Швидкий технологічний прогрес спричинив зрушення інтересів науковців з усього світу в бік когнітивної науки та інформатики, що, безперечно, вплинуло на формування нового типу мислення. Логіка, як наука про специфічний логічний тип людського мислення, не може залишитися осторонь. У статі проаналізовано методологічні засади когнітивістики та дуальність самої науки логіки, які відкривають перспективи їх співпраці. Для цього автор робить історико-методологічний розгляд обох дисциплін. Доводиться, що, з одного боку, формальна логіка багато вкладає в розвиток штучних формалізованих мов, які активно застосовуються для програмування Штучного (...) Інтелекту, а з іншого – неформальна логіка, як і когнітивістика, займається вивченням природньої мови, що дає їй можливість наблизитися до реального людського мислення. Показано, в який спосіб логіка, застосувавши для вивчення реального процесу мислення людей методологічну базу когнітивістики, може розширити межі своїх досліджень з теоретичного поля до практично-експериментального. (shrink)

This paper examines the contemporary philosophical and cognitive relevance of Charles Peirce's diagrammatic logic of existential graphs (EGs), the ‘moving pictures of thought’. The first part brings to the fore some hitherto unknown details about the reception of EGs in the early 1900s that took place amidst the emergence of modern conceptions of symbolic logic. In the second part, philosophical aspects of EGs and their contributions to contemporary logical theory are pointed out, including the relationship between iconic logic and images, (...) the problem of the meaning of logical constants, the cognitive economy of iconic logic, the failure of the Frege–Russell thesis, and the failure of the Language of Thought hypothesis. (shrink)

In the nineteenth century, the separation of naturalist or psychological accounts of validity from normative validity came into question. In his 1877 Logical Studies (Logische Studien), Friedrich Albert Lange argues that the basis for necessary inference is demonstration, which takes place by spatially delimiting the extension of concepts using imagined or physical diagrams. These diagrams are signs or indications of concepts' extension, but do not represent their content. Only the inference as a whole captures the objective content of the proof. (...) Thus, Lange argues, the necessity of an inference is independent of psychological accounts of how we grasp the content of a proposition. (shrink)

This is a review of A. Skodo (ed.) "Other Logics: Alternatives to Formal Logic in the History of Thought and Contemporary Philosophy".

The aim of this paper is to examine the role of methodology in action research. It begins by showing how action research is nothing other than a modern 20th century manifestation of the pre-modern tradition of practical philosophy. It then gives an explanation of Aristotelian Tradition and draws on Gadamer's powerful vindication in order to show how action research functions to sustain a distorted understanding of what practice is. The paper concludes by outlining a non-methodological view of action research whose (...) chief task is to promote the kind of historical self-consciousness that the development of practice presupposes and requires. (shrink)

The pluralist sheds the more traditional ideas of truth and ontology. This is dangerous, because it threatens instability of the theory. To lend stability to his philosophy, the pluralist trades truth and ontology for rigour and other ‘fixtures’. Fixtures are the steady goal posts. They are the parts of a theory that stay fixed across a pair of theories, and allow us to make translations and comparisons. They can ultimately be moved, but we tend to keep them fixed temporarily. Apart (...) from considering rigour of proof as a fixture, I discuss fixed models, invariant notions and fixed information about objects across theories. There are other fixtures, but it is enough to start with these. (shrink)

The Linda paradox is a key topic in current debates on the rationality of human reasoning and its limitations. We present a novel analysis of this paradox, based on the notion of verisimilitude as studied in the philosophy of science. The comparison with an alternative analysis based on probabilistic confirmation suggests how to overcome some problems of our account by introducing an adequately defined notion of verisimilitudinarian confirmation.