Linked e-resources
Details
Table of Contents
Foreword; Preface; Contents; List of Figures; Deduction, Induction and Conduction; 1 Deduction, Induction and Conduction; Abstract; 1.1 The Issue; 1.2 Fohr's Objections; 1.3 Weddle's Deductivism; 1.4 Conduction; 1.5 Which Standard of Appraisal?; References; 2 The Linked-Convergent Distinction; Abstract; 2.1 Introduction; 2.2 Convergence: Not Multiplicity of Arguments; 2.3 The Primary Sphere of the Distinction; 2.4 Conclusion; References; 3 Postscript; Abstract; References; Material Consequence; 4 Enthymematic Arguments; Abstract; 4.1 Deductive Validity in Natural Languages
4.2 Distinguishing Enthymemes from Non Sequiturs4.3 The Universal Generalization Thesis; 4.4 Confirmation of the Universal Generalization Thesis; 4.5 Qualifications of the Universal Generalization Thesis; 4.6 Missing Premisses or Rules?; 4.7 Other Purposes for Identifying Enthymemes' Assumptions; 4.8 Note; References; 5 Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?; Abstract; 5.1 Enthymemes; 5.1.1 Actual Arguments; 5.1.2 The Traditional Treatment; 5.1.2.1 The Appeal to Unstated Premisses; 5.1.2.2 Extensions and Variants; 5.1.3 A Terminological Problem; 5.1.4 Doubts
5.1.4.1 Intentional Omission?5.1.4.2 Implicit Presence?; 5.1.5 The Mistake; 5.2 Logical Consequence; 5.2.1 The Deducibility Conception; 5.2.2 The Modal Conception; 5.2.3 The Substitutional Conception; 5.2.4 The Formal Conception; 5.2.5 The Model-Theoretic Conception; 5.3 Revisions; 5.3.1 Two Problems; 5.3.2 A Revised Generic Conception of Consequence; 5.4 Enthymematic Consequence; 5.4.1 Example; 5.4.2 Exceptions; 5.4.3 An Objection; 5.4.4 Further Questions; 5.5 Summary; References; 6 Toulmin's Warrants; Abstract; 6.1 Toulmin's Conception; 6.2 Misconceptions
6.2.1 A Warrant Is not a Kind of Premiss6.2.2 A Warrant Is not an Implicit Premiss; 6.2.3 A Warrant Is not an Ungeneralized Indicative Conditional; 6.3 Objections; 6.3.1 Difficulty of Practical Application; 6.3.2 Occurrence of General Statements as Grounds and of Particular Statements as Warrants; 6.3.3 Misconstrual of the Function of Generalized Conditionals in Premissary Position; 6.3.4 Absence of Warrants from Arguments as Products and from Our Conscious Reasoning; 6.3.5 Difficulty of Assigning Some Warrants to Fields; 6.4 Summary; References; 7 Non-logical Consequence; Abstract
7.1 Consequence in Contemporary Philosophy7.2 Tarski's Conception of Consequence; 7.3 Extending Tarski's Condition F to Non-logical Consequence; 7.4 Revision and Expansion of Substitutional, Formal and Model-Theoretic Conceptions of Consequence; 7.5 The Problem of Contingent Non-trivial Truth-Preservation; References; 8 Inference Claims; Abstract; 8.1 Introduction; 8.2 Following as Logically Necessary Truth-Preservation: Two Objections; 8.3 First Reformulation: Following as Necessary Truth-Transmission; 8.4 Second Reformulation: Following as Counterfactual-Supporting Truth-Transmission
4.2 Distinguishing Enthymemes from Non Sequiturs4.3 The Universal Generalization Thesis; 4.4 Confirmation of the Universal Generalization Thesis; 4.5 Qualifications of the Universal Generalization Thesis; 4.6 Missing Premisses or Rules?; 4.7 Other Purposes for Identifying Enthymemes' Assumptions; 4.8 Note; References; 5 Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?; Abstract; 5.1 Enthymemes; 5.1.1 Actual Arguments; 5.1.2 The Traditional Treatment; 5.1.2.1 The Appeal to Unstated Premisses; 5.1.2.2 Extensions and Variants; 5.1.3 A Terminological Problem; 5.1.4 Doubts
5.1.4.1 Intentional Omission?5.1.4.2 Implicit Presence?; 5.1.5 The Mistake; 5.2 Logical Consequence; 5.2.1 The Deducibility Conception; 5.2.2 The Modal Conception; 5.2.3 The Substitutional Conception; 5.2.4 The Formal Conception; 5.2.5 The Model-Theoretic Conception; 5.3 Revisions; 5.3.1 Two Problems; 5.3.2 A Revised Generic Conception of Consequence; 5.4 Enthymematic Consequence; 5.4.1 Example; 5.4.2 Exceptions; 5.4.3 An Objection; 5.4.4 Further Questions; 5.5 Summary; References; 6 Toulmin's Warrants; Abstract; 6.1 Toulmin's Conception; 6.2 Misconceptions
6.2.1 A Warrant Is not a Kind of Premiss6.2.2 A Warrant Is not an Implicit Premiss; 6.2.3 A Warrant Is not an Ungeneralized Indicative Conditional; 6.3 Objections; 6.3.1 Difficulty of Practical Application; 6.3.2 Occurrence of General Statements as Grounds and of Particular Statements as Warrants; 6.3.3 Misconstrual of the Function of Generalized Conditionals in Premissary Position; 6.3.4 Absence of Warrants from Arguments as Products and from Our Conscious Reasoning; 6.3.5 Difficulty of Assigning Some Warrants to Fields; 6.4 Summary; References; 7 Non-logical Consequence; Abstract
7.1 Consequence in Contemporary Philosophy7.2 Tarski's Conception of Consequence; 7.3 Extending Tarski's Condition F to Non-logical Consequence; 7.4 Revision and Expansion of Substitutional, Formal and Model-Theoretic Conceptions of Consequence; 7.5 The Problem of Contingent Non-trivial Truth-Preservation; References; 8 Inference Claims; Abstract; 8.1 Introduction; 8.2 Following as Logically Necessary Truth-Preservation: Two Objections; 8.3 First Reformulation: Following as Necessary Truth-Transmission; 8.4 Second Reformulation: Following as Counterfactual-Supporting Truth-Transmission