The Rule of Similarity as Intercultural Basis of Defeasible Argumentation

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the deconstruction of defeasible argument schemes. It will be claimed that one of the central elements of all defeasible argument schemes is the rule of similarity which demands that one must ascribe similar propositions to essentially similar entities in order to be treated as reasonable. This rule is presented as interculturally valid and of such central importance that it could even been used as a defining quality of defeasible argumentation.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,853

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (1):34-61.
Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics.Henry Prakken - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
Story Similarity in Arguments from Analogy.Douglas Walton - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (2):190-221.
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Disjunctions and specificity in suppositional defeasible argumentation.G. Bodanza - 2002 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 10 (1):23-49.
Evidential Modals at the Semantic-Argumentative Interface: Appearance Verbs as Indicators of Defeasible Argumentation.Elena Musi - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (4):417-442.
Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning.Robert L. Causey - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
Modelling inference in argumentation through labelled deduction: Formalization and logical properties. [REVIEW]Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari - 2007 - Logica Universalis 1 (1):93-124.
Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
Monotonicity and Reasoning with Exceptions.Frank Zenker - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (2):227-236.
Faulty Reasoning About Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2004 - Faith and Philosophy 21 (2):242-249.
Abstract argumentation.Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Self-defeating arguments.John L. Pollock - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
18 (#832,589)

6 months
5 (#639,314)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Argumentation schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.

View all 14 references / Add more references