Petitio principii and circular argumentation as seen from a theory of dialectical structures

Synthese

Volumn 175, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 327-349

  Betz, Gregor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Begging the question; Dialectical structure; Dialectics; Fallacy; Petitio principii

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955580753     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9512-1     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Betz G. (2005) The vicious circle theorem-a graph-theoretical analysis of dialectical structures. Argumentation 19(1): 53-64.
2. Betz G. (2008) Evaluating dialectical structures with Bayesian methods. Synthese 163: 25-44.
3. Betz, G. Evaluating dialectical structures. Journal of Philosophical Logic (forthcoming). URL http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s10992-008-9091-5.
4. Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2005a). Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In L. Godo (Ed.), Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty, 8th European conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3571 of Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 366-377.
5. Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2005b). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In L. Godo (Ed.), Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty, 8th European conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3571 of Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 378-389.
6. Descartes R. (1996) Meditations on first philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Dung P. M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321-358.
8. Godo, L. (Ed.) (2005). Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty, 8th European conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3571 of Lecture notes in computer science.
9. Laudan L. (1990) Science and relativism. Some key controversies in the philosophy of science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
10. Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2001). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner, (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed.), Vol. 4, pp. 219-318. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11. Ritola J. (2001) Wilson on circular arguments. Argumentation 15: 295-312.
12. Walton D. (2005) Begging the question in arguments based on testimony. Argumentation 19: 85-113.
13. Walton D. (2006) Epistemic and dialectical models of begging the question. Synthese 152(2): 237-284.
14. Wilson K. (1988) Circular arguments. Metaphilosophy 19: 38-52.
15. Wilson K. (1993) Comment on peter of spain, Jim Mackenzie, and begging the question. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22: 323-331.
16. Woods J., Walton D. (1975) Circular arguments. Synthese 34: 107-127.