|
Twelve
essays by leading informal logicians including James B. Freeman, John Woods,
David Hitchcock, Derek Allen, Jonathan Adler, Michael Wreen. The main focus
is argument assessment with some attention to epistemological questions.
The relation of informal logic to logic is explored in papers
contending that arguments can be invalidated (pace Massey) as well as
validated formally, that both involve informal argumentation, and that
informal logic is necessary for argument appraisal.
Several papers focus on questions of argument evaluation.
Conclusive validity is contrasted with non-conclusive with an examination of
criteria for the latter. How to distinguish what is relevant to an argument
is explored in two papers, one focusing on contextual relevance, the other
criticizing several views and recommending a pragmatic approach.
Other essays explore the appropriateness of applying the standard
criterion of inferential soundness to arguments claiming less of a
connection between premises and conclusion, the question whether a fallacy
is a kind of argument, and the importance of epistemological considerations
for informal logic.
$24.95 paper · ISBN 09698755-09 · 164 pages · 1994
|
