The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory

Criticisms of fallacy theory have been lodged from many different directions. In this paper, I consider the classic criticism of incompleteness by DeMorgan, Finocchiaro's claim that fallacies probably exist only in the mind of the interpreter, McPeck's claim that fallacies are at best context-dependent and Paul's complaints about the teaching of fallacies. I seek not merely to defend fallacy theory against unfair criticisms but also to learn from the criticisms what can be done in order to make fallacy theory a viable theory of criticism. I argue that this will involve several changes: rethinking of the nature of fallacy; addressing some theoretical issues; and presenting fallacy theory in a more rigorous fashion. The paper concludes with reflections on how Quine's ontological advice about the resolution of ontological disputes might be applied to the issue of whether or not there are fallacies.     

The ad Hominem argument as an informal fallacy

This article outlines criteria for the evaluation of the argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person, or personal attack in argument) that is traditionally a part of the curriculum in informal logic. The argument is shown to be a kind of criticism which works by shifting the burden of proof in dialogue through citing a pragmatic inconsistency in an arguer's position. Several specific cases of ad hominem argumentation which pose interesting problems in analyzing this type of criticism are studied.     

Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective

Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed problem-valid and that strong pragmatic and utilitarian arguments can be given for its intersubjective validity. Thus, conventional validity is promoted for a code of conduct for discussants who want to resolve their disputes reasonably by way of a critical discussion.     

Empiricism,judgment, and argument; Toward an informal logic of science

In an attempt to explore the role of argumentation in scientific inquiry, I explore the conception of argument that appears fruitful in the light of the recent trends in the philosophy of science, away from logical empiricism, and toward a greater emphasis on change, disagreement, and history. I begin by contrasting typical instances philosopers theories of both empiricism and apriorism, with typical instances of scientists uses of these two attitudes, suggesting that such practice shows a judiciousness lacking in epistemological theory. Then I examine at some length three important version of scientific judgement, namely Einstein's opportunism, Boltzmann's pluralism, and Huygens's eclecticism. I go on to discuss some recent work in the philosophy of science, exploring connections between the notion of judgment and Feyerabend's anarchism, Harold Brown's view of rationality, and Dudley Shapere's analysis of scientific change. All of this suggests a notion of argument in the sense of informallogic, and I examine some aspects of Galileo's work in its terms.     

Woods on Ideals of Rationality in Dialogue

Woods' paper Ideals of Rationality in Dialogue raises six problems for dialogue theory. Woods is right about the seriousness of the problems, but one school of dialogue, that stemming from the work of Charles Hamblin, avoids each of Woods' problems by using commitment instead of belief and by using only immediate logical relations. This paper summarises the reasons Hamblin's school took this course, and explains how Woods' problems are thereby avoided.     

Modes of understanding and mindfulness in clinical medicine

Beginning with a case vignette, this paper uses a semiotic approach to analyze several different kinds of understanding used in clinical medicine. By outlining semiotic structures, four distinct modes of understanding can be defined: (1) the representational mode, corresponding to scientific medicine; (2) the pragmatic mode, constituting the basic standpoint of medicine; (3) the hermeneutic mode, underlying the empathic, humanistic spirit of medicine; and (4) the ontologic mode, associated with both the ethical and ritual aspects of medicine. Clarifying the relationship between these modes avoids common confusions in clinical situations. Although experienced clinicians intuitively use these different modes, they do not necessarily reflect upon them. They are instead mindful of them, and this unique multi-modal consciousness, I suggest, provides a model for integrating theory and practice.This work was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program.     

Characterizations of Negative Definability in Modal Logic

Negative definability ([18]) is an alternative way of defining classes of Kripke frames via a modal language, one that enables us, for instance, to define the class of irreflexive frames. Besides a list of closure conditions for negatively definable classes, the paper contains two main theorems. First, a characterization is given of negatively definable classes of (rooted) finite transitive Kripke frames and of such classes defined using both traditional (positive) and negative definitions. Second, we characterize the negatively definable classes of rooted general frames.     

Curry-Howard Terms for Linear Logic

In this paper we 1. provide a natural deduction system for full first-order linear logic, 2. introduce Curry-Howard-style terms for this version of linear logic, 3. extend the notion of substitution of Curry-Howard terms for term variables, 4. define the reduction rules for the Curry-Howard terms and 5. outline a proof of the strong normalization for the full system of linear logic using a development of Girard's candidates for reducibility, thereby providing an alternative to Girard's proof using proof-nets.     

Axiomatizations with Context Rules of Inference in Modal Logic

A certain type of inference rules in (multi-) modal logics, generalizing Gabbay's Irreflexivity rule, is introduced and some general completeness results about modal logics axiomatized with such rules are proved.