Sobre la definición de los argumentos conductivos
Main Article Content
Abstract
In 1971, Wellman coined the terms “conduction” and “conductive” to name a distinctive kind of reasoning, different both from deductive and inductive reasoning. Most authors think that the weighing of pros and cons is the distinctive feature of conduction. However I contend that weighing is characteristic of some kinds of argumentation structures while “conductive” applies to the rela- tionship between the premises and the conclusion of an argument. Hence I offer a definition of conductive argument according to which conductive arguments are arguments from verbal classifications involving cluster concepts or compounds of such arguments.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Marraud, H. (2019). Sobre la definición de los argumentos conductivos. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana De Filosofía, 51(152), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2019.09
PLUMX Metrics
References
Birkett, Norman M., 2005, Logic I. Tools for Thinking, The Classical Legacy Press, Montville, Nueva Jersey.
Blair, J. Anthony y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), 2011, Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, College Publications, Londres, pp. 73–85.
García Manrique, Ricardo (coord.), 2009, Robert Alexy. Derechos sociales y ponderación, Fundación Coloquio Jurídico Europeo, Madrid.
Govier, Trudy, 1985, A Practical Study of Argument, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Hansen, Hans V., 2011, “Notes on Balance-of-Considerations Arguments”, en Anthony J. Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), 2011, pp. 31–51.
Hempel, Carl G., 1952, Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Johnson, Ralph H., 2000, Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey.
Kock, Christian, 2011, “Why Argumentation Theory Should Differentiate Types of Claim”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), pp. 62– 73.
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1998,“Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, en M. Curd y J.A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, Norton, Nueva York y Londres, pp. 102–118.
Lord, Errol y Barry Maguire, 2016, Weighing Reasons, Oxford University Press, Nueva York.
Marraud, Hubert, 2017, “De las siete maneras de contraargumentar”, Quadripartita Ratio, no. 4, pp. 52–57, http://www.quadripartitaratio.cucsh.udg.mx/index.php/QR/article/view/40 [Fecha de la última con- sulta 19/06/2019].
Marraud, Hubert, 2013, ¿Es lógic@? Análisis y evaluación de argumentos, Madrid, Cátedra.
Mercier, Hugo y Dan Sperber, 2011, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 57–111.
Pinto, Robert C., 2011, “Weighing Evidence in the Context of Conductive Reasoning”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), pp. 104–126.
Pinto, Robert C., 2001, “The Relation of Argument to Inference”, en R.C. Pinto,
Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 32–45.
Snoeck-Henkemans, A. Francisca, 2000, “State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation”, Argumentation, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 447–473.
Toulmin, Stephen E., 2007, Los usos de la argumentación, trads. M. Morrás y V. Pineda, Península, Barcelona.
Van Eemeren, Frans H. y Rob Grootendorst, 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Nueva York.
Vega Reñón, Luis, 2015, Introducción a la teoría de la argumentación, Palestra, Lima.
Vega Reñón, Luis, 2011, “Esquema argumentativo”, en Luis Vega y Paula Olmos (eds.), Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica, Trotta, Madrid, pp. 233–236.
Walton, Douglas N., 1996, Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey.
Walton, Douglas N., Chris Reed y Fabrizio Macagno, 2008, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, Nueva York.
Wellman, Carl, 1971, Challenge and Response. Justification in Ethics, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1999, Investigaciones filosóficas, trad. A. García Suárez y U. Moulines, Altaya, Barcelona.
Wohlrapp, Harald, 2011, “Conductive Argument: A Misleading Model for the Analysis of Pro- and Contra- Argumentation”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), pp. 210–223.
Zenker, Frank, 2011, “Deduction, Induction, Conduction: An Attempt at Unifying Natural Language Argument Structures”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, King’s College Publications, Londres, pp. 73–85.
Blair, J. Anthony y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), 2011, Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, College Publications, Londres, pp. 73–85.
García Manrique, Ricardo (coord.), 2009, Robert Alexy. Derechos sociales y ponderación, Fundación Coloquio Jurídico Europeo, Madrid.
Govier, Trudy, 1985, A Practical Study of Argument, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Hansen, Hans V., 2011, “Notes on Balance-of-Considerations Arguments”, en Anthony J. Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), 2011, pp. 31–51.
Hempel, Carl G., 1952, Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Johnson, Ralph H., 2000, Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey.
Kock, Christian, 2011, “Why Argumentation Theory Should Differentiate Types of Claim”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), pp. 62– 73.
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1998,“Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, en M. Curd y J.A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, Norton, Nueva York y Londres, pp. 102–118.
Lord, Errol y Barry Maguire, 2016, Weighing Reasons, Oxford University Press, Nueva York.
Marraud, Hubert, 2017, “De las siete maneras de contraargumentar”, Quadripartita Ratio, no. 4, pp. 52–57, http://www.quadripartitaratio.cucsh.udg.mx/index.php/QR/article/view/40 [Fecha de la última con- sulta 19/06/2019].
Marraud, Hubert, 2013, ¿Es lógic@? Análisis y evaluación de argumentos, Madrid, Cátedra.
Mercier, Hugo y Dan Sperber, 2011, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 57–111.
Pinto, Robert C., 2011, “Weighing Evidence in the Context of Conductive Reasoning”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), pp. 104–126.
Pinto, Robert C., 2001, “The Relation of Argument to Inference”, en R.C. Pinto,
Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 32–45.
Snoeck-Henkemans, A. Francisca, 2000, “State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation”, Argumentation, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 447–473.
Toulmin, Stephen E., 2007, Los usos de la argumentación, trads. M. Morrás y V. Pineda, Península, Barcelona.
Van Eemeren, Frans H. y Rob Grootendorst, 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Nueva York.
Vega Reñón, Luis, 2015, Introducción a la teoría de la argumentación, Palestra, Lima.
Vega Reñón, Luis, 2011, “Esquema argumentativo”, en Luis Vega y Paula Olmos (eds.), Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retórica, Trotta, Madrid, pp. 233–236.
Walton, Douglas N., 1996, Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, Nueva Jersey.
Walton, Douglas N., Chris Reed y Fabrizio Macagno, 2008, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, Nueva York.
Wellman, Carl, 1971, Challenge and Response. Justification in Ethics, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1999, Investigaciones filosóficas, trad. A. García Suárez y U. Moulines, Altaya, Barcelona.
Wohlrapp, Harald, 2011, “Conductive Argument: A Misleading Model for the Analysis of Pro- and Contra- Argumentation”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), pp. 210–223.
Zenker, Frank, 2011, “Deduction, Induction, Conduction: An Attempt at Unifying Natural Language Argument Structures”, en J. Anthony Blair y Ralph H. Johnson (eds.), Conductive Argument: An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning, King’s College Publications, Londres, pp. 73–85.
Crítica, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional License.
Creado a partir de la obra en http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica.