Forms for "Informal Logic

Argumentation, 2025

The main goal of the paper is to provide the theoretical model for the a fortiori argument. After a brief history of a fortiori argument (especially in the works of Aristotle, Alexander, Cicero, and Boethius) we propose its general concept, components, and argumentation schemes, its classification, and finally, criteria for assessment. The main reason for this research is that this type of argument receives little attention in contemporary argumentation theory, and consequently critical thinking students have little knowledge of it, and yet, a fortiori arguments (or "arguments from the stronger") are prevalent in both, academic and public, discourse. Therefore, the need to incorporate the concept of a fortiori argument into argumentation theory seems even more crucial. Additionally, we develop the diagrammatic method of assessing the inference in such arguments to finally present four critical questions needed for a critical evaluation of a fortiori argument. Keywords a fortiori argument • A simili • Analogy • Argument from the stronger • Argumentation scheme • Comparative argument • From the less • From the more * Jakub Pruś

Corcoran, J. 1989. Argumentations and Logic. Argumentation 3: 17-43 Argumentations are at the heart of the deductive and the hypothetico-deductive methods, which are involved in attempts to reduce currently open problems to problems already solved. These two methods span the entire spectrum of problem-oriented reasoning from the simplest and most practical to the most complex and most theoretical, thereby uniting all objective thought whether ancient or contemporary, whether humanistic or scientific, whether normative or descriptive, whether concrete or abstract. Analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and function of argumentations are described. Perennial philosophic problems, epistemic and ontic, related to argumentations are put in perspective. So much of what has been regarded as logic is seen to be involved in the study of argumentations that logic may be usefully defined as the systematic study of argumentations, which is virtually identical to the quest of objective understanding of objectivity. KEY WORDS: hypothesis, theorem, argumentation, proof, deduction, premise-conclusion argument, valid, inference, implication, epistemic, ontic, cogent, fallacious, paradox, formal, validation. “Argumentations and Logic” has been used in courses at University of Barcelona, Bryn Mawr College, University of Buffalo, Buffalo State College, State University of Campinas, Canisius College, Federal University of Goiás, Fredonia University, Grand Valley State University, University of Lausanne, Niagara University, University of Santiago de Compostela, SUNY Potsdam, and elsewhere. It has been translated into Spanish, Portuguese, and Persian. Insha’Allah, in the fullness of time there will be translations into Chinese and Czech.

Turri argues against what he calls an “orthodox” view of the relationship between propositional and doxastic justification, according to which (Basis) it is sufficient for S to be doxastically justified in believing p that p is propositionally justified for S in virtue of having reason(s) R and S believes p on the basis of R. According to Turri, (Basis) is false and hence the orthodox view is wrong. Turri offers “an alternative proposal,” the definitive thesis of which is that the subject’s intellectual abilities explain why a given proposition, p, is justified for her, and argues that, contra the orthodoxy, this proposal leads to explaining propositional justification in terms of doxastic justification rather than vice versa. In this paper, I argue for the following claims: (i) There are good reasons to think that Turri misidentifies “the orthodox view” and his objection thereby misfires, (ii) Even if we assume that Turri’s identification of the orthodox view is correct, his counter-examples to that view are far from being decisive, and (iii) Turri’s own proposal is not “an alternative” to the orthodox view but can be accommodated by it.

Argumentation, 2002

This book is a collection of Robert Pinto's papers on informal logic over seventeen years, each reprinted unchanged (except for reference style and the correction of typos), together with a new essay. This format is very useful for scholars in the field, who now have a ...