Switch to: References

Citations of:

Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation

Windsor: University of Windsor (2018)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Exemplification and Argument.G. C. Goddu - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (3-4):235-254.
    Suppose you doubt that rationally persuasive arguments can have just premises that are obviously false. But now consider:(X) Grass is red. Some arguments have merely obviously false premises.'Grass is red' is the only premise and is obviously false, so (X) should convince you that there are arguments with merely obviously false premises. On the face of it, there is nothing irrational about being so convinced by (X). But then (X) is a rationally persuasive argument with merely obviously false premises.A cheap (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argument by Analogy in Ancient China.Yun Xie - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (3):323-347.
    Argument by analogy has long been regarded as the characteristic way of arguing in ancient Chinese culture. Classic Chinese philosophers not only prefer to use analogy to argue for their own views, but also take efforts to theorize it in a systematic way. This paper aims to provide a careful study on the relevant ideas in ancient China in order to reconstruct the ancient Chinese theory of argument by analogy, and then to reveal some of its distinctive features through a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Reasons.Larry Wright - 2019 - Topoi 38 (4):751-762.
    The temptation to look for the “purely normative essence” of argument stems from the understandable ambition to distinguish rational persuasion from mere persuasion. But in seeking a purely normative notion of argument it is easy to overlook—or actually deny—that rational persuasion is a kind of persuasion. The burden of this essay is to show that the concept of reason from which our interest in argument derives can only exist and have normative force as a kind of persuasion, that is, as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):469-484.
    Although in some contexts the notions of an ordinary argument’s presumption, assumption, and presupposition appear to merge into the one concept of an implicit premise, there are important differences between these three notions. It is argued that assumption and presupposition, but not presumption, are basic logical notions. A presupposition of an argument is best understood as pertaining to a propositional element (a premise or the conclusion) e of the argument, such that the presupposition is a necessary condition for the truth (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • A Plea for Ecological Argument Technologies.Fabio Paglieri - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):209-238.
    In spite of significant research efforts, argument technologies do not seem poised to scale up as much as most commentators would hope or even predict. In this paper, I discuss what obstacles bar the way to more widespread success of argument technologies and venture some suggestions on how to circumvent such difficulties: doing so will require a significant shift in how this research area is typically understood and practiced. I begin by exploring a much broader yet closely related question: To (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Monotonicity in Practical Reasoning.Kenneth G. Ferguson - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (3):335-346.
    Classic deductive logic entails that once a conclusion is sustained by a valid argument, the argument can never be invalidated, no matter how many new premises are added. This derived property of deductive reasoning is known as monotonicity. Monotonicity is thought to conflict with the defeasibility of reasoning in natural language, where the discovery of new information often leads us to reject conclusions that we once accepted. This perceived failure of monotonic reasoning to observe the defeasibility of natural-language arguments has (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development. [REVIEW]J. Anthony Blair - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (4):365-379.
    The aim of the paper is to advance the theory of argument or inference schemes by suggesting answers to questions raised by Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (1996), specifically on: the relation between argument and reasoning; distinguishing deductive from presumptive schemes, the origin of schemes and the probative force of their use; and the motivation and justification for their associated critical questions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Wilson on Circular Arguments.J. Ritola - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (3):295-312.
    This paper criticizes Kent Wilson's (`Circular Arguments', 1988) arguments against the analysis of the fallacy of begging the question in epistemic terms and against the division of the fallacy into equivalence and dependency types. It is argued that Wilson does not succeed in showing that the epistemic attitude to the fallacy analysis should be given up. Further, it is argued that Wilson's arguments against the division of the fallacy into two types can be overcome by altering the accounts he criticizes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The Relation Between Formal and Informal Logic.Ralph H. Johnson - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (3):265-274.
    The issue of the relationship between formal and informal logic depends strongly on how one understands these two designations. While there is very little disagreement about the nature of formal logic, the same is not true regarding informal logic, which is understood in various (often incompatible) ways by various thinkers. After reviewing some of the more prominent conceptions of informal logic, I will present my own, defend it and then show how informal logic, so understood, is complementary to formal logic.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?David Hitchcock - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (1):15-37.
    In many actual arguments, the conclusion seems intuitively to follow from the premisses, even though we cannot show that it follows logically. The traditional approach to evaluating such arguments is to suppose that they have an unstated premiss whose explicit addition will produce an argument where the conclusion does follow logically. But there are good reasons for doubting that people so frequently leave the premisses of their arguments unstated. The inclination to suppose that they do stems from the belief that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  • Toulmin: Razonamiento, Sentido Común y Derrotabilidad.Claudio Fuentes Bravo & Cristián Santibáñez Yãnez - 2014 - Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 55 (130):531-548.
    Primeiramente, oferecemos uma apresentação teórica da representação do pensamento prático, começando pela distinção entre silogismo dialético e silogismo demonstrativo. Fazemos referência à crítica de Toulmin contra o dedutivismo dominante de seu tempo. Em seguida, fornecemos argumentos para apoiar a relevância heurística do modelo de Toulmin para entender a discussão sobre a inclusão da lógica padrão na representação do pensamento comum. Afirmamos que o projeto analítico toulmaniano permite entender, com clareza metódica, a derrotabilidade dos argumentos do senso comum por meio da (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Logic in Context.Mark Weinstein - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Eclipsing Justice—a Foundational Compromise Within Philosophy of Argument.George Boger - unknown
    Infusing logic with new rhetoric, dialogical pragmatics, and emphasizing argument context revolutionized the practice of logic. Critiquing oppressive practices and promoting justice, argumentationists empower participants to mediate their own argumentative situations. Against relativism to rescue the normative utility of good argument, argumentationists invoke the universal audience. Still, context-concerns eclipse its independence or resurrect rationalist absolutism. This vacillation imposes an external mediation that subverts establishing theoretical ground for promoting an empowering culture of justice.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Commentary on Blair.Maurice Finocchiaro - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Pragmatics of Deductive Arguments.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Commentary on Benjafield, James & Saroka.Robert C. Pinto - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Toulmin’s Model and the Solving of Ill-Structured Problems.James F. Voss - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):321-329.
    Toulmin’s model of argument was employed in the analysis of verbal protocols obtained during the solving of ill-structured problems. The participants were experts in the domain under study. For the analysis the Toulmin model was extended in order to enable description of lines of argument found in protocols as long as 10 paragraphs. Results included: That while the protocol was comprised of a large number of specific arguments, the analysis provided for tracing a solver’s line of argument. On occasion datum (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Libri Ad Nauseam: The Critical Thinking Textbook Glut.Benjamin Hamby - 2013 - Paideusis: Journal of the Canadian Philosophy of Education Society 21 (1):39-48.
    Critical thinking instructors are faced with an overwhelming number of textbooks to choose from for their courses. Many of these texts do not reflect an awareness of current scholarship in critical thinking and informal logic. I argue that instructors should only adopt textbooks that reflect a sound theoretical understanding of the topic by acknowledging the central role of critical thinking dispositions, offering a more nuanced approach to the teaching of fallacies and of inference, stressing dialectic and argument revision, focusing on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Johnson`s The Rise of Informal Logic: Essays on Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Politics.David Hitchcock - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (2):269-83.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Deliberative Rhetoric: Arguing About Doing.Christian Kock (ed.) - 2017 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    Christian Kock’s essays show the essential interconnectedness of practical reasoning, rhetoric and deliberative democracy. They constitute a unique contribution to argumentation theory that draws on – and criticizes – the work of philosophers, rhetoricians, political scientists and other argumentation theorists. It puts rhetoric in the service of modern democracies by drawing attention to the obligations of politicians to articulate arguments and objections that citizens can weigh against each other in their deliberations about possible courses of action.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Eating Flowers, Holding Hands: Should Critical Thinking Pedagogy ‘Go Wild’?Ben Hamby - 2011 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 26 (3):47-53.
    This paper is inspired by Anthony Weston’s “What if Teaching Went Wild?” , in which he proposes a radical approach to environmental education, suggesting among other things a stress on “otherness.” Comparing Weston’s proposal to Richard Paul’s concept of the “strong sense” critical thinker, and to Trudy Govier’s rationale for her pedagogy of argument, I suggest that “going wild” in stand-alone critical thinking courses could provide a positive, unsettling push, helping students to reconnect through the otherness of alternative argumentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reasonable Responses: The Thought of Trudy Govier.Hundleby Catherine (ed.) - 2017 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This tribute to the breadth and influence of Trudy Govier’s philosophical work begins with her early scholarship in argumentation theory, paying special attention to its pedagogical expression. Most people first encounter Trudy Govier’s work and many people only encounter it through her textbooks, especially A Practical Study of Argument, published in many editions. In addition to the work on argumentation that has continued throughout her career, much of Govier’s later work addresses social philosophy and the problems of trust and response (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Information and Design: Book Symposium on Luciano Floridi’s The Logic of Information.Tim Gorichanaz, Jonathan Furner, Lai Ma, David Bawden, Liz Robinson, Dominic Dixon, Ken Herold, Sille Obelitz Søe, Betsy Van der Veer Martens & Luciano Floridi - 2020 - Journal of Documentation 76 (2).
    The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss Luciano Floridi’s 2019 book The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, the latest instalment in his philosophy of information (PI) tetralogy, particularly with respect to its implications for library and information studies (LIS) .
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Logical Evaluation of Arguments.David Botting - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (2):167-180.
    In this paper I will defend the controversial thesis that all argumentation in natural language can be reconstructed, for the purposes of assessment, as a deductively valid argument. Evaluation of the argumentation amounts to evaluation of the logical coherence of the premises. I will be taking the pragma-linguistic theory of Bermejo-Luque as an initial starting point.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reasoning and Explaining.Larry Wright - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (1):33-46.
    When regimented in a certain natural way, the concepts of explanation and justification manifest a pattern of interrelations connected more or less systematically to their object. Besides its intrinsic interest, this pattern may give us some insight into the nature, source, and limits of the concept of argument.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument.Leo Groarke - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):277-286.
    This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for both claims, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A New Light on Non-Deductive Argumentation Schemes.Harald Wohlrapp - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (3):341-350.
    T. Govier's description of ‘conductive argument’ and 'A priori analogy' is taken as a start to investigate non-deductive argumentation. It is here argued, that the nature of those types can be better understood when taking up a dynamic view (in addition to the usual structural view). The concepts of ‘frame’ and ‘position’ are constructed in order to establish such a twofold approach.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Deliberative Discourse and Reasoning From Generic Argument Structures.John L. Yearwood & Andrew Stranieri - 2009 - AI and Society 23 (3):353-377.
    In this article a dialectical model for practical reasoning within a community, based on the Generic/Actual Argument Model (GAAM) is advanced and its application to deliberative dialogue discussed. The GAAM, offers a dynamic template for structuring knowledge within a domain of discourse that is connected to and regulated by a community. The paper demonstrates how the community accepted generic argument structure acts to normatively influence both admissible reasoning and the progression of dialectical reasoning between participants. It is further demonstrated that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Subordinating Truth–Is Acceptability Acceptable?George Boger - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (2):187-238.
    Argumentation logicians have recognized a specter of relativism to haunt their philosophy of argument. However, their attempts to dispel pernicious relativism by invoking notions of a universal audience or a community of model interlocutors have not been entirely successful. In fact, their various discussions of a universal audience invoke the context-eschewing formalism of Kant’s categorical imperative. Moreover, they embrace the Kantian method for resolving the antinomies that continually vacillates between opposing extremes – here between a transcendent universal audience and a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Structure of Arguments by Analogy in Law.Luís Duarte D’Almeida & Cláudio Michelon - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):359-393.
    Successful accounts of analogy in law have two burdens to discharge. First, they must reflect the fact that the conclusion of an argument by analogy is a normative claim about how to decide a certain case. Second, they must not fail to accord relevance to the fact that the source case was authoritatively decided in a certain way. We argue in the first half of this paper that the common view of the structure of analogical arguments in law cannot overcome (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Using Toulmin's Framework for the Analysis of Everyday Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations.Maria Simosi - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (2):185-202.
    This study used Toulmin's analytical framework of argumentative structure in order to examine employees' argumentative discourse on the way they handle conflict situations in their workplace. The way in which this analytical tool has been applied here challenges critics on the usefulness of the particular analytical tool for the analysis of real-life argumentation. The definition of argumentative elements according to their function in the context of a particular argument, together with the analysis beyond the level of what has been stated (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Probabilistic Import of Illatives.George Bowles & Thomas E. Gilbert - 1993 - Argumentation 7 (3):247-262.
    It is not only overtly probabilistic illatives like ‘makes it certain that’ but also apparently non-probabilistic ones like ‘therefore’ that have probabilistic import. Illatives like ‘therefore’ convey the meaning that the premise confers on the conclusion a probability not only greater than 0 but also greater than 1/2. But because they do not say whether that probability is equal to or less than 1, these illatives are appropriately called ‘neutral’.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Commonplaces and Argumentation in Cicero and Quintilian.Michael Leff - 1996 - Argumentation 10 (4):445-452.
    Despite the contemporary revival of interest in topical invention among rhetoricians and informal logicians, the ‘commonplaces’ (loci communes) of classical rhetoric have received little attention. When considered at all, they are typically dismissed as sterile or mechanistic substitutes for genuine argumentative invention. A fresh examination of the texts of Cicero and Quintilian, however, suggests that these authors believe that the commonplaces have an important heuristic function, and an effort to understand this function is a matter of interest to contemporary students (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Confluencias Y Distinciones Entre Las Nociones De Capacidad Y Competencia Argumentativas.Isabel Cristina Michelan de Azevedo - 2019 - ESTUDIOS SOBRE DISCURSO Y ARGUMENTACIÓN.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Justification and Argumentation.Krzysztof Szymanek - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):231-239.
    In her paper “Argumentation theory and the conception of epistemic justification”, Lilian Bermejo-Luque presents a critique of deductivism in argumentation theory, as well as her own concept of epistemic justification inspired by the views of Stephen Toulmin. Reading this paper induced me to reflect on the mutual relation between the notions of justification and argumentation. In this work I would like to first draw the reader’s attention to a few issues which seem debatable to me, or which I find worth (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Some Reflections on the Informal Logic Initiative.Ralph H. Johnson - 2009 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 16 (29).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Managing Informal Mathematical Knowledge: Techniques From Informal Logic.Andrew Aberdein - 2006 - Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4108:208--221.
    Much work in MKM depends on the application of formal logic to mathematics. However, much mathematical knowledge is informal. Luckily, formal logic only represents one tradition in logic, specifically the modeling of inference in terms of logical form. Many inferences cannot be captured in this manner. The study of such inferences is still within the domain of logic, and is sometimes called informal logic. This paper explores some of the benefits informal logic may have for the management of informal mathematical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • No More Charity, Please! Enthymematic Parsimony and the Pitfall of Benevolence.Fabio Paglieri - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa. pp. 1--26.
    Why are enthymemes so frequent? Are we dumb arguers, smart rhetoricians, or parsimonious reasoners? This paper investigates systematic use of enthymemes, criticizing the application of the principle of charity to their interpretation. In contrast, I propose to analyze enthymematic argumentation in terms of parsimony, i.e. as a manifestation of the rational tendency to economize over scant resources. Consequences of this view on the current debate on enthymemes and on their rational reconstruction are discussed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The Bayesian Boom: Good Thing or Bad?Ulrike Hahn - 2014 - Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Just Following the Rules: Collapse / Incoherence Problems in Ethics, Epistemology, and Argumentation Theory.Patrick Bondy - 2020 - In J. Anthony Blair & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen. Windsor, ON, Canada: pp. 172-202.
    This essay addresses the collapse/incoherence problem for normative frameworks that contain both fundamental values and rules for promoting those values. The problem is that in some cases, we would bring about more of the fundamental value by violating the framework’s rules than by following them. In such cases, if the framework requires us to follow the rules anyway, then it appears to be incoherent; but if it allows us to make exceptions to the rules, then the framework “collapses” into one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary/Elqayam & Evans: Subtracting “Ought” From “Is”.Natalie Gold, Andrew M. Colman & Briony D. Pulford - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5).
    Normative theories can be useful in developing descriptive theories, as when normative subjective expected utility theory is used to develop descriptive rational choice theory and behavioral game theory. “Ought” questions are also the essence of theories of moral reasoning, a domain of higher mental processing that could not survive without normative considerations.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reconstruction and Representation: Deductivism as an Interpretative Strategy.David M. Godden - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Tindale.Ralph H. Johnson - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Virtue Reversed: Principal Argumentative Vices in Political Debate.Christian Kock - unknown
    Contributing to an understanding of the true virtues of argumentation, this paper sketches and exemplifies a theoretically reasoned but simple typology of argumentative vices or ‘malpractices’ that are rampant in political debate in modern democracies. The typology reflects, in negative, a set of argumentative norms, thus making a bid for something that civic instruction might profitably teach students at all levels about deliberative democracy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Theory and Practice Again: Challenges From Pinto and Toulmin.Ralph H. Johnson - unknown
    In Argument, Inference and Dialectic Pinto argues that critical practice can furnish us with the necessary guidance to answer our questions about argument and inference; we do not need to develop a theory of argument/inference. Pinto’s provocative remarks raise questions about the appeal to practice, and recall problems that Toulmin encounters in development of his innovative theory in The Uses of Argument. In this paper, I juxtapose and reflect on these developments.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • A Possible Rapprochement of Informal Logic with Formal Logic.George Boger - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Truth and Premiss Adequacy.Robert C. Pinto - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Fallacies and the Concept of an Argument.Dale Turner - 1999 - Dissertation, University of California, Riverside
    This dissertation argues that recent theoretical attempts to understand fallacious reasoning fail because these theories presuppose problematic accounts of the nature of argument. Current fallacy theories agree that a fallacy is a mistake, but differ wildly about what sort of mistake it is. Chapters one through three explore three very different suggestions. Chapter one is devoted to an examination of the oldest of the modern theoretical accounts of fallacious reasoning, what Hamblin calls the standard treatment. Chapter two begins with a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Informal Logic and its Implications for Philosophy.Nicolas Maudet & Alec Fisher - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
    I take 'informal logic' to be the (descriptive and normative) study of 'real arguments'-arguments which are or have been used with the aim of convincing others of a point of view. I argue that the informal logic tradition thus conceived (i) lends strong support to something like Quine's view that our beliefs really support one another like the filaments in a spider's web--and thus that the traditional view that implication is an asymmetric relation is false; (ii) suggests that the classic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation