Tools
Sorted by:
Try your query at:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Results 1 - 10
of
833
The hidden premise in the causal argument for physicalism
- Analysis
, 2006
"... 1. The causal argument in favor of physicalism roughly states that all physical effects are due to physical causes, hence anything having physical effects must itself be physical (cf. Papineau 2002). A crucial premise in this argument is known variously as the ‘completeness of physics ’ or the ‘caus ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
1. The causal argument in favor of physicalism roughly states that all physical effects are due to physical causes, hence anything having physical effects must itself be physical (cf. Papineau 2002). A crucial premise in this argument is known variously as the ‘completeness of physics
Erotetic Arguments from Inconsistent Premises
, 1999
"... The aim of this paper is to generalize two basic concepts of Wisniewski's theory of questions, namely question evocation and question generation, to the inconsistent case. For both concepts, I shall present three alternative definitions. Each of these is based on a prioritized adaptive logic ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
, in the generalized case, a new kind of question evocation can be defined (here called strong evocation). I shall demonstrate that if a question is strongly evoked by some inconsistent set of premises, then each of its direct answers provides guidance on how the inconsistencies should be resolved.
Similarity and induction
- Review of Philosophy and Psychology
, 2010
"... An argument is categorical if its premises and conclusion are of the form All members ofC have property F, where C is a natural category like FALCON or BIRD, and P remains the same across premises and conclusion. An example is Grizzly bears love onions. Therefore, all bears love onions. Such an argu ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 258 (10 self)
- Add to MetaCart
An argument is categorical if its premises and conclusion are of the form All members ofC have property F, where C is a natural category like FALCON or BIRD, and P remains the same across premises and conclusion. An example is Grizzly bears love onions. Therefore, all bears love onions
Premise Interpretation in Conditional Reasoning
"... Conditional sentences are pervasive in human communication. Many arguments contain conditional premises or a conditional conclusion. The expression conditional reasoning could appropriately be applied to such arguments. However, there is a tradition in psychological research, which will be followed ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Conditional sentences are pervasive in human communication. Many arguments contain conditional premises or a conditional conclusion. The expression conditional reasoning could appropriately be applied to such arguments. However, there is a tradition in psychological research, which will be followed
Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning
, 1989
"... We present a general framework for defining nonmonotonic systems based on the notion of preferred maximal consistent subsets of the premises. This framework subsumes David Poole's THEORIST approach to default reasoning as a particular instance. A disadvantage of THEORIST is that it does not all ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 226 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
are introduced. In a second further generalization a partial ordering between premises is used to distinguish between more and less reliable formulas. In both approaches a formula is provable from a theory if it is possible to construct a consistent argument for it based on the most reliable hypotheses
Modeling critical questions as additional premises
"... ABSTRACT: This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been quest ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
ABSTRACT: This paper shows how the critical questions matching an argumentation scheme can be mod-eled in the Carneades argumentation system as three kinds of premises. Ordinary premises hold only if they are supported by sufficient arguments. Assumptions hold, by default, until they have been
from the premises that and that,
, 2007
"... “There is a perfect being, or perfection exists,” “perfection is not impossible,” “perfection could not exist contingently. ” (Hartshorne 1962, pp. 50-1.) Rowe, pointing the finger at common grounds since Anselm for premises such as the second one, says why, when it is a question whether certain kin ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
assumptions, equivalent to at least close approximations of corollaries to which Anselm was committed of the premises of the major argument in Proslogion 2. and “Something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind.” “That-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone
DECISION PREMISES AND ECONOMIC ORGANISATION
, 1998
"... proposed by Herbert Simon (1957, p. xii), with the transaction as rival units of analysis for developing the economics of organisation, and celebrates the victory of transaction cost economics as a theory of organisational forms. No usable analytical structure, by contrast, has been built on decisio ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
that Williamson’s own argument for basing analysis on unitary transactions relies on the implicit proposition that the choice of decision premises for economic theories may be decisive for the development of knowledge, though as is usual among economists that proposition is never formally stated. It is certainly
On the Role of Discourse Markers for Discriminating Claims and Premises in Argumentative Discourse
"... This paper presents a study on the role of discourse markers in argumentative dis-course. We annotated a German cor-pus with arguments according to the com-mon claim-premise model of argumen-tation and performed various statistical analyses regarding the discriminative na-ture of discourse markers f ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a study on the role of discourse markers in argumentative dis-course. We annotated a German cor-pus with arguments according to the com-mon claim-premise model of argumen-tation and performed various statistical analyses regarding the discriminative na-ture of discourse markers
Leaping to conclusions: Why premise relevance affects argument strength
"... Everyday reasoning requires more evidence than raw data alone can provide. We explore the idea that people can go beyond this data by reasoning about how the data was sampled. This idea is investigated through an examination of premise non-monotonicity, in which adding premises to a category-based a ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
-based argument weakens rather than strength-ens it. Relevance theories explain this phenomenon in terms of people’s sensitivity to the relationships amongst premise items. We show that a Bayesian model of category-based induction taking premise sampling assumptions and category similarity into account
Results 1 - 10
of
833
