By James B. Freeman
Whilst, if ever, is one justified in accepting the premises of an issue? what's the right criterion of premise acceptability? delivering a accomplished idea of premise acceptability, this booklet solutions those questions from an epistemological strategy that the writer calls "common feel foundationalism". His paintings might be of curiosity to experts in casual good judgment, serious considering and argumentation thought in addition to to a broader variety of philosophers and people educating rhetoric.
Read or Download Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem PDF
Best logic & language books
During this ebook, Frederic Schick extends and applies the choice idea he proposed in prior Cambridge books: figuring out motion (1991) and Making offerings (1997). He indicates how the best way we see occasions impacts the alternatives we make, and he develops a good judgment of proposal aware of how issues are obvious.
There was in recent times a plethora of defences of theism from analytical philosophers: Richard Gale's very important e-book is a severe reaction to those writings. New models of cosmological, ontological, and non secular adventure arguments are severely evaluated, besides pragmatic arguments to justify religion at the grounds of its prudential or ethical merits.
Martin presents attention-grabbing discussions of every challenge or puzzle, and appends feedback for extra studying in every one case. the place the puzzle or challenge admits of a correct solution, Martin presents it in a separate part. yet he additionally frequently ends with a question; for plenty of of those puzzles and paradoxes, there is not any resolution that's universally permitted as being right.
- Putting Logic in Its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief
- Moral and Legal Reasoning
- An essay on the foundations of geometry
- Combinators,lambda-terms and proof theory
- Juan Luis Vives Against the Pseudodialecticians: A Humanist Attack on Medieval Logic
- Logic of Concept Expansion
Additional info for Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem
The initiating burden of proof is not incumbent on the prosecution because of some proffered evidence. Rather the rules of legal procedure assign it to the prosecution outright. Evidential burdens of proof become incumbent on defense and prosecution given evidence presented. As there is an initial burden to show guilt, so there is an initial presumption of innocence. Not all burdens of proof then are evidential and not all presumptions come by inferential rules from previously accepted premises.
A statement is acceptable if and only if there is a presumption in its favor. But when is there a presumption for a statement? Under what circumstances does this occur and how may these circumstances be recognized? Developing answers to these questions is the burden of the rest of this book. Spelling out exactly what this project involves is our task in the next chapter. 2 Acceptability and Presumption At the end of the last chapter, we framed the following proposal: A statement is acceptable just when there is a presumption in its favor.
An actual answer would connect the notion of acceptability with some systematic 18 Acceptability explication of inductive probability. This schema then has the obvious problem that it ties progress in understanding acceptability with progress in inductive logic, a notoriously thorny area. But even beyond this drawback, are there further problems with this approach? I believe there are. Skyrms points out, “Exactly how inductive logic gets us epistemic probabilities from a stock of knowledge depends on how we characterize a stock of knowledge” (1986, p.
Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem by James B. Freeman