Why missing premises can be missed: Evaluating arguments by determining their lever

By taking an argument to consist of one premise and one conclusion, the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA) excludes from its conceptualization the element traditionally called the ‘connecting premise’ or ‘warrant’ – which is often missing from the discourse. This paper answers the question of how to evaluate the underlying mechanism of an argument by presenting a method for formulating its ‘argumentative lever’ based on an identification of its type

The assessment of argumentation based on abduction

Abduction is a widely used but deductively invalid type of reasoning. In this paper I will develop a tool for the assessment of argumentation based on abduction that can be used to analyse and evaluate the type of argumentation as it occurs in institutionalized contexts like science and medical diagnosis. I will summarize the most important definitions of abduction and propose an argumentative pattern on the basis of a critical examination of two extant dialectical accounts of the argument scheme involved

Commentary on: Michael Hoppmann\u27s Preciseness is a virtue: What are critical questions?

N/

Quels critères pour déterminer la "meilleure" explication scientifique ?

In justifying their choice of the 'best' scientific explanation from a number of candidate explanations, scientists may employ specific theoretical virtues and other criteria for good scientific theories. This paper is aimed at providing an inventory of such criteria and at analyzing how they function argumentatively by indicating their systematic place within the pattern of argumentation based on abduction