Criteria for logical formalization

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985955%3A_____%2F13%3A00399044" target="_blank" >RIV/67985955:_____/13:00399044 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0104-0" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0104-0</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0104-0" target="_blank" >10.1007/s11229-012-0104-0</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Criteria for logical formalization

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The article addresses two closely related questions: What are the criteria of adequacy of logical formalization of natural language arguments, and what gives logic the authority to decide which arguments are good and which are bad? Our point of departureis the criticism of the conception of logical formalization put forth, in a recent paper, by M. Baumgartner and T. Lampert. We argue that their account of formalization as a kind of semantic analysis brings about more problems than it solves. We also argue that the criteria of adequate formalization need not be based on truth conditions associated with logical formulas; in our view, they are better based on structural (inferential) grounds. We then put forward our own version of the criteria. The upshot of the discussion that follows is that the quest for an adequate formalization in a suitable logical language is best conceived of as the search for a Goodmanian reflective equilibrium.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Criteria for logical formalization

Popis výsledku anglicky

The article addresses two closely related questions: What are the criteria of adequacy of logical formalization of natural language arguments, and what gives logic the authority to decide which arguments are good and which are bad? Our point of departureis the criticism of the conception of logical formalization put forth, in a recent paper, by M. Baumgartner and T. Lampert. We argue that their account of formalization as a kind of semantic analysis brings about more problems than it solves. We also argue that the criteria of adequate formalization need not be based on truth conditions associated with logical formulas; in our view, they are better based on structural (inferential) grounds. We then put forward our own version of the criteria. The upshot of the discussion that follows is that the quest for an adequate formalization in a suitable logical language is best conceived of as the search for a Goodmanian reflective equilibrium.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AA - Filosofie a náboženství

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GAP401%2F10%2F1279" target="_blank" >GAP401/10/1279: Základy současné logické analýzy</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2013

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Synthese

ISSN

0039-7857

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

190

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

14

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

28

Strana od-do

2897-2924

Kód UT WoS článku

000327144000014

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—