Informal logic : issues and techniques /

Mostrar otras versiones (1)

Grennan bases his evaluation of arguments on two criteria: logical adequacy and pragmatic adequacy. He asserts that the common formal logic systems, while logically sound, are not very useful for evaluating everyday inferences, which are almost all deductively invalid as stated. Turning to informal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Clasificación:Libro Electrónico
Autor principal: Grennan, Wayne, 1938-
Formato: Electrónico eBook
Idioma:Inglés
Publicado: Montreal, Que. : McGill-Queen's University Press, Ã1997.
Temas:
Logic.
Logic
Argumentation.
Logique.
logic.
PHILOSOPHY > Logic.
Argument
Evaluation
Nichtklassische Logik
Acceso en línea:Texto completo
Tabla de Contenidos:
  • Contents
  • Preface
  • 1 Arguments
  • 1.1 Arguments as Speech Acts
  • 1.1.1 The Speech Act Concept of Argument
  • 1.1.2 Argument Utterance Effects
  • 1.2 Arguments as Speech Act Products
  • 1.3 Conclusion
  • 2 Current Argument-Evaluation Techniques
  • 2.1 The Traditional Approach
  • 2.1.1 Evaluation Techniques
  • 2.1.2 Traditional Texts: Deficiencies of Omission
  • 2.2 The New Approach: Informal Logic
  • 2.2.1 Origins of the New Approach
  • 2.2.2 The Elements of an Argument-Evaluation System
  • 2.2.3 Summary
  • 3 An Argument-Evaluation System
  • 3.1 Outline of a Theory of Argument Evaluation3.2 An Argument Rating Scheme
  • 3.2.1 The Need For a Rating Scheme
  • 3.2.2 Two Extant Rating Schemes
  • 3.2.3 Developing a New Rating Scheme
  • 3.2.4 A Premiss Rating Scheme
  • 3.2.5 Developing an Inference Rating Scheme
  • 3.2.6 A Conclusion-Support Rating Scheme
  • 3.3 The Evaluation Procedure
  • 3.3.1 Scriven's Procedure
  • 3.3.2 The Proposed Argument-Evaluation Procedure
  • 3.3.3 Variations
  • 3.3.4 A Difficulty for the Rating System
  • 4 Diagramming Arguments
  • 4.1 Toulmin's Model of Argument
  • 4.2 The T2 Model of an Argument4.2.1 One-Premiss Arguments
  • 4.2.2 Convergent Arguments
  • 4.2.3 Linked-Premiss Arguments
  • 4.3 Distinguishing Warrants from Grounds
  • 4.3.1 The van Eemeren Challenge
  • 4.3.2 Freeman's Challenge
  • 4.3.3 Identifying Syllogism Warrants
  • 4.3.4 Further Criteria for Individuating Warrants
  • 4.3.5 Warrants in Deductive Logic
  • 4.3.6 How Crucial Is the Ground/Warrant Distinction?
  • 4.4 Divergent Arguments
  • 4.5 Serial Arguments
  • 4.6 Depiction of Modal Qualifiers in Diagrams
  • 4.7 Comparison of Diagram Formats
  • 4.8 Conclusion5 Evaluation of Deductive Inference
  • 5.1 Testing for Formal Validity
  • 5.1.1 Evaluating Propositional Reasoning
  • 5.1.2 Evaluating Class Reasoning
  • 5.2 Testing for Material Validity
  • 5.2.1 Constitutive Rule-Based Inferences
  • 5.2.2 Regulative Rule-Based Inferences
  • 5.2.3 Hitchcock's Approach to Material Validity
  • 6 Inductive Inference Evaluation
  • 6.1 Evaluating Inductive Inferences
  • 6.1.1 Evaluating Inferences with No Qualifiers
  • 6.1.2 Evaluating Inferences with Qualified Assertions
  • 6.2 The Rebuttal-Factor Approach
  • 6.2.1 Derivation of the Rebuttal-Factor Approach6.2.2 Inference Evaluation by Rebuttal-Factor Method
  • 6.2.3 Interim Summary
  • 6.2.4 The Rebuttal-Factor Method vs Counterexampling
  • 6.2.5 The Rebuttal Factor Method vs the Bayesian Method
  • 7 An Inductive Argument Typology
  • 7.1 Argument-Pattern Typologies
  • 7.1.1 The Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca Typology
  • 7.1.2 Argument Fields
  • 7.2 The Ehninger and Brockreide Typology
  • 7.2.1 Warrant Classification
  • 7.2.2 The Ehninger and Brockreide Claim Classification
  • 7.3 A Revised Typology

Ejemplares similares