Switch to: References

Citations of:

Adequate formalization

Synthese 164 (1):93-115 (2008)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Capturing Consequence.Alexander Paseau - 2019 - Review of Symbolic Logic 12 (2):271-295.
    First-order formalisations are often preferred to propositional ones because they are thought to underwrite the validity of more arguments. We compare and contrast the ability of some well-known logics—these two in particular—to formally capture valid and invalid arguments. We show that there is a precise and important sense in which first-order logic does not improve on propositional logic in this respect. We also prove some generalisations and related results of philosophical interest. The rest of the article investigates the results’ philosophical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • First-Order Logic and Some Existential Sentences.Stephen K. McLeod - 2011 - Disputatio 4 (31):255-270.
    ‘Quantified pure existentials’ are sentences (e.g., ‘Some things do not exist’) which meet these conditions: (i) the verb EXIST is contained in, and is, apart from quantificational BE, the only full (as against auxiliary) verb in the sentence; (ii) no (other) logical predicate features in the sentence; (iii) no name or other sub-sentential referring expression features in the sentence; (iv) the sentence contains a quantifier that is not an occurrence of EXIST. Colin McGinn and Rod Girle have alleged that standard (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument.Michael Baumgartner - 2010 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):531-556.
    According to the standard opinions in the literature, blocking the unacceptable consequences of the notorious slingshot argument requires imposing constraints on the metaphysics of facts or on theories of definite descriptions (or class abstracts). This paper argues that both of these well-known strategies to rebut the slingshot overshoot the mark. The slingshot, first and foremost, raises the question as to the adequate logical formalization of statements about facts, i.e. of factual contexts. It will be shown that a rigorous application of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Turing's Fallacies.Timm Lampert - manuscript
    This paper reveals two fallacies in Turing's undecidability proof of first-order logic (FOL), namely, (i) an 'extensional fallacy': from the fact that a sentence is an instance of a provable FOL formula, it is inferred that a meaningful sentence is proven, and (ii) a 'fallacy of substitution': from the fact that a sentence is an instance of a provable FOL formula, it is inferred that a true sentence is proven. The first fallacy erroneously suggests that Turing's proof of the non-existence (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Informal Reasoning and Logical Formalization.Michael Baumgartner - 2010 - In S. Conrad & S. Imhof (eds.), Ding und Begriff. Ontos.
    According to a prevalent view among philosophers formal logic is the philosopher’s main tool to assess the validity of arguments, i.e. the philosopher’s ars iudicandi. By drawing on a famous dispute between Russell and Strawson over the validity of a certain kind of argument – of arguments whose premises feature definite descriptions – this paper casts doubt on the accuracy of the ars iudicandi conception. Rather than settling the question whether the contentious arguments are valid or not, Russell and Strawson, (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Semantic Criteria of Correct Formalization.Timm Lampert - 2010 - In Proceedings of Gap Conference.
    This paper compares several models of formalization. It articulates criteria of correct formalization and identifies their problems. All of the discussed criteria are so called “semantic” criteria, which refer to the interpretation of logical formulas. However, as will be shown, different versions of an implicitly applied or explicitly stated criterion of correctness depend on different understandings of “interpretation” in this context.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Exhibiting Interpretational and Representational Validity.Michael Baumgartner - 2014 - Synthese 191 (7).
    A natural language argument may be valid in at least two nonequivalent senses: it may be interpretationally or representationally valid (Etchemendy in The concept of logical consequence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990). Interpretational and representational validity can both be formally exhibited by classical first-order logic. However, as these two notions of informal validity differ extensionally and first-order logic fixes one determinate extension for the notion of formal validity (or consequence), some arguments must be formalized by unrelated nonequivalent formalizations in order (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Causal Slingshots.Michael Baumgartner - 2010 - Erkenntnis 72 (1):111-133.
    Causal slingshots are formal arguments advanced by proponents of an event ontology of token-level causation which, in the end, are intended to show two things: (i) The logical form of statements expressing causal dependencies on token level features a binary predicate ‘‘... causes ...’’ and (ii) that predicate takes events as arguments. Even though formalisms are only revealing with respect to the logical form of natural language statements, if the latter are shown to be adequately captured within a corresponding formalism, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Adequate Formalization and de Morgan’s Argument.Georg Brun - 2012 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 85 (1):325-335.
    Lampert and Baumgartner (2010) critically discuss accounts of adequate formalization focusing on my analysis in (Brun 2004). There, I investigated three types of criteria of adequacy (matching truth conditions or inferential role, corresponding syntactical surface and systematicity) and argued that they ultimately call for a procedure of formalization. Although Lampert and Baumgartner have a point about matching truth conditions, their arguments target a truncated version of my account. They ignore all aspects of systematicity which make their counter-example unconvincing.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A Measure of Inferential-Role Preservation.A. Paseau - 2019 - Synthese 196 (7):2621-2642.
    The point of formalisation is to model various aspects of natural language. Perhaps the main use to which formalisation is put is to model and explain inferential relations between different sentences. Judged solely by this objective, a formalisation is successful in modelling the inferential network of natural language sentences to the extent that it mirrors this network. There is surprisingly little literature on the criteria of good formalisation, and even less on the question of what it is for a formalisation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Vagueness and Quantification.Andrea Iacona - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 (5):579-602.
    This paper deals with the question of what it is for a quantifier expression to be vague. First it draws a distinction between two senses in which quantifier expressions may be said to be vague, and provides an account of the distinction which rests on independently grounded assumptions. Then it suggests that, if some further assumptions are granted, the difference between the two senses considered can be represented at the formal level. Finally, it outlines some implications of the account provided (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Criteria for Logical Formalization.Jaroslav Peregrin & Vladimír Svoboda - 2013 - Synthese 190 (14):2897-2924.
    The article addresses two closely related questions: What are the criteria of adequacy of logical formalization of natural language arguments, and what gives logic the authority to decide which arguments are good and which are bad? Our point of departure is the criticism of the conception of logical formalization put forth, in a recent paper, by M. Baumgartner and T. Lampert. We argue that their account of formalization as a kind of semantic analysis brings about more problems than it solves. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • On Exhibiting Representational Validity.Alexandra Zinke - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1157-1171.
    We can distinguish two non-equivalent ways in which a natural language argument can be valid: it can be interpretationally or representationally valid. However, there is just one notion of classical first-order validity for formal languages: truth-preservation in all classical first-order models. To ease the tension, Baumgartner suggests that we should understand interpretational and representational validity as imposing different adequacy conditions on formalizations of natural language arguments. I argue against this proposal. To that end, I first show that Baumgartner’s definition of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A Case Study on Computational Hermeneutics: E. J. Lowe’s Modal Ontological Argument.David Fuenmayor & Christoph Benzmueller - manuscript
    Computers may help us to better understand (not just verify) arguments. In this article we defend this claim by showcasing the application of a new, computer-assisted interpretive method to an exemplary natural-language ar- gument with strong ties to metaphysics and religion: E. J. Lowe’s modern variant of St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. Our new method, which we call computational hermeneutics, has been particularly conceived for use in interactive-automated proof assistants. It aims at shedding light on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Logical Expressivism, Logical Theory and the Critique of Inferences.Georg Brun - 2019 - Synthese 196 (11):4493-4509.
    The basic idea of logical expressivism in the Brandomian tradition is that logic makes inferential relations explicit and thereby accessible to critical discussion. But expressivists have not given a convincing explanation of what the point of logical theories is. Peregrin provides a starting point by observing a distinction between making explicit and explication in Carnap’s sense of replacing something unclear and vague by something clear and exact. Whereas logical locutions make inferential relations explicit within a language, logical theories use formal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation