Burdens of Proposing

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2022-03-16 DOI:10.22329/il.v42i1.7225

D. Godden, Simon Wells

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper considers the probative burdens of proposing action or policy options in deliberation dialogues. Do proposers bear a burden of proof? Building on pioneering work by Douglas Walton (2010), and following on a growing literature within computer science, the prevailing answer seems to be “No.” Instead, only recommenders—agents who put forward an option as the one to be taken—bear a burden of proof. Against this view, we contend that proposers have burdens of proof with respect to their proposals. Specifically, we argue that, while recommenders that Φ bear a burden of proof to show that □Φ (We should / ought to / must Φ), proposers that Φ have a burden of proof to show that ◇Φ (We may / can Φ). A burden of proposing may be defined as , which reads: Those who propose that we might Φ are obliged, if called upon, to show that Φ is possible in any of four ways which we call worldly, deontic, instrumental, and practical. So understood, burdens of proposing satisfy the standard formal definition of burden of proof.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求婚的负担

本文考虑了在审议对话中提出行动或政策选择的举证责任。提议者有举证责任吗?基于道格拉斯•沃尔顿(Douglas Walton, 2010)的开创性工作，以及计算机科学领域越来越多的文献，普遍的答案似乎是“不”。相反，只有推荐人——提出一个选择的代理人——才承担举证责任。与这一观点相反，我们认为提议者对其提议负有举证责任。具体来说，我们认为，推荐人认为Φ有举证责任表明□Φ(我们应该/应该/必须Φ)，而提案人认为Φ有举证责任表明◇Φ(我们可能/可以Φ)。提议的负担可以这样定义:那些提议我们可能Φ的人，如果被要求，有义务证明Φ在四种方式中的任何一种都是可能的，我们称之为世俗的、道义的、工具的和实际的。由此理解，举证责任符合举证责任的标准形式定义。

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.