5 ms·
It is absolutely correct to question the underlying premises. All the modes have them. It's just that the evaluations are not amenable to the same standards. E
by ds9 13y ago
It is absolutely correct to question the underlying premises. All the modes have them. It's just that the evaluations are not amenable to the same standards.
E.g., you can cast doubt on a scientific hypothesis of "A causes B" by pointing out a previously overlooked possible common cause. Or e.g., the polygraph is fairly bogus, not because of the mere logical possibility of false positives and false negatives, but rather because of their relative magnitudes and the poor support of the premises (about physiological correlates of lying or truth-telling). The flaws are strictly defined in one mode, approximate or probabilistic in another.
- platz 13y agoI thought Stephen Toulmin had the most useful formulation of argumentation. "Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin