Sàágua和鲍姆特罗格的实践理性

Q2 Arts and Humanities

Cogency Pub Date : 2022-01-26 DOI:10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376

David Botting

{"title":"Sàágua和鲍姆特罗格的实践理性","authors":"David Botting","doi":"10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In “Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model” (2018, pp.193-230) Sàágua and Baumtrog offer what they call “a new ideal model of integrated practical reasoning and argumentation.” I will argue that their only really original contribution is a reconceptualization of argumentation schemes as producing pro tanto reasons, and such a reconceptualization is both wrong-headed in itself and makes their model less integrated than other models, not more. In fact, their work is itself an example of bad practical reasoning.","PeriodicalId":37515,"journal":{"name":"Cogency","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sàágua and Baumtrog on practical rationality\",\"authors\":\"David Botting\",\"doi\":\"10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In “Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model” (2018, pp.193-230) Sàágua and Baumtrog offer what they call “a new ideal model of integrated practical reasoning and argumentation.” I will argue that their only really original contribution is a reconceptualization of argumentation schemes as producing pro tanto reasons, and such a reconceptualization is both wrong-headed in itself and makes their model less integrated than other models, not more. In fact, their work is itself an example of bad practical reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogency\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在《工作中的实践理性——一种新的论证模式》(2018年，第193-230页)Sàágua中，鲍姆特罗格提出了他们所谓的“综合实践推理和论证的新理想模式”。我认为他们唯一真正的原创贡献是对论证方案的重新概念化，以产生赞成的理由，这种重新概念化本身就是错误的，并且使他们的模型比其他模型更不完整，而不是更多。事实上，他们的工作本身就是一个糟糕的实践推理的例子。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Sàágua and Baumtrog on practical rationality

In “Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model” (2018, pp.193-230) Sàágua and Baumtrog offer what they call “a new ideal model of integrated practical reasoning and argumentation.” I will argue that their only really original contribution is a reconceptualization of argumentation schemes as producing pro tanto reasons, and such a reconceptualization is both wrong-headed in itself and makes their model less integrated than other models, not more. In fact, their work is itself an example of bad practical reasoning.

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

Cogency Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

0.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Cogency is an international journal devoted to research and scholarship in reasoning and argumentation. The journal seeks to be a source of reference which elucidates our understanding of these fields of study with a particular interest in their educational dimension. It aims to contribute to education by advancing our theoretical and practical understanding of reasoning and argumentation. Authors are encourage to use and integrate perspectives originating in psychology, philosophy, linguistics, formal and informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, amongst others disciplines and angles. Cogency publishes articles and book reviews.