On the Logical Reconstruction of Conductive Arguments
Chapter
First Online:
Abstract
In a book published in 1971, Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics, Carl Wellman introduces the notion of “conduction” to refer to a particular type of reasoning.
Notes
Acknowledgements
The work in this paper is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (18ZDA033).
References
- Adler, J. E. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation, 27(3), 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bermejo-Luque, L. (2011). Giving reasons: A linguistic-pragmatic approach to Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Bermejo-Luque, L. (2017). The appraisal of conductions. In S. Oswald & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and inference (pp. 1–18). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Blair, J. A. (2016). A defense of conduction: A reply to Adler. Argumentation, 30(2), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blair, J. A. (2017). In defence of conduction: Two neglected features of argumentation. In S. Oswald & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and inference (pp. 29–44). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.). (2011). Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Freeman, J. B. (2011). Evaluating conductive arguments in light of the Toulmin model. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 127–144). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Govier, T. (1979). Carl Wellman’s challenge and response. The Informal Logic Newsletter, 2(2), 10–15.Google Scholar
- Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Govier, T. (2005). A practical study of argument (6th ed.). Belmont CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- Govier, T. (2011). Conductive arguments: Overview of the symposium. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 262–276). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In H. P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hansen, H. V. (2011). Notes on balance-of-consideration arguments. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 31–51). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Juthe, A. (2018). Reconstructing Complex Pro/Con Argumentation, Argumentation, online first.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pollock, J. (1994). Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence, 67, 377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pollock, J. (2008). Defeasible Reasoning, In J. Adler & L. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations (pp. 451–470), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Prakken, H. (2005). A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. Paper presented at International conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL’05), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
- van Laar, J. A. (2014). Arguments that take Counter-considerations into Account. Informal Logic, 34(3), 240–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and response: Justification in Ethics. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
- Xie, Y. (2017). Conductive argument as a mode of strategic maneuvering. Informal Logic, 37(1), 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020