Advertisement

On the Logical Reconstruction of Conductive Arguments

Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 35)

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

  1. Adler, J. E. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation, 27(3), 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bermejo-Luque, L. (2011). Giving reasons: A linguistic-pragmatic approach to Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Blair, J. A. (2016). A defense of conduction: A reply to Adler. Argumentation, 30(2), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.). (2011). Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Govier, T. (1979). Carl Wellman’s challenge and response. The Informal Logic Newsletter, 2(2), 10–15.Google Scholar
  9. Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Govier, T. (2005). A practical study of argument (6th ed.). Belmont CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  11. Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Juthe, A. (2018). Reconstructing Complex Pro/Con Argumentation, Argumentation, online first.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pollock, J. (1994). Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence, 67, 377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. van Laar, J. A. (2014). Arguments that take Counter-considerations into Account. Informal Logic, 34(3), 240–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and response: Justification in Ethics. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyInstitute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations