Search

Charles S. Peirce suggested that a formal distinction between his three types of argumentation, deduction, induction, and retroduction, could be drawn using syllogistic figures. However, he never developed the concept of formal validity for non-deductive arguments beyond that point. His failure to do so may have been due in parr to inadequacies in the theory of syllogisms as it was known at the time. Using an expanded syllogistic, with quantifiers between 'all' and 'some', this paper shows that it is possible to derive distinct groups of deductive, inductive, and retroductive syllogisms. Keywords: Charles Peirce, induction, retroduction, abduction, syllogisms, intermediate quantifiers, validity., The idea that there are three types of argumentation, deduction, induction, and a third type variously called hypothesis, abduction, or retroduction, first appeared in an 1867 paper by Charles S. [...]

To a large degree, ordinary language users think that discussion moves that from a theoretical perspective are seen as fallacious are indeed unreasonable. This is the main finding of a comprehensive empirical research project on the conventional acceptability of the pragma-dialectical discussion moves. In light of these findings it is remarkable that fallacies occur so often and that many times the participants in discussions do not seem to notice them. This especially goes for the abusive form of the argumentum ad hominem. While language users find this a very unreasonable discussion move, in real life it often remains undetected. In this paper I argue that this can be explained by analysing the abusive ad hominem as a special form of strategic maneuvering. The abusive ad hominem takes on a reasonable appearance because it mimics legitimate critical reactions to authority argumentation. Key Words: argumentum ad hominem, authority argumentation, pragmadialectics, strategic maneuvering., INTRODUCTION When language users are confronted with clear cases of violations of rules for critical discussion they consistently judge these discussion moves as unreasonable. This is the main conclusion of [...]

This essay elaborates a view of argument based in the metaphor of ecology. It promotes a revised pattern of argumentative inquiry in which ecologies of argument are described and evaluated. To make the case for such a study, the essay explores the perspective on argument promoted by the metaphor of ecology, then makes two applications: to the definition and evaluation of argument in a democracy, and to the just war doctrine. Key Words: argumentative ecology, communities of argument, public sphere, democratic argument, just war doctrine, This project is an adventure in meta-thinking: that is, I want to consider the potential for modifying how those who study argument think about what they think about. The project [...]

Author(s): Daniele Poole [sup.1] , Giovanni Nattino [sup.2] , Guido Bertolini [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.410345.7, 0000000417567871, Operative Unit of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Martino Hospital, , 32100, Belluno, [...]

This study extended the work of S. Siddiqui, R. F. West, and K. E. Stanovich (1998), who studied the link between general print exposure and syllogistic reasoning. It was hypothesized that exposure to certain text structures that contain well-delineated logical forms, such as popularized scientific texts, would be a better predictor of deductive reasoning skill than general print exposure, which is not sensitive to the quality of an individual's reading activity. Furthermore, it was predicted that the ability to generate explanatory bridging inferences while reading would also be predictive of syllogistic reasoning. Undergraduate students (N = 112) were tested for vocabulary, nonverbal cognitive ability, exposure to general print, exposure to popularized scientific literature, and the ability to comprehend texts distinguished by the number of inferences that must be generated to support comprehension. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that a combined measure of exposure to general and scientific literature was a significant predictor of syllogistic reasoning ability. Additionally, the ability to comprehend high-inference-load texts was related to solving syllogisms that were inconsistent with world knowledge, indicating an overlap in deductive reasoning skill and text comprehension processes. Keywords: syllogistic reasoning, print exposure, inference construction, text comprehension, science text

THE JAPANESE POETRY of Haiku is often introduced to young children as a means of experiencing nature and describing this experience via a structured 3-line description, the three lines consisting [...]

The importance of Aristotelian syllogistics for the use in scientific demonstration is evaluated. Gunther Patzig claimed that syllogisms of Aristotle were best thought of as tautological propositions.

Walter Burleigh's paradox challenges the deductive validity of the apparently innocent inference form of hypothetical syllogism. Burleigh's paradox is reconstructed and is shown to involve a fallacy of equivocation.

An argument is presented that there is a class of disjunctive predicates for which knowledge at the thresholds is possible, and that they generate sorites paradoxes that cannot be diagnosed with the margin for error principle.

Previous research (Oberauer & Wilhelm, 2000) has shown an inherent directionality between the two terms linked in premises of typical deductive reasoning tasks. With three experiments we investigated the effect of inherent directionality on the time to integrate two premises and for the derivation of a conclusion. We varied figure (i.e., order of terms in the premises) and direction of inference (i.e., order of terms in the conclusion) in deduction tasks from various domains (propositional reasoning, syllogisms, spatial, temporal, and linear order reasoning). Effects of figure on premise reading times varied with the directionality of the relations. Effects of direction of inference reflected the same directionality for a subset of relations. We propose that two factors are jointly responsible for a large part of observed directionality effects in premise integration: the inherent directionality of relational statements and a general advantage for a given--new order of terms in the second premise. Difficulty of deriving a conclusion is affected by the directionality or relations if and only if the relation is semantically asymmetric, so that the directionality must be preserved in the integrated mental model.

A previously untranslated Greek parallel by an anonymous author to Boethius' 'De Hypotheticis Syllogismis' has been discovered. This scholium is Peripatetic in terminology and theory and was possibly drawn from the same source, as yet unknown, Boethius used.

There are benefits from making a distinction between abstract logics and their implementations in analyzing mental processes. Semantic and computational analysis can be applied to the seemingly different external representations seen in psychological theories about the internal representations involved in syllogistic reasoning. In this way, it can be shown that the significant behavioural patterns seen when people solve syllogisms internally can be represented at a level of abstraction higher than that seen with the theories that have been put forward. The semantic structure of the syllogism permits processes of inference which give specific descriptions of single types of people.

The standard Aristotelian notion of the enthymeme has become too narrowly defined in contemporary rhetoric studies, so close to what is also known as syllogism that there need not be any distinction between the two. A re-examination of the enthymemic process reveals that it is more than syllogism. The enthymeme should be recognized as an argumentative turn that relies on the speaker's knowledge of the inferential and attitudinal complex of both listener and speaker to produce emotional inferences in the audience's mind, all with the aim of rhetorical persuasion.

It is argued that, in the traditional subject-predicate sentence, two interpretations of the subject term coexist, one intensional and the other extensional, which explains the superficial difference between the traditional S-P relation and the predication of predicate logic. Data from psychological studies of syllogistic reasoning support the view that the contrast between predicate and argument is carded over to the traditional S-P sentence.

This article discusses the concept of contradiction and compares it to the concept of validity. Topics include contradictory premises, syllogisms, and the impossibility of contradictions.

An Epistemology of the Enthymeme: Socially Making Meaning What is an enthymeme? Having researched and written extensively on the subject, I have to tell you there is no easy explanation. […]