Defeasible classifications andinferences from definitions

Informal Logic

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 34-61

  Walton, Douglas ^a   Macagno, Fabrizio ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Abductive reasoning; Argument from analogy; Argument fromcriteria to a verbal classification; Defeasible modus ponens; Heuristicclassifications types of definitions

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958108146     PISSN: 08242577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22329/il.v30i1.692     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Amossy, R. (2000). L'Argumentation dans le Discours. Paris: Nathan.
2. Amossy, R., & Herschberg-Perrot, A. (1997). Stéréotypes et clichés. Langue, discours, société. Paris: Nathan.
3. Ashley, K. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 34, 753-796.
4. Ashley, K. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In A. R. Lodder, & A. Oskamp (Eds.), Information Technology and Lawyers (pp. 23-60). Amsterdam: pringer.
5. Atocha, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning: logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Amsterdam: Springer.
6. Bridgman, P. (1927). The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: MacMillan.
7. Brüninghaus, S. & K. D. Ashley (2003). "Predicting Outcomes of Case-Based Legal Arguments". In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on rtificial intelligence and law (233-242). New York: ACM.
8. Carroll v. United States,, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
9. Carson, D. (2007). Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
10. Clancey, W. J. (1985). Heuristic Classification. Department of Computer Science. Stanford: Stanford University.
11. Evans, J. S. & Frankish, K. (2008). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
13. Gertz v. Welch,, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
14. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., & Group, T.A. (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Godden, D., & Walton, D. N. (2005). Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy-A Dialectical Model. Journal of Informal Logic, 24 3), 219-243.
16. Grundy, S. M. (2005). Diagnosis and Management of the Metabolic Syndrome. Circulation, 112, 2735-2752.
17. Guarini, M. (2004). A Defence of Non-deductive Reconstructions of Analogical Arguments. Informal Logic, 24, 153-168.
18. Hage, J. (2005). The Logic of Analogy in the Law. Argumentation, 19, 401-415.
19. Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Hart, H.L.A. (1949; 1951).The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49, 1949, 171-194. Reprinted in Logic and Language, ed. A. Flew, Oxford, Blackwell, 1951, 145-166.
21. Kahneman D. & Frederick, S. (2005). A Model of Heuristic judgment. In K. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 267-94), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Klein, H.P. (1978). The Viking Biological Experiments on Mars. Icarus, 34, 666-674.
23. Lawson, J. (1855). The Law of Presumptive Evidence. San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Co.
24. Lindsey, S. (2004). Statistical Scientific Evidence and Expertise in the Courtroom. In E. Kurz-Milcke & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Experts in Science and ociety. New York: Kluwer.
25. Louisville Chancery Court, Kentucky. May 11th, 1855. Vanderpool vs. The Steamboat Crystal Palace. (1855). The American Law Register, 493-497.
26. Luisi, P. (1998). About Various Definitions of Life. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 28, 613-622.
27. Macagno, F., & Walton, D. N. (2008). Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions. Argumentation (23), 81-107.
28. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S.1 (1990).
29. Peirce, C.S. (1965). Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce. (C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss, Eds.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
30. Rigotti, E., & Cigada, S. (2004). La Comunicazione Verbale. Milano: Apogeo.
31. Rößler, J. (1998). Die Operationale Definition. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
32. Russell, S. (1989). The Use of Knowledge in Analogy and Induction. London: Pitman.
33. Saks, M. & Kidd, R. (1980-1981). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review 15 (1): 123-60.
34. Schiappa, E. (2003). Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
35. Thomas, S. (2005). The Importance of Being Earnest about Definitions. Proceedings of BTW 2005 (pp. 560-577). Karlsruhe: Springer.
36. Toulmin, S.E. (1964). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.
37. Tuzet, G. (2003). Legal Abductions. In D. Bourcier (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2003 (pp. 41-49). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
38. Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167-195.
39. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and Analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Waller, B. (2001). Classifying and Analyzing Analogies. Informal Logic, 21, 199-218.
41. Walton, D.N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
42. Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
43. Walton, D.N. (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
44. Walton, D.N. (2004). Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
45. Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Weinreb, L. (2005). Legal Reason: the Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Wirth, U. (1998). Abductive reasoning. In P. Bouissac (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Semiotics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.