什么时候论证是演绎的?

Q1 Arts and Humanities
H. Prakken
{"title":"什么时候论证是演绎的?","authors":"H. Prakken","doi":"10.1080/11663081.2023.2246862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses and compares various answers to the question when argumentation is deductive. This includes an answer to the questions when argumentation is defeasible and whether defeasible argumentation is a subclass of deductive argumentation or whether it is a distinct form of argumentation. It is concluded that deductive and defeasible argumentation as conceived by Philosophers like Pollock and Rescher and as formalised in the ASPIC framework and systems like Defeasible Logic Programming, are semantically different categories. For this reason, purely syntactic base logic approaches to formal argumentation are unsuitable for characterising this distinction.","PeriodicalId":38573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","volume":"243 1","pages":"212 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When is argumentation deductive?\",\"authors\":\"H. Prakken\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11663081.2023.2246862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses and compares various answers to the question when argumentation is deductive. This includes an answer to the questions when argumentation is defeasible and whether defeasible argumentation is a subclass of deductive argumentation or whether it is a distinct form of argumentation. It is concluded that deductive and defeasible argumentation as conceived by Philosophers like Pollock and Rescher and as formalised in the ASPIC framework and systems like Defeasible Logic Programming, are semantically different categories. For this reason, purely syntactic base logic approaches to formal argumentation are unsuitable for characterising this distinction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics\",\"volume\":\"243 1\",\"pages\":\"212 - 223\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2023.2246862\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2023.2246862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论并比较了在演绎论证中对这一问题的不同回答。这包括对以下问题的回答:什么时候论证是可否定的,以及可否定的论证是否是演绎论证的一个子类,还是它是一种独特的论证形式。结论是,演绎论证和可否定论证是语义上不同的范畴,它们由哲学家如波洛克和雷彻所构想,并在ASPIC框架和系统如可否定逻辑编程中被形式化。由于这个原因,纯语法基础逻辑方法的形式论证是不适合表征这种区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When is argumentation deductive?
This paper discusses and compares various answers to the question when argumentation is deductive. This includes an answer to the questions when argumentation is defeasible and whether defeasible argumentation is a subclass of deductive argumentation or whether it is a distinct form of argumentation. It is concluded that deductive and defeasible argumentation as conceived by Philosophers like Pollock and Rescher and as formalised in the ASPIC framework and systems like Defeasible Logic Programming, are semantically different categories. For this reason, purely syntactic base logic approaches to formal argumentation are unsuitable for characterising this distinction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics
Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信