Synthese

, Volume 164, Issue 1, pp 93–115 | Cite as

Adequate formalization

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Logic Philosophy of logic Theory of formalization Applied logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blau U. (1977). Die dreiwertige Logik der Sprache. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Brun G. (2004) Die richtige Formel, Philosophische Probleme der logischen Formalisierung. Ontos, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap R. (1971). The logical foundations of probability. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky N. (1977). Essays on form and interpretation. Amsterdam, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson D. (1967) The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher N. (eds). The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 81–95Google Scholar
  7. Davidson D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein R.L. (1990). The semantic foundations of logic: Propositional logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein R.L. (1994). The semantic foundations of logic: Predicate logic. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman N. (1983). Fact, fiction, and forecast (4th ed). Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoyningen-Huene P. (1998) Formale Logik. Reclam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson B. (2007). Beyond logical form. Philosophical Studies 132: 347–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lampert, T. (2000). Wittgensteins Physikalismus. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  15. Lampert T. (2006). Explaining formulae of first order logic. Ruch Filozoficzny, LXIII.3: 459–480Google Scholar
  16. Lampert, T., & Baumgartner, M. The unity of logical form. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  17. Link G. (1979) Montague-Grammatik. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  18. Löffler, W. (2006). Spielt die rhethorische Qualität von Argumenten eine Rolle bei deren logischer Analyse? Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Argumentationstheorie und formaler Logik. In G. Kreuzbauer & G. Dorn (Eds.), Argumentation in Theorie und Praxis (Salzburger Beiträge zu Rhetorik und Argumentationstheorie, Band 1) (pp. 115–130). Wien: LIT.Google Scholar
  19. Massey G.J. (1975). Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad?. Philosophy in Context 4: 61–77Google Scholar
  20. Montague R. (1974a) Quantification in ordinary language. In: Thomason R.H. (eds). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 247–270Google Scholar
  21. Montague R. (1974b) Universal grammar. In: Thomason R.H. (eds). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 222–246Google Scholar
  22. Montague R., Thomason R.H. (ed) (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  23. Neale S. (1994) Logical form and LF. In: Otero C.P. (eds). Noam Chomsky. Critical assessments. Routledge, London, pp. 788–838Google Scholar
  24. Quine W.v.O. (1953). Mr. Strawson on logical theory. Mind 62: 433–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rawls J. (1980). A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Read S. (1994). Formal and material consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23: 247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sainsbury R.M. (1991) Logical forms (2nd ed). Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Strawson P.F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Wittgenstein L. (1995) Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Baker Hall 135Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations