On the Kisceral Mode of Argumentation

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2022-09-07 DOI:10.22329/il.v42i3.7501

C. Tindale

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Of the different modes that characterize Michael Gilbert’s multi-modal theory of argumentation, the kisceral is in many ways the most challenging to understand and employ. It appears to bypass the processes of reason that have dominated accounts in the Western tradition, diverting us toward the private worlds of hunches and gut reactions. This paper explores the nature of kisceral arguments, comparing them to the way intuition operates in William James’ examination of mystical experience. Having provided an account of kisceral arguments and their operation, the discussion turns to the even more challenging issue of how such arguments should be evaluated.

查看原文本刊更多论文

论基本论证方式

在迈克尔·吉尔伯特的多模态论证理论的不同模式中，接吻在许多方面是最难以理解和运用的。它似乎绕过了在西方传统中占据主导地位的理性过程，将我们引向直觉和直觉反应的私人世界。本文探讨了直觉论证的本质，并将其与威廉·詹姆斯对神秘经验的研究中直觉的运作方式进行了比较。在介绍了基本参数及其操作之后，讨论转向更具有挑战性的问题，即如何对这些参数进行评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.