Texts
- The Problem of Learning
- Problemistics Courseware
- Corso su Problemistica
- Resources Management
- Manuale/Intellettuale
- Campagna/Città
Problemistics - Problémistique - Problemistica
The Art & Craft of Problem Dealing
Argument
Definition (Wesley C. Salmon)
Definition (Irving M. Copi)
Definition (Vincent E. Barry and Douglas J. Soccio)
Definition (Philip B. Bell and Philip J. Staines)
Components (Wesley C. Salmon)
Components (Philip B. Bell and Philip J. Staines)
Characteristics (Philip B. Bell and Philip J. Staines)
Inference (Irving M. Copi)
Inference (R. L. Ackoff and F. E. Emery)
Components of inference (R. L. Ackoff and F. E. Emery)
Induction - deduction (J. Bronowski)
Premises and evidence (Wesley C. Salmon)
Evaluation (Wesley C. Salmon)
Justification (Wesley C. Salmon)
[1973] Wesley C. Salmon, Logic, Second Edition
“An argument consists of more than just a statement; it consists of a conclusion along with supporting evidence.” (Chapter 1, p. 2)
“Roughly speaking, an argument is a conclusion standing in relation to its supporting evidence. More precisely, an argument is a group of statements standing in relation to each other.” (Chapter 1, p. 3)
[1982, Sixth edition] Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic,
“An argument, in the logician’s sense, is any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.” (Chapter 1, p. 6)
“An argument is not a mere collection of propositions but has a structure. In describing this structure, the terms ‘premiss’ and ‘conclusion’ are usually employed. The conclusion of an argument is that proposition which is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of the argument, and these other propositions, which are affirmed as providing support or reasons for accepting the conclusions, are the premisses of that argument.” (Chapter 1, pp. 6-7)
[1988, Third Edition] Vincent E. Barry and Douglas J. Soccio, Practical Logic, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
“An argument is any group of propositions one of which is said to follow logically from the others.”
(Chapter 1, pp. 4-5)
[1981, First published 1979] Philip B. Bell and Philip J. Staines, Reasoning and Argument in Psychology
“An argument can be defined as that totality consisting of a number of statements advanced jointly in support of another statement. More generally, it is a connected series of statements, each of which is either advanced in support of one or more of the others or is presented as supported by one or more of the others, or both.”
“... an argument does more than merely tell us that something is the case - it provides reasons in support of one or more statements. It follows that an argument must involve at least two statements.” (Chapter 2, p. 22)
[1973] Wesley C. Salmon, Logic, Second Edition
“An argument consists of one statement which is the conclusion and one or more statements of supporting evidence. The statements of evidence are called ‘premises’. There is no set number of premises which every argument must have, but there must be at least one.” (Chapter 1, p. 3)
[1981, First published 1979] Philip B. Bell and Philip J. Staines, Reasoning and Argument in Psychology
“Every argument must contain both a conclusion and at least one premiss. The premisses of an argument are those statements which are advanced to support others, and the conclusions are those statements which are intended to be supported.” (Chapter 2, p. 23)
[1981, First published 1979] Philip B. Bell and Philip J. Staines, Reasoning and Argument in Psychology
“Whereas the key feature of statements is their truth (or falsity), the key feature of arguments is their validity (or invalidity).” (Chapter 2, p. 30)
[1982, Sixth edition] Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic
“Inference is a process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of one or more other propositions accepted as the starting point of the process.”
(Chapter 1, p. 5)
[1972] R. L. Ackoff and F. E. Emery, On Purposeful Systems
- “Inference: the production of one or more beliefs or assumptions by one or more other beliefs or assumptions.”
- “Thought is conscious inference.” “Thought proves.”
- “Intuition is unconscious inference.” “Intuition ... proposes.”
“The inferential process may be either deductive or inductive. In a deductive process the premises are believed by the subject to be more general than the consequences derived from them. In an inductive process the premises are believed to be less general than the consequences.” (Chapter II, pp. 113-114)
[1972] R. L. Ackoff and F. E. Emery, On Purposeful Systems
“... the first part of a formalized inferential system is a set of elements the subject believes are relevant.”
“The second part ... is a set of beliefs concerning the form in which relevant beliefs can be represented ... These beliefs constitute a set of belief-formation rules or representations of these.”
“Next, there is a set of beliefs and assumptions that the subject is willing initially to accept as true. These ... constitute the premises of the system. In a deductive system these premises may be axioms or postulated; in an inductive system they may be a set of accepted facts or observations.”
“Finally, there is a set of beliefs concerning how acceptable beliefs (other than those contained in the premises) may be derived from accepted ones. These beliefs can be called transformation rules.”
(Chapter II, p. 113)
[1968, First published 1951] J. Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science
“For two hundred years now, philosophers have distinguished between reasoning by pure deductive processes, such as is found in Euclid, and inductive reasoning which extends the experience of the past into the future. But this distinction is much overrated. All that can be said about deduction is that we can state its processes, and give rules for deciding what is acceptable, in a precise form. But the sanctions for believing that its conclusions will be true tomorrow because they were true yesterday are no different from those which apply to any other theory which claim to reach into the future. If a triangle has three equal sides, then its three angles will be equal, we say." "...we have deduced that they are so by steps of logic which have always yielded sound results. If we say that the three angles will be equal, then we claim that these steps will continue to be allowable and will yield true results in the future. And this claim is typically an induction from the past to the future.” (p. 115)
"... as soon as deduction is used in a science which takes account of the passing of time, it has no higher status than has induction." (p. 122)
[1973, Second Edition] Wesley C. Salmon, Logic
“Presenting evidence in premises involves two aspects. First the premises are statements of facts. Second these facts are offered as evidence for the conclusion. There are, consequently, two ways in which the premises may fail to present evidence for the conclusion. First, one or more of the premises may be false. In this case, the alleged facts are not facts at all; the alleged evidence does not exist. Secondly, even if the premises are all true, - that is even if the premises do accurately state the facts - they may not have an appropriate relation to the conclusion. In this case, the facts are as stated in the premises, but the facts are not evidence for the conclusion. In order for facts to be evidence for a conclusion they must be properly relevant to that conclusion.”
(Chapter 1, p. 3)
[1973, Second Edition ] Wesley C. Salmon, Logic
“We cannot evaluate an argument unless the evidence, which is an indispensable part of the argument, is given.” (Chapter 1, p. 2)
[1973, Second Edition] Wesley C. Salmon, Logic
“If an argument is offered as a justification of its conclusion, two questions arise. First, are the premises true? Second, are the premises properly related to the conclusion? If either question has a negative answer, the justification is unsatisfactory.” “In logic we are concerned with the second question only."
"Logic deals with the relation between premises and conclusion, not with the truth of the premises."
“The logical correctness or incorrectness of an argument depends solely upon the relation between premises and conclusion.”
“Logically incorrect argument is called ‘fallacious’.” (Chapter 1, p. 4)
“Questions of justification are questions about the acceptability of statements. Since a justification of a statement is an argument, justification involves two aspects: the truth of the premises and the logical correctness of the argument.” (Chapter 1, pp. 10-11)