Logic, Epistemology and Argument Appraisal

Pinto, Robert C.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0783-1_3

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…20 Hitchcock remarks on the other scandal of contemporary philosophy, namely: 'It is a scandal that the organizers of the World Congress of Philosophy [1998] can include sections on such fields as persons and identity, time and memory, and philosophy of sport, but have not got around to including a section on philosophy of argument ' (2003: 3). 21 Pinto here refers to the traditional, formal conception of soundness as involving non-relative implication: 'a relation of implication cannot obtain for one person at one time but not for some other person at some other time, between the very same propositions or statements' (Pinto, 2001;21). 22 This project is taken up more fully in Johnson 2000.…”

Section: Subordinating Truthmentioning

confidence: 98%

Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?

Boger

2005

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 context-embedded particular audience. This tack ironically restores the very external mediation they thought to obviate in their aim to 'dethrone' the absolutism and totalitarianism of formal logic with a democratic turn to audience adherence, the acceptability of premises and inferential links, and a contextual, or participant-relative, notion of cogency.

show abstract

Section: Subordinating Truthmentioning

confidence: 98%

Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?

Boger

2005

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some researchers have given a positive response to this question. Mark E. Battersby, James Freeman, Robert C. Pinto, Harvey Siegal, Mark Weinstein, and others [Battersby, 1989[Battersby, , 2006Freeman, 1994Freeman, , 2000Pinto, 1994;Siegal, 1988aSiegal, , 1994bWeinstein, 1994] are among them.…”

Section: Does Informal Logic Belong To Epistemology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Look at Informal Logic

Khomenko¹

2018

FHI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenges of the global time require new solutions and up-to-date ways of thinking and communication. These challenges call for the ability to use critical thinking to face the ever-changing world and the ability to maintain a dialog based on the effective skills of communication. Studies in the fields of logic and argumentation theory are of particular importance in this regard. Nowadays they can be presented as a mix of theoretical and practical approaches.In this paper, I will present my reflections on informal logic, which was formed in the late 1970s. Unfortunately, in spite of numerous papers, books, and text-books published over the last forty years, consensus on many issues in this field has not been achieved so far. Therefore, it is difficult to treat informal logic as one of the well-defined approaches to argumentation. The goal of this paper is to take a look at the place of informal logic in state-of-the art study of argumentation by clarifying its subject matter and figuring out the realm to which informal logic belongs.

show abstract

“…For example, in Biro and Siegel (1992), Siegel and Biro (1997), Pinto (1994) and Weinstein (1994), there are qualms concerning the concept of argumentative value that such pragmatist perspectives represent. However, we have also seen that these proposals have found some critical voices that try to prevent us from an "excess of pragmatism" when dealing with the conditions of argumentation goodness.…”

Section: Semantic Vs Pragmatic Accounts Of Argumentative Goodnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giving Reasons

Bermejo-Luque

2011

Argumentation Library

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Logic, Epistemology and Argument Appraisal

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?

Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?

A Look at Informal Logic

Giving Reasons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About