHugh, Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.), Normativity: Epistemic and Practical. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 241-59.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. A Multi-INT Semantic Reasoning Framework for Intelligence Analysis Support.Janssen Terry, Basik Herbert, Dean Mike & Barry Smith - 2010 - In L. Obrst, Terry Janssen & W. Ceusters (eds.), Ontologies and Semantic Technologies for the Intelligence Community. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. pp. 57-69.
    Lockheed Martin Corp. has funded research to generate a framework and methodology for developing semantic reasoning applications to support the discipline oflntelligence Analysis. This chapter outlines that framework, discusses how it may be used to advance the information sharing and integrated analytic needs of the Intelligence Community, and suggests a system I software architecture for such applications.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Reasoning and Regress.Markos Valaris - 2014 - Mind 123 (489):101-127.
    Regress arguments have convinced many that reasoning cannot require beliefs about what follows from what. In this paper I argue that this is a mistake. Regress arguments rest on dubious (although deeply entrenched) assumptions about the nature of reasoning — most prominently, the assumption that believing p by reasoning is simply a matter of having a belief in p with the right causal ancestry. I propose an alternative account, according to which beliefs about what follows from what play a constitutive (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  10. How We Get Along.J. David Velleman - 2009 - Cambridge University Press.
    In How We Get Along, philosopher David Velleman compares our social interactions to the interactions among improvisational actors on stage. He argues that we play ourselves - not artificially but authentically, by doing what would make sense coming from us as we really are. And, like improvisational actors, we deal with one another in dual capacities: both as characters within the social drama and as players contributing to the shared performance. In this conception of social intercourse, Velleman finds rational grounds (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   29 citations  
Argument
  1. Arguing About Muslims : Reasonable Argumentation in Letters to the Editor.Atkin Albert & E. Richardson John - 2007 - Text and Talk 1 (27):1-25.
    This article analyses letters to the editor written on or about Muslims printed in a British broadsheet newspaper. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is applied as a model for explaining and understanding the arguments employed in the sampled letters. Our presentation of pragma-dialectical theory focuses on argumentative reasonableness. More specifically, we introduce the four dialectical stages through which any argument must pass and explain the ten rules of critical discussion that participants must follow throughout if they are to resolve the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Show Me the Argument: Empirically Testing the Armchair Philosophy Picture.Zoe Ashton & Moti Mizrahi - 2018 - Metaphilosophy 49 (1-2):58-70.
    Many philosophers subscribe to the view that philosophy is a priori and in the business of discovering necessary truths from the armchair. This paper sets out to empirically test this picture. If this were the case, we would expect to see this reflected in philosophical practice. In particular, we would expect philosophers to advance mostly deductive, rather than inductive, arguments. The paper shows that the percentage of philosophy articles advancing deductive arguments is higher than those advancing inductive arguments, which is (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Logic: A Modern Guide.Colin Beckley - 2016 - Milton Keynes: Think Logically Books.
    This book is written for those who wish to learn some basic principles of formal logic but more importantly learn some easy methods to unpick arguments and assess their value for truth and validity. -/- The first section explains the ideas behind traditional logic which was formed well over two thousand years ago by the ancient Greeks. Terms such as ‘categorical syllogism’, ‘premise’, ‘deduction’ and ‘validity’ may appear at first sight to be inscrutable but will easily be understood with examples (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Argument as Combat.Jonny Blamey - manuscript
    Abstract Argument is seen as central to philosophy, especially epistemology. It is often said that philosophy teaches you to argue for any position. Arguments are used to justify beliefs and many people suppose that for a belief to be counted for knowledge it must be justified. In science, scientific theories must be backed by the evidence and it has been proposed that the relationship of evidence to theory is that of argument to conclusion. But is argument really so important? Arguments (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Algorithms and Arguments: The Foundational Role of the ATAI-Question.Paola Cantu' & Italo Testa - 2011 - In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192-203). Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
    Argumentation theory underwent a significant development in the Fifties and Sixties: its revival is usually connected to Perelman's criticism of formal logic and the development of informal logic. Interestingly enough it was during this period that Artificial Intelligence was developed, which defended the following thesis (from now on referred to as the AI-thesis): human reasoning can be emulated by machines. The paper suggests a reconstruction of the opposition between formal and informal logic as a move against a premise of an (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Manual básico de redacción para abogados.Gettial Juan Carlos - 2013 - Bogota: Universidad Libre.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. We, the Professional Sages: Analytic Philosophy’s Arrogation of Argument.Marc Champagne - 2009 - Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    One claim reiterated with increasing boldness by the “analytic” tradition in philosophy is that what sets it apart from long-time rivals is a shared adherence to proper norms of argumentation. Gradated deviancy from this canon by English-speaking practitioners has therefore raised important questions about who can repair under the banner “professional philosopher.” We will portray as deeply worrisome the idea that argumentation should secure not just conclusions, but disciplinary membership as well.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Short Report on Initial Political Polarization/Argument Visualization Study.Simon Cullen & Vidushi Sharma - manuscript
    This document provides a brief report on initial research into how argument presentation (visual map vs. regular prose) affects people's susceptibility to confirmation bias as well as their feelings toward political opponents. Using highly polarizing stimuli, we found that argument visualization substantially reduced confirmation bias and, for participants with low CRT scores, the belief that one's political opponents are morally evil.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Deskriptive Argumente und Argumenthierarchien.Georg J. W. Dorn - 2006 - In Günther Kreuzbauer & Georg J. W. Dorn (eds.), Argumentation in Theorie und Praxis: Philosophie und Didaktik des Argumentierens. LIT Verlag.
    Es werden vier verbreitete Verwendungsweisen des Wortes ‘Argument’ beschrieben, an Beispielen erläutert und dann schrittweise expliziert. Die wichtigsten Explikata sind: ‘eine Satzfolge x ist ein deskriptives Argument in Standardform’, ‘ein deskriptives Argument x in Standardform ist bei der subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilung p stark (bzw. schwach)’, ‘ein Aussagesatz x ist bei der subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilung p ein Argument für (bzw. gegen) einen Aussagesatz y’, ‘ein geordneter Tripel x von deskriptiven Argumenten in Standardform, von Argumentebenen und von Argumentsträngen ist eine deskriptive Argumenthierarchie in Standardform’, (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Eine komparative Theorie der Stärke von Argumenten.Georg J. W. Dorn - 2005 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):34–43.
    This article presents a comparative theory of subjective argument strength simple enough for application. Using the axioms and corollaries of the theory, anyone with an elementary knowledge of logic and probability theory can produce an at least minimally rational ranking of any set of arguments according to their subjective strength, provided that the arguments in question are descriptive ones in standard form. The basic idea is that the strength of argument A as seen by person x is a function of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Gefühl Als Argument?Andreas Dorschel - 1993 - In Andreas Dorschel, Matthias Kettner, Wolfgang Kuhlmann & Marcel Niquet (eds.), Transzendentalpragmatik. Ein Symposion für Karl-Otto Apel. Suhrkamp. pp. 167-186.
    Does having some feeling or other ever count as an argument – and, should it? As a matter of fact, not just do persons sometimes refer to their feelings to make a point in debate. Often, they even treat them as irrefutable arguments; for they are, of course, certain of their own feelings. To make a point in debate by reference to one’s feelings, one has got to articulate them. As language is the core medium of debate (though it can (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Why I Think Research in Non-Applied, Non-Interdisciplinary, Non-Historical Philosophy is Worthwhile.Bryan Frances - manuscript
    On occasion, someone will ask you why you’re a philosopher and not a scientist or some other, more obviously respectable, intellectual. Or a high and mighty philosopher will dismiss all of philosophy with the exception of the history of philosophy. Others will restrict philosophy’s importance to applied philosophy or philosophy with obvious interdisciplinary features. Or someone from a different discipline might be respectful of the philosophical profession but in need of an explanation of why research in philosophy that is not (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Pushing the Bounds of Rationality: Argumentation and Extended Cognition.David Godden - 2016 - In Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli & Silvia Felletti (eds.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion. London: College Publications. pp. 67-83.
    One of the central tasks of a theory of argumentation is to supply a theory of appraisal: a set of standards and norms according to which argumentation, and the reasoning involved in it, is properly evaluated. In their most general form, these can be understood as rational norms, where the core idea of rationality is that we rightly respond to reasons by according the credence we attach to our doxastic and conversational commitments with the probative strength of the reasons we (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Corroborative Evidence.David Godden - 2010 - In Chris Reed & Christopher W. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications. pp. 201-212.
    Corroborative evidence can have a dual function in argument whereby not only does it have a primary function of providing direct evidence supporting the main conclusion, but it also has a secondary, bolstering function which increases the probative value of some other piece of evidence in the argument. It has been argued (Redmayne, 2000) that this double function gives rise to the fallacy of double counting whereby the probative weight of evidence is overvalued by counting it twice. Walton has proposed (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15. A Theory of Presumption for Everyday Argumentation.David M. Godden & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (2):313-346.
    The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  16. A Probabilistic Analysis of Argument Cogency.David Godden & Frank Zenker - 2018 - Synthese 195 (4):1715-1740.
    This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17. Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation.Trudy Gover - 2018 - Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    We are pleased to publish this WSIA edition of Trudy’s Govier’s seminal volume, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Originally published in 1987 by Foris Publications, this was a pioneering work that played a major role in establishing argumentation theory as a discipline. Today, it is as relevant to the field as when it first appeared, with discussions of questions and issues that remain central to the study of argument. It has defined the main approaches to many of those issues (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Book Review of 'Interpretar y Argumentar'. [REVIEW]Ambrosio Velasco G.�mez - 2011 - Theoría. Revista del Colegio de Filosofía 24:103-106.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Causal Argument.Ulrike Hahn, Frank Zenker & Roland Bluhm - 2017 - In Michael R. Waldmann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 475-494.
    In this chapter, we outline the range of argument forms involving causation that can be found in everyday discourse. We also survey empirical work concerned with the generation and evaluation of such arguments. This survey makes clear that there is presently no unified body of research concerned with causal argument. We highlight the benefits of a unified treatment both for those interested in causal cognition and those interested in argumentation, and identify the key challenges that must be met for a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health.Sally Jackson & Jodi Schneider - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):241-272.
    Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  21. Breaking Out of the Circle.Caravello John - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):25-35.
    What’s wrong with begging the question? Some philosophers believe that question-begging arguments are inevitably fallacious and that their fallaciousness stems from a shared “formal” deficiency. In contrast, some philosophers, like Robinson deny that begging the question is fallacious at all. And others characterize begging the question as an “informal” fallacy of reasoning that can only be understood with the aid of epistemic notions. Sorensen joins this last camp by offering a powerful argument against both Robinson’s skepticism and fully formal approaches (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Über den Einwand einer anderen möglichen Vernunft.Geert Keil - 2003 - In Dietrich Böhler, Matthias Kettner & Gunnar Skirbekk (eds.), Reflexion und Verantwortung. Auseinandersetzungen mit Karl-Otto Apel. Suhrkamp. pp. 65-82.
    Die Transzendentalpragmatik beansprucht, jeden beliebigen Opponenten, der bestimmte nichtverwerfbare Präsuppositionen des Argumentierens bestreitet, eines performativen Selbstwiderspruchs überführen zu können. Die Diagnose performativer Widersprüche ist indes theoretisch voraussetzungsreich, denn sie findet in einem begrifflichen Rahmen statt, der sich aus nichttrivialen sprechakt-, rationalitäts-, bedeutungs- und argumentationstheoretischen Annahmen zusammensetzt. Das Argument einer anderen möglichen Vernunft ist gegen den Letztbegründungsanspruch der Transzendentalpragmatik gerichtet: Was heute als ein performativer Widerspruch zählt, mag aus der Perspektive einer anderen möglichen Vernunft keiner mehr sein. Im Beitrag wird die (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Revolutionary Rhetoric: Georg Büchner's “Der Hessische Landbote” (1834) – A Case Study. [REVIEW]Manfred Kienpointner - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (2):129-149.
    In this paper, the political pamphlet “Der Hessische Landbote” by the eminent German author, Georg Büchner (1813–1837), will be positioned within the context of its political and historical background, analyzed as to its argumentative and stylistic structure, and critically evaluated. It will be argued that propaganda texts such as this should be evaluated by taking into account both rhetorical perspectives and standards of rational discussion. As far as argumentative structure is concerned, a modified version of the Toulmin scheme will be (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Descartes in arhitektura.Gregor Kroupa - 2006 - Filozofski Vestnik 27 (3):23-38.
    Descartes and Architecture -/- The article analyses the architectural metaphor in Descartes' Discourse on Method and The Seventh replies. The idea of Descartes' project, introduced to the reader as a construction of a building and planning of a city, is much more indebted to its architectural imagery than, or so its critics say, is "sound" for a philosophical theory. Architecture is an analogon of philosophy in Descartes' texts. By producing a figure of philosopher-architect, Descartes tries to legitimate his philosophical theory (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. When Win-Argument Pedagogy is a Loss for the Composition Classroom.Grosskopf Wendy Lee - 2015 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 5 (1):243-266.
    Despite the effort educators put into developing in students the critical writing and thinking skills needed to compose effective arguments, undergraduate college students are often accused of churning out essays lacking in creative and critical thought, arguments too obviously formulated and with sides too sharply drawn. Theories abound as to why these deficiencies are rampant. Some blame students’ immature cognitive and emotional development for these lacks. Others put the blame of lackadaisical output on the assigning of shopworn writing subjects, assigned (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum .F. Macagno & D. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 28 (3):203-228.
    Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  27. Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy .F. Macagno, D. Walton, G. Rowe & C. Reed - 2006 - Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):111-124,.
    This paper explains how to use a new software tool for argument diagramming available free on the Internet, showing especially how it can be used in the classroom to enhance critical thinking in philosophy. The user loads a text file containing an argument into a box on the computer interface, and then creates an argument diagram by dragging lines from one node to another. A key feature is the support for argumentation schemes, common patterns of defeasible reasoning historically know as (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  28. Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on the conclusion. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes, and Topics.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (205):39-56.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30. Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes .Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2005 - Studies in Communication Sciences 5 (2):1-22.
    We argue that common knowledge, of the kind used in reasoning in law and computing is best analyzed using a dialogue model of argumentation (Walton & Krabbe 1995). In this model, implicit premises resting on common knowledge are analyzed as endoxa or widely accepted opinions and generalizations (Tardini 2005). We argue that, in this sense, common knowledge is not really knowledge of the kind represent by belief and/or knowledge of the epistemic kind studied in current epistemology. This paper takes a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31. Again on Sextus on Persuasiveness and Equipollence.Diego E. Machuca - 2017 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 99 (2):212-228.
    This paper engages with Svavar Svavarsson’s recent essay, “Sextus Empiricus on Persuasiveness and Equipollence,” arguing against both (i) his interpretation of whether two rival arguments appear equipollent to the Pyrrhonist because he himself is equally persuaded by both of them, and (ii) his interpretation of the way in which the argument from possible disagreement is supposed to induce suspension of judgment in the Pyrrhonist. In so doing, I aim to dispel some serious misunderstandings regarding key aspects of the Pyrrhonist’s skeptical (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32. The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in the Writings of Wittgenstein and Searle.Starks Michael - 2016 - In Michael Starks (ed.), The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in the Writings of Wittgenstein and Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 367p (2016). Las Vegas, USA: Michael Starks. pp. 11-69.
    I provide a critical survey of some of the major findings of Wittgenstein and Searle on the logical structure of intentionality (mind, language, behavior), taking as my starting point Wittgenstein’s fundamental discovery –that all truly ‘philosophical’ problems are the same—confusions about how to use language in a particular context, and so all solutions are the same—looking at how language can be used in the context at issue so that its truth conditions (Conditions of Satisfaction or COS) are clear. The basic (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Still Weak: A Reply to Seidel.Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):238-252.
    In this paper, I reply to Seidel’s objections against my argument from expert performance to the effect that arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. I clarify what Seidel takes to be unclear points in my argument and show that it withstands Seidel’s objections.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34. Why Be an Intellectually Humble Philosopher?Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Axiomathes 26 (2):205-218.
    In this paper, I sketch an answer to the question “Why be an intellectually humble philosopher?” I argue that, as far as philosophical argumentation is concerned, the historical record of Western Philosophy provides a straightforward answer to this question. That is, the historical record of philosophical argumentation, which is a track record that is marked by an abundance of alternative theories and serious problems for those theories, can teach us important lessons about the limits of philosophical argumentation. These lessons, in (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Why Simpler Arguments Are Better.Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):247-261.
    In this paper, I argue that, other things being equal, simpler arguments are better. In other words, I argue that, other things being equal, it is rational to prefer simpler arguments over less simple ones. I sketch three arguments in support of this claim: an argument from mathematical proofs, an argument from scientific theories, and an argument from the conjunction rule.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. A Theory of Argumentation. [REVIEW]Moti Mizrahi - 2015 - Metascience 24 (3):503-506.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Don't Believe the Hype: Why Should Philosophical Theories Yield to Intuitions?Moti Mizrahi - 2015 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 34 (3):141-158.
    In this paper, I argue that, contrary to common opinion, a counterexample against a philosophical theory does not amount to conclusive evidence against that theory. Instead, the method of counterexamples allows for the derivation of a disjunction, i.e., ‘either the theory is false or an auxiliary assumption is false’, not a negation of the target theory. This is so because, whenever the method of counterexamples is used in an attempt to refute a philosophical theory, there is a crucial auxiliary assumption (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38. On Appeals to Intuition: A Reply to Muñoz-Suárez.Moti Mizrahi - 2015 - The Reasoner 9 (2):12-13.
    I reply to Muñoz-Suárez's objection to my argument by analogy with appeals to authority for the following necessary, but not sufficient, condition for strong appeals to intuition: (PAI) When philosophers appeal to intuitions, there must be an agreement among the relevant philosophers concerning the intuition in question; otherwise, the appeal to intuition is weak.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39. The Problem of Unconceived Objections.Moti Mizrahi - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):425-436.
    In this paper, I argue that, just as the problem of unconceived alternatives provides a basis for a New Induction on the History of Science to the effect that a realist view of science is unwarranted, the problem of unconceived objections provides a basis for a New Induction on the History of Philosophy to the effect that a realist view of philosophy is unwarranted. I raise this problem not only for skepticism’s sake but also for the sake of making a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  40. More Intuition Mongering.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - The Reasoner 7 (1):5-6.
    In this paper, I argue that appeals to intuition are weak arguments because intellectual intuition is an unreliable belief-forming process, since it yields incompatible verdicts in response to the same cases, and since the inference from 'It seems to S that p' to 'p' is unreliable. Since the reliability of intellectual intuition is a necessary condition for strong appeals to intuition, it follows that appeals to intuition are weak arguments.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 240