Works by McKeon, Matthew W. (exact spelling)

4 found
Order:
  1.  75
    On the Rationale for Distinguishing Arguments From Explanations.Matthew W. McKeon - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):283-303.
    Even with the lack of consensus on the nature of an argument, the thesis that explanations and arguments are distinct is near orthodoxy in well-known critical thinking texts and in the more advanced argumentation literature. In this paper, I reconstruct two rationales for distinguishing arguments from explanations. According to one, arguments and explanations are essentially different things because they have different structures. According to the other, while some explanations and arguments may have the same structure, they are different things because (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  2. The Concept of Logical Consequence: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic.Matthew W. McKeon - 2010 - Peter Lang.
    Introduction -- The concept of logical consequence -- Tarski's characterization of the common concept of logical consequence -- The logical consequence relation has a modal element -- The logical consequence relation is formal -- The logical consequence relation is A priori -- Logical and non-logical terminology -- The meanings of logical terms explained in terms of their semantic properties -- The meanings of logical terms explained in terms of their inferential properties -- Model-theoretic and deductive-theoretic conceptions of logic -- Linguistic (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3. What Does Formal Logic Have to Do with Arguments?Matthew W. McKeon - forthcoming - Metaphilosophy.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  3
    Arguments and Reason-Giving.Matthew W. McKeon - 2022 - Argumentation 36 (2):229-247.
    Arguments figure prominently in our practices of reason-giving. For example, we use them to advance reasons for their conclusions in order to justify believing something, to explain why we believe something, and to persuade others to believe something. Intuitively, using arguments in these ways requires a certain degree of self-reflection. In this paper, I ask: what cognitive requirements are there for using an argument to advance reasons for its conclusion? Towards a partial response, the paper’s central thesis is that in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark