Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Conference

2011

Argumentation schemes

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Implicatures And Hierarchies Of Presumptions, Fabrizio Macagno, Frank Zenker May 2011

Implicatures And Hierarchies Of Presumptions, Fabrizio Macagno, Frank Zenker

OSSA Conference Archive

Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the para-digm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best explanation can be established on the grounds of hierarchies of presumptions, dependent on dialogue types and interlocutors’ culture.


Modeling Critical Questions As Additional Premises, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon, Scott F. Aikin May 2011

Modeling Critical Questions As Additional Premises, Douglas Walton, Thomas F. Gordon, Scott F. Aikin

OSSA Conference Archive

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 questioned. With exceptions the negation holds, by default, until the exception has been supported by sufficient arguments. By “sufficient arguments”, we mean arguments sufficient to satisfy the applicable proof standard.