Logical theory codifies rules of correct inferences. On the other hand, logical reasoning is typically considered as one of the most fundamental cognitive activities. Thus, cognitive science is a natural meeting-point for investigations about the place of logic in human cognition. Investigations in this perspective strongly depend on a possible understanding of logic. This paper focuses on logic in the strict sense; that is, the theory of deductive inferences. Two problems are taken into account, namely: do humans apply logical rules (...) in ordinary reasoning?; the genesis of logic. The second issue is analyzed from the naturalistic point of view. (shrink)

The subject of the paper is a contemporary interpretation of J.S. Mill’s elimination method using selected concepts of Zdzisław Pawlak’s decision logic. The aim of the interpretation is to reformulate the original rules of Mill’s induction so that they correspond more precisely to his concept of cause as a complex sufficient condition. In the first part of the paper, we turn to Mill’s writings and justify the thesis that in his understanding the cause is an aggregation of circumstances, and not (...) a single circumstance; next, we point out that Mill’s original canons do not allow causes-aggregations to be singled out from empirical data. In the second part of this paper, we present such aspects of Z. Pawlak’s decision logic that serve as the basis for the formalisation of the method of eliminative induction. We describe exhaustively the schema of induction that involves a gradual - divided into three stages - simplification of a set of implications corresponding to the observed dependencies [system of potential causes, effect]. The simplification is deductive because it maintains consistency within the set of implications. We show that such schema is ideal for isolating complex causes, ultimately described using complex conditional formulas of decision logic. (shrink)

The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...) does not aim at exhaustive elaboration of any of these topics or their usefulness in current discussions within argumentation theory. Rather, we intend to indicate chosen directions of a potentially fruitful research program for the emerging Polish School of Argumentation which would consist in application of methods and conceptions elaborated by the LWS to selected open problems of contemporary research on argumentation. (shrink)

We assume that the imperative reasoning is a reasoning containing at least one step which is an imperative (or rather its content). At the same time, we understand the term "imperative" as a synonym of "imperative sentence". We assume that in its main usage, imperatives express a certain volitional act: namely, a will of realizing a certain state of affairs. In our opinion, such characterization is related to the contents of imperatives; we call these contents "prescriptions", remembering that in untypical (...) usages prescriptions are not expressed by imperatives. Traditional approach to the processes of reasoning takes into account only these mental processes steps of which are declaratives or declarative sentences (or rather their contents – i.e. judgments). If processes of imperative reasoning are to belong to the range of the term "reasoning", the notion of reasoning has to receive a new, enlarging explication. We propose such an explication in the paper. (shrink)