Argument Structure:: Representation and Theory by James B. Freeman

By James B. Freeman

This monograph offers a style of diagramming argument macrostructure, synthesizing the normal circle and arrow process with the Toulmin version. A theoretical justification of this system via a dialectical knowing of argument, a serious exam of Toulmin on warrants, and a radical dialogue of the linked-convergent contrast follows. dialogue contains attention of other understandings of argument constitution and its illustration provided in Wigmore’s chart procedure, Pollock’s inference graphs, and the pragma-dialectical method of argumentation. An account of the correct reconstruction of enthymemes and concerns on the border of structural research as opposed to evaluate of arguments finish the book.

Show description

Read or Download Argument Structure:: Representation and Theory PDF

Best logic & language books

A logical journey

Hao Wang (1921-1995) used to be one of many few confidants of the nice mathematician and truth seeker Kurt Gödel. A Logical trip is a continuation of Wang's Reflections on Gödel and in addition elaborates on discussions contained in From arithmetic to Philosophy. A decade in instruction, it comprises very important and unusual insights into Gödel's perspectives on a variety of matters, from Platonism and the character of good judgment, to minds and machines, the life of God, and positivism and phenomenology.

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The legislations of Non-Contradiction -- that no contradiction will be actual -- has been a probably unassailable dogma because the paintings of Aristotle, in publication G of the Metaphysics. it's an assumption challenged from various angles during this selection of unique papers. Twenty-three of the world's prime specialists examine the "law," contemplating arguments for and opposed to it and discussing methodological matters that come up each time we query the legitimacy of logical ideas.

Handbook of Philosophical Logic

This moment version of the instruction manual of Philosophical good judgment displays nice alterations within the panorama of philosophical good judgment because the first version. It supplies readers an idea of that panorama and its relation to computing device technology and formal language and synthetic intelligence. It exhibits how the elevated call for for philosophical common sense from desktop technology and synthetic intelligence and computational linguistics sped up the improvement of the topic without delay and in a roundabout way.

Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis

Biblical Semantic common sense first seemed in 1981, and seeks to teach that the learn of biblical and historical close to japanese languages and literatures might be verified on a logical foundation. In a brand new prologue for this version, Gibson reports a number of the scholarly therapy of the subject because the visual appeal of the 1st variation.

Additional info for Argument Structure:: Representation and Theory

Sample text

Generate a distinct type of argument structure as do the previous three dialectical questions we have considered? Seeing that it does and how is straightforward. Consider the Wilson will argument again. (3) supports the conclusion by countering the rebuttal, rather than supporting the conclusion directly. The argument ➂ makes no sense. The premise seems irrelevant to the conclusion. One might suggest that by linking (3) to (1), (3) would be rendered relevant. But unlike genuine linked structure, (1) by itself is relevant to (2) and does not need (3) to explain its relevance.

Above the line are separate lines from each convergent reason to the horizontal line. Below the line, one arrow would point to the conclusion. The defeater box would then be attached to the horizontal line (See Fig. ). Fig. 23 2 1 3 unless R 4 The horizontal line resembles a pan on a balance scale. All the premises are being put together on that pan so that their combined weight may tip the scale in favor of the conclusion. We may keep rebutters distinct from undercutters by having two columns in the defeater box, rebutting defeaters on the left and undercutting defeaters on the right.

It would seem more appropriate, then, to consider the qualifier as modifying or qualifying the step rather than the conclusion. There is another reason for viewing qualifiers this way. In the expression of the hackneyed syllogism All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. So, necessarily, Socrates is mortal. how is “necessarily” functioning? ” Describing the modal qualifier as qualifying the claim only reinforces this suggestion. But on this interpretation, the argument is clearly fallacious, for the statement “Socrates is mortal” is clearly not a necessary truth, nor does its necessitation follow from the premises.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.98 of 5 – based on 27 votes