Formal Methods in the Philosophy of Science

In this article, we reflect on the use of formal methods in the philosophy of science. These are taken to comprise not just methods from logic broadly conceived, but also from other formal disciplines such as probability theory, game theory, and graph theory. We explain how formal modelling in the philosophy of science can shed light on difficult problems in this domain.     

Structure and pragmatics in informal argument: circularity and question-begging

Most everyday arguments are informal, as contrasted with the formal arguments of logic and mathematics. Whereas formal argument is well understood, the nature of informal argument is more elusive. A recent study by Rips (2002) provides further evidence regarding the roles of structure and pragmatics in informal argument.     

Adequate formalization

This article identifies problems with regard to providing criteria that regulate the matching of logical formulae and natural language. We then take on to solve these problems by defining a necessary and sufficient criterion of adequate formalization. On the basis of this criterion we argue that logic should not be seen as an ars iudicandi capable of evaluating the validity or invalidity of informal arguments, but as an ars explicandi that renders transparent the formal structure of informal reasoning.     

Why Logic Doesn‘t Matter in the (Philosophical) Study of Argumentation

Philosophically, the study of argumentation is important because it holds out the prospect of an interpretation of rationality. For this we need to identify a transcendent perspective on the argumentative interaction. We need a normative theory of argumentation that provides an answer to the question: should the hearer accept the argument of the speaker. In this article I argue that formal logic implies a notion of transcendence that is not suitable for the study of argumentation, because, from a logical point of view, argumentation disappears from sight. We should therefore not expect formal logic to provide an interesting interpretation of the rationality intrinsic in argument and discussion.     

Johnson and the Soundness Doctrine

Why informal logic? Informal logic is a group of proposals meant to contrast with, replace, and reject formal logic, at least for the analysis and evaluation of everyday arguments. Why reject formal logic? Formal logic is criticized and claimed to be inadequate because of its commitment to the soundness doctrine. In this paper I will examine and try to respond to some of these criticisms. It is not my aim to examine every argument ever given against formal logic; I am limiting myself to those that, as a matter of historical fact, were instrumental in the replacement of formal logic by informal logic and initially established informal logic as a separate discipline (in particular, Toulmin’s attacks on what he calls the “analytic ideal” will not form part of the discussion and were not instrumental in this way, only becoming appreciated later). If the criticism of the soundness doctrine is defective, then the move from formal logic to informal logic was not theoretically well-motivated. It is this motivation that I wish to bring into question, rather than the adequacy or inadequacy of formal or informal logic as such. While I will tend to the view that formal logic is as adequate as it is reasonable to expect, the real issue is whether it is inadequate for the reasons that, as a matter of historical fact, were used to motivate its rejection.     

Eine Auch Sich Selbst Missverstehende Kritik: Über das Reflexionsdefizit Formaler Explikationen

The criticism formulated by L. B. Puntel concerning the theory of dialectic proposed by the author is rejected. Puntel's attempt at explicating predication by means of (second order) predicate logic fails: It misjudges predication being already presupposed for the possibility of predicate logic, thus belonging to the transcendental conditions of formal predicate logic, so that predication itself cannot be further explicated by means of such logic. What is in fact criticized by Puntel is something like an artefact of formalization. The unreflected application of formal logic here generates problems instead of solving them.     

Argument practices

The move to Postmodernism in argumentation is often predicated on the rejection of the formal basis of argument in logic. While this rejection may be justified, and is widely discussed in the literature, the loss of logic creates problems that a Postmodern theory of argument must address without recourse to logic and its attendant modernist assumptions. This essay argues that conceiving of argument in terms ofpractices will address the key problematics of Postmodernism without abandoning those features of argumentation that make it an important social, cultural and political practice. Implications for both theory and pedagogy are discussed.The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable commentary of, and discussions with, John Lyne, Charles Willard, Steven Fuller, and Ed Schiappa.     

The Port-Royal Logic's Theory of Argument

This is a critical examination of Antoine Arnauld's Logic or the Art of Thinking (1662), commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic. Rather than reading this work from the viewpoint of post-Fregean formal logic or the viewpoint of seventeenth-century intellectual history, I approach it with the aim of exploring its relationship to that contemporary field which may be labeled informal logic and/or argumentation theory. It turns out that the Port-Royal Logic is a precursor of this current field, or conversely, that this field may be said to be in the same tradition.     

Overcoming Instructor‐Originated Math Anxiety in Philosophy Students: A Consideration of Proven Techniques for Students Taking Formal Logic

Every university student has his or her nemesis. Biology and social science students anticipate with great apprehension their required statistics course, while many philosophy students live in fear of formal logic. Math anxiety is the common thread uniting all of them. This article argues that since formal logic is an algebra requiring similar kinds of symbol‐manipulation skills needed to succeed in a basic mathematics course, then if logic students have math anxiety, this can impede their progress. Further, it argues that math anxiety is primarily caused by and exacerbated by poor instruction. Formal logic instructors who employ effective instructional techniques for reducing it can help their students overcome math anxiety to foster learning. Methods of instruction leading to anxiety reduction and evidence supporting their efficacy are discussed, including co‐operative learning, the mastery goal approach, and self‐paced learning. None of these methods holds back more advanced students.     

非形式逻辑与演绎主义

非形式逻辑出现于上个世纪70年代,它首先是一种寻求更好的大学逻辑教学方式的努力。进而,非形式逻辑学者们逐渐开始触及和探讨越来越多的理论议题,即发展不依赖于形式逻辑的关于论证以及好论证的理解方式。在1998年世界哲学大会上,布莱尔和我阐释了非形式逻辑为哲学所带来的理论后果,其中一点我们称之为“演绎主义的终结”。那时我们并未给出演绎主义的定义,而只是把它等同于麦金泰尔的那个精炼的说法：“任何推理,不是演绎的,就是有缺陷的。”但现在看来,我们在当时就作出“演绎主义的终结”这一论断,显然是有点为时过早了。因为演绎主义似乎至今都还很有生命力,甚至在那些倾向于非形式逻辑的学者那里它也能得到支持：恩尼斯长期以来都辩护演绎主义是一种论证重构策略,格罗尔克更是致力于辩护它是一种论证评价理论。在本文中我将论证,非形式逻辑最好被理解为一种不诉诸于演绎技巧和演绎规范的逻辑研究。当我们意识到演绎和演绎主义已经如何深深地扎根于我们的哲学发展史中,并且牢牢地控制了我们关于逻辑研究的理解,我们就能明白非形式逻辑这一理论努力是多么的困难和重要。我将首先澄清“演绎主义”的意思,然后再分别考察那些赞成和反对演绎主义的论证,最后,我将表明非形式逻辑是从演绎主义中挽救逻辑的理论尝试。     

Six types of fallaciousness: Toward a realistic theory of logical criticism

I begin by formulating the problem of the nature of fallacy in terms of the logic of the negative evaluation of argument, that is, in terms of a theory of logical criticism; here I discuss several features of my approach and several advantages vis-à-vis other approaches; a main feature of my approach is the concern to avoid both formalist and empiricist excesses. I then define six types of fallaciousness, labeled formal, explanatory, presuppositional, positive, semantical, and persuasive; they all involve arguments whose conclusion may be said not to follow from the premises, that is, they involve the logical evaluation of relationships among propositions. I also provide a set of data consisting of four historical cases or nine specific instances of fallacious arguments; these all pertain to the Copernican controversy about the earth's motion in the seventeenth century. I end with a discussion of further problems and inquiries that deserve attention.     

Relevant identity

We begin to fill a lacuna in the relevance logic enterprise by providing a foundational analysis of identity in relevance logic. We consider rival interpretations of identity in this context, settling on the relevant indiscernibility interpretation, an interpretation related to Dunn's relevant predication project. We propose a general test for the stability of an axiomatisation of identity, relative to this interpretation, and we put various axiomatisations to this test. We fill our discussion out with both formal and philosophical remarks on identity in relevance logic.     

Formality of logic and Frege’s Begriffsschrift

This paper challenges a standard interpretation according to which Frege’s conception of logic (early and late) is at odds with the contemporary one, because on the latter’s view logic is formal, while on Frege’s view it is not, given that logic’s subject matter is reality’s most general features. I argue that Frege – in Begriffsschrift – retained the idea that logic is formal; Frege sees logic as providing the ‘logical cement’ that ties up together the contentful concepts of specific sciences, not the most general truths. Finally, I discuss how Frege conceives of the application of Begriffsschrift, and of its status as a ‘lingua characteristica’.     

Explication Defended

How can formal methods be applied to philosophical problems that involve informal concepts of ordinary language? Carnap answered this question by describing a methodology that he called “explication." Strawson objected that explication changes the subject and does not address the original philosophical problem; this paper shows that Carnap’s response to that objection was inadequate and offers a better response. More recent criticisms of explication by Boniolo and Eagle are shown to rest on misunderstandings of the nature of explication. It is concluded that explication is an appropriate methodology for formal philosophy.     

论证的形式模型概述及其在哲学上的应用

论证是一个用理由支持观点以及回应其所受攻击的过程。在过去的几十年里,论证已经成为哲学和人工智能研究领域中的一个重要主题。在哲学方面,十九世纪50年代和60年代图尔敏和佩雷尔曼对形式逻辑的批判,促进了非形式逻辑这一学科的产生,它研究推理和论证的非形式模型。在人工智能方面,论证的形式模型也发展成为常识推理和多主体冲突解决的基本模型。本文将讨论后一领域中所研究发展的形式模型如何能够用以澄清一些哲学领域、以及非形式逻辑领域中的理论问题和争议。本文的一个重要观点是,图尔敏和佩雷尔曼时代的形式逻辑只关注数学化的推理,但那些非数学化的推理形式其实同样也能够被形式化。     

Many Concepts and Two Logics of Algorithmic Reduction

Within the program of finding axiomatizations for various parts of computability logic, it was proven earlier that the logic of interactive Turing reduction is exactly the implicative fragment of Heyting’s intuitionistic calculus. That sort of reduction permits unlimited reusage of the computational resource represented by the antecedent. An at least equally basic and natural sort of algorithmic reduction, however, is the one that does not allow such reusage. The present article shows that turning the logic of the first sort of reduction into the logic of the second sort of reduction takes nothing more than just deleting the contraction rule from its Gentzen-style axiomatization. The first (Turing) sort of interactive reduction is also shown to come in three natural versions. While those three versions are very different from each other, their logical behaviors (in isolation) turn out to be indistinguishable, with that common behavior being precisely captured by implicative intuitionistic logic. Among the other contributions of the present article is an informal introduction of a series of new — finite and bounded — versions of recurrence operations and the associated reduction operations. Presented by Robert Goldblatt     

The role of informal social support in needs assessment: proposal and application of a model to assess immigrants' needs in the south of Spain

Needs assessment models have been generally focused on the identification and prioritization of needs, analysing formal resources available in the community as possible solutions for existing problems. These kinds of models have assumed that formal services are the primary source of support for individuals in need. However, a great deal of the investigations in the field of Social Psychology have shown that the main source of help and support when facing a problem is not formal organizations, but people's own informal networks. In this article, we therefore propose a needs assessment model that emphasizes the importance of analysing both formal and informal social resources. The application of this model to assess Moroccan immigrants' needs in the south of Spain shows the anticipated low level of utilization of formal services and programmes, one that contrasts with the high use of informal networks as an essential source of social support for this group of immigrants. These results reveal the limitations of traditional needs assessment models, and the importance of incorporating the analysis of informal social support as a key resource for need satisfaction, particularly in the case of immigrant populations. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Applied Logic without Psychologism

Logic is a celebrated representation language because of its formal generality. But there are two senses in which a logic may be considered general, one that concerns a technical ability to discriminate between different types of individuals, and another that concerns constitutive norms for reasoning as such. This essay embraces the former, permutation-invariance conception of logic and rejects the latter, Fregean conception of logic. The question of how to apply logic under this pure invariantist view is addressed, and a methodology is given. The pure invariantist view is contrasted with logical pluralism, and a methodology for applied logic is demonstrated in remarks on a variety of issues concerning non-monotonic logic and non-monotonic inference, including Charles Morgan’s impossibility results for non-monotonic logic, David Makinson’s normative constraints for non-monotonic inference, and Igor Douven and Timothy Williamson’s proposed formal constraints on rational acceptance.     

The logic of the medical research article

As do all forms of science, medical theories have a factual as well as a logical basis. New information is presented in medical research articles. These papers have three separate arguments: the argument of the hypothesis, the argument of the experimental protocol, and the argument of the hypothesis's judgment. These arguments may be examples of the hypothetico-deductive or confirmational model of scientific inference. The logical form of these arguments are informal and inductive rather than formal and deductive. Understanding the nature of the logic of the medical research article may help avoid erroneous conclusions.