Search results

1

Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights from the Wild

100%

Zenker F.

Logic and Logical Philosophy

|

2018

|

vol. 27

|

issue 4 Special Issue on Logic, Cognition, Argumentation. Guest Editors: Mariusz Urbański, Michiel van Lambalgen and Marcin Koszowy

421-451

EN

This article provides a brief selective overview and discussion of recent research into natural language argumentation that may inform the study of human reasoning on the assumption that an episode of argumentation issues an invitation to accept a corresponding inference. As this research shows, arguers typically seek to establish new consequences based on prior information. And they typically do so vis-à-vis a real or an imagined opponent, or an opponent-position, in ways that remain sensitive to considerations of context, audiences, and goals. Deductively valid inferences remain a limiting case of such reasoning. In view of these insights, it may appear less surprising that allegedly “irrational” behavior can regularly be produced in experimental settings that expose subjects to standardized reasoning tasks.

2

Informal Fallacies as Abductive Inferences

75%

Kreider A. J.

Logic and Logical Philosophy

|

2016

|

vol. 25

|

issue 1

73-82

EN

All who teach logic are familiar with informal fallacies such as ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance) and ad populum (appeal to popularity). While it is easy to give clear examples of poor reasoning of this sort, instructors are also cognizant of what might be called “exceptions”: when it is legitimate to appeal to popularity or to an absence of evidence. The view I defend here is that appeals to popularity and ignorance (and some other fallacies) should best be viewed as instances of abductive reasoning, or inferences to the best explanation. Thus, determinations of whether these types of arguments are good ones will rest on the criteria that determine good reasoning for abductive arguments generally.

3

Language and Argument: a Review of the Field

75%

Hinton M.

|

2019

|

vol. 17

|

issue 1

93-103

EN

This paper has a dual purpose: it both seeks to introduce the other works in this issue by illustrating how they are related to the field of argumentation as a whole, and to make clear the tremendous range of research currently being carried out by argumentation theorists which is concerned with the interaction and inter-reliance of language and argument. After a brief introduction to the development of the field of argumentation, as many as eight language-based approaches to the study of argument are identified, taking as their perspective: rhetoric, argument structure, argument as act, discourse analysis, corpus methods, emotive argument, and narrative argument. The conclusion makes it clear that these branches of study are all themselves interconnected and that it is the fusion of methodologies and theory from linguistics and the philosophical study of argument which lends this area of research its dynamism.

4

Kryteria poprawności technik komunikacyjno-poznawczych

51%

Koszowy M., Budzyńska K., Yaskorska O.

Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa

|

2013

|

vol. 49

|

issue 2(196)

145-172

PL

Celem artykułu jest próba odpowiedzi na pytanie: jakie są podstawowe typy kryteriów oceny poprawności technik komunikacyjno-poznawczych? Pokażemy, że we współczesnych badaniach rozwijanych na gruncie teorii błędnych technik tego typu (ang. theory of fallacies) teoretycy zazwyczaj koncentrują się na jednym z trzech aspektów: (1) kryterium logicznym, zgodnie z którym źródeł wadliwości tych technik upatruje się w przeprowadzanych rozumowaniach i inferencji, (2) kryterium dialektycznym, według którego wadliwość związana jest z nieprzestrzeganiem reguł dialogu przez jego uczestników, oraz (3) kryterium retorycznym, w którym wadliwości upatruje się w niepoprawnym wykorzystaniu środków perswazji (wadliwość związana z perswazyjną funkcją komunikacji). W artykule dokonujemy też przeglądu typowych podejść skupiających się na jednym z powyższych kryteriów oraz pokazujemy takie ujęcie, które umożliwia jednoczesne uwzględnienie wszystkich wymienionych aspektów.

EN

The aim of the paper is to explore the question: what are most basic types of criteria for evaluation of the communicative and cognitive techniques? We will show that argumentation scholars usually focus on one of three aspects of fallacies: (1) the logical criterion, according to which the sources of fallaciousness of communicative and cognitive techniques lie in the way the reasoning and inference is performed, (2) the dialectical criterion, according to which the fallaciousness of communicative and cognitive techniques is related to the violations of dialogue rules by the participants of the dialogue, and (3) the rhetorical criterion according to which the fallaciousness is recognized as the incorrect use of the persuasive means (the fallaciousness related to the persuasive function of communication). In the paper we propose an overview of typical approaches which focus on the one of those three criteria: logical, dialectical and rhetorical, and we also show an approach which allows to combine all mentioned criteria.

5

Legal analogy as an alternative to the deductive model of legal reasoning

51%

Koszowski M.

Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review

|

2016

|

vol. 6

13-25

EN

This article demonstrates the inadequacy of legal deduction as a method that guarantees the certainty and predictability of law and its outcomes in concrete instances. Inter alia, the Author brings our attention to the far smaller role that the deductive pattern of inference plays in legal thought than one may suppose, since it is rather only a schematic illustration of the decisions that were previously made by recourse to the mental operations of a non-logical nature. In return, he proffers legal analogy as an alternative, by which he understands a mode of thinking which helps the reasoner to take into account a mass of different factors that are traditionally deemed to be relevant for legal thought and decision-making.

Refine search results

2 Logic and Logical Philosophy

1 Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review

1 Research in Language

1 Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa

1 2019

1 2018

2 2016

1 2013

1 Budzyńska K.

1 Hinton M.

1 Koszowski M.

1 Koszowy M.

1 Kreider A. J.

1 Yaskorska O.

1 Zenker F.

Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights from the Wild

Informal Fallacies as Abductive Inferences

Language and Argument: a Review of the Field

Kryteria poprawności technik komunikacyjno-poznawczych

Legal analogy as an alternative to the deductive model of legal reasoning