排序方式: 共有22条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
Wilfrid Hodges 《Journal of Philosophical Logic》2009,38(6):589-606
In a recent paper Johan van Benthem reviews earlier work done by himself and colleagues on ‘natural logic’. His paper makes
a number of challenging comments on the relationships between traditional logic, modern logic and natural logic. I respond
to his challenge, by drawing what I think are the most significant lines dividing traditional logic from modern. The leading
difference is in the way logic is expected to be used for checking arguments. For traditionals the checking is local, i.e.
separately for each inference step. Between inference steps, several kinds of paraphrasing are allowed. Today we formalise
globally: we choose a symbolisation that works for the entire argument, and thus we eliminate intuitive steps and changes
of viewpoint during the argument. Frege and Peano recast the logical rules so as to make this possible. I comment also on
the traditional assumption that logical processing takes place at the top syntactic level, and I question Johan’s view that
natural logic is ‘natural’. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
Wilfrid Hodges 《Argumentation》2014,28(3):371-377
This note comments on the paper ‘Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies’ by Kacprzak and Yaskorska (this issue). Points discussed include the use of the notions of ‘claiming’, ‘conceding’ and ‘commitment’, and the role of Lorenzen dialogues as a device for checking whether a proposition is a tautology. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
10.