Informal Logic Research Articles

The logic as an element of legal considerations and its application in the process of drawing up legal documents

The article analyses logic as an element of legal reasoning and its application in the process of drafting legal documents. Mastering the art of drafting legal documents is an invaluable skill in the professional legal activity of representatives of various legal professions, which can ensure their comprehensibility and clarity, and accordingly, the proper protection of rights. An integral part of this skill is logic as an element of legal reasoning, the correctness of its application. Representatives of various legal professions, whose work is related to legal norms and the drafting of legal documents, refer to elementary rules of logic. Legal reasoning related to the interpretation of normative legal acts and their application to cases, during the evaluation of evidence and making final decisions, which are reflected in legal documentation, is an important means of achieving the rule of law. Due to the special legal thinking, lawyers get the ability to consider any thing from a concrete and not an abstract point of view. Every successful lawyer must be well versed in the laws of formal and informal logic, the rules of operating concepts, judgments, and inferences. Logic is the science of how we should reason if our goal is to discover truth. Neglecting the laws of formal logic in the process of drafting legal documents (identity, contradiction, excluded third party and sufficient grounds) leads to errors. The lack of necessary skills can manifest itself in the composition of the text of legal documents in the form of errors, which, in turn, can cause serious consequences in the form of violations of human rights and freedoms and, as a result, the principle of the rule of law. Knowledge of formal and informal logic, the peculiarities of its application, will contribute to the development of the skills of correct and effective legal reasoning, which will master the art of drafting legal documents – an invaluable skill in the professional legal activity of representatives of various legal professions, which is the unconditional foundation of the observance of human rights and freedoms in our state, as well as implementation of the rule of law principle.

In Memoriam J. Anthony Blair

Anthony Blair, who died in March of this year, may yet be remembered as the scholar who was instrumental in creating, developing and popularizing informal logic in the 1970s, and who then spent the rest of his career trying to decide what exactly it was he had discovered.

LOGIC IN PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING. PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC

The article is devoted to the study of the problem of the relationship between logic and philosophy in the historical-philosophical context and at the current stage of the development of science. Features of the development of traditional and classical formal and non-classical informal logic, corresponding metalogical argumentation are considered. The stage of the formation of philosophical logic is determined, conclusions are drawn regarding the methodological significance of philosophical logic for the development of philosophical knowledge.

Steve Oswald: Pragmatics and rhetoric

Does the search for perlocutionary effectiveness (getting people to agree with a claim, to buy a product, etc.) without truth or morality playing a decisive role constitute what some call manipulation? Precisely because he is interested in the mechanisms of persuasion, Steve Oswald has woven links between cognitive science and rhetoric around this notion. Drawing on theories of cognitive pragmatics and work in psychology, this researcher goes off the beaten track of rhetoric by opening what is for many a black box: the question of the effects of discursive strategies. He has approached this question first by attempting to explain the mechanism theoretically, but more recently also experimentally. Examining the question of rhetorical effects in this way makes it possible not only to revitalise the discipline by documenting the intuitions or empirical findings of the old rhetoricians, but also to build bridges between approaches that sometimes ignore each other: informal logic, cognitive psychology, cognitive pragmatics, and discourse analysis.

Christopher Tindale: Exploring the Cultural Foundations of Rhetoric and Reason

The interview conducted with Christopher Tindale by Ruth Amossy in this special issue on “Challenging Rhetoric” proposes a survey of Tindale’s innovative work. Developing from Informal Logic to a theory of Rhetorical Argumentation, it eventually leads to an anthropological approach that challenges the Western rhetorical tradition. It assumes that ways of reasoning are culture-dependent and that arguments as reason-giving can take many forms beyond the ones described in the Western tradition. It thus tackles the question of cross-cultural communication in its argumentative dimension. In this framework it presents an “encounter rhetoric” exploring the encounter between people from very different cultures and looking at how a mutual cognitive environment is able, over time, to emerge and allow for argumentation.

The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View

In ‘The making of argumentation theory’ van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness – the crucial issue in argumentation theory – van Eemeren and van Haaften explain the positions taken by representatives from the approaches discussed and indicate where they differ from the pragma-dialectical approach. It transpires that approaches focusing on dialectical reasonableness are, next to pragma-dialectics, formal dialectics and informal logic; approaches focusing on rhetorical effectiveness are, next to pragma-dialectics, rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, and the informal logician Tindale. When it comes to the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, some interest in it is shown in rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, but only in pragma-dialectics and in Tindale’s work is it a real focus. The main difference between Tindale’s view and the pragma-dialectical view is that in pragma-dialectics the decisive role in deciding about reasonableness is assigned to a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse and in Tindale’s approach this role is assigned to Tindale’s interpretation of the Perelmanian universal audience.

Intellectual Virtue in Critical Thinking and Its Instruction

How is intellectual virtue related to critical thinking? Can one be a critical thinker without exercising intellectual virtue? Can one be intellectually virtuous without thereby being a critical thinker? How should our answers to these questions inform the instruction of critical thinking? These were the questions informing the 2023 Charles McCracken endowed lectureships given at Michigan State University by Professors Harvey Siegel and Jason Baehr. This brief commentary introduces their respective papers, which appear in the current issue of Informal Logic.

Introduction

This special issue represents some of the recent developments within argumentation studies. The following overview provides some historical context for the five papers which constitute this special issue. The Aristotelian roots of modern argumentation studies are briefly presented, as well as some further developments within Greek and Roman rhetoric. Furthermore, the most important developments in argumentation studies during the last few decades are sketched. Several modern approaches to argumentation theory are introduced, among them Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, Toulmin’s model of argumentation, formal dialectics, fallacy theory, informal logic, the Argumentum Model and Pragma-Dialectics. Finally, the thematic focus of the five papers is described.

The authenticity of research problems

The definition of the research problem is fundamental, necessary to approach the study phenomenon. In spite of its relevance, it is not clear the method used to define it, which makes it difficult to design tools to approach the research phenomenon. This essay proposes a look from the concept of authenticity of the problem in the framework of analytical postmodernism to approach the named factor. In total, six study works published between 1921 and 2023 were considered, then ontological and epistemological elements underpinning authenticity were identified. The results showed that the research problem can be supported from the viewpoint of three perspectives: informal logic, critical positivism and postmodernism.

Deep Disagreement in Mathematics

Disagreements that resist rational resolution, often termed ``deep disagreements'', have been the focus of much work in epistemology and informal logic. In this paper, I argue that they also deserve the attention of philosophers of mathematics. I link the question of whether there can be deep disagreements in mathematics to a more familiar debate over whether there can be revolutions in mathematics. I propose an affirmative answer to both questions, using the controversy over Shinichi Mochizuki's work on the abc conjecture as a potential example of both phenomena. I conclude by investigating the prospects for the resolution of mathematical deep disagreements in virtue-theoretic approaches to informal logic and mathematical practice.

Логика. Логики. Судьба

The article considers peculiarities of communicative processes, social and personal, in the fate of two generations of logics of Moscow University: the sixties and seventies. It is shown that in the general system movement of the sixties in our country its special place was occupied by the logic and methodology of science. The Logicians-Sixties were in fact fighting for the right to exist in the country of classical formal logic and at the same time for the right to correspond to the current level of development of logic. The influence of the Sixties on the formation of intellectual biographies of logicians-seventies, who engaged in scientific and theoretical research and teaching of three externally different directions of logic, formed in the seventies in the West: critical thinking, informal logic, argumentation theory. It is shown that a small university group of friends-logicians, as it were, divided in their research into these three areas of development of logic, at the same time being present, to one degree or another, in each of them. It presents a special system of human relations that developed between the sixties and the seventies, between teachers and students and within each of the subgroups in the general atmosphere of the philosophical faculty of Moscow State University in the 70s.

Two Logics of Non-Recurrence after Civil Conflict

Abstract This article examines the interactions of two under-theorised means to forestall recurrence of violence and human rights abuses after conflict with two very different, but by no means mutually incompatible, logics. The first of these is guarantees of non-recurrence (gnr s), a branch of transitional justice characterised by a deeply formalist, institutionalised logic. The second is political settlements characterised by a highly informal logic. This article explores the conceptual terrain between these two logics of non-recurrence. It demonstrates a mismatch between the faith of transitional justice policy-makers in the centrality of gnr s to non-recurrence, on the one hand, and the actual process of guarding against conflict resumption as it is shaped extra-institutionally by the informal practices that underpin settlements, on the other. Post-conflict states generally place greater faith in the informal logic of settlements than the institutionalist logic of gnr s. Arguing that the prospects for non-recurrence are not fully captured if we focus only on the legal and institutional attributes of the state, it shows that settlements evolve or disintegrate incrementally over time. This critically conditions when gnr s are essential and efficacious. Put another way, the fate of gnr s in particular institutions depends on how settlements in general maintain the peace. Transitional justice theorists should be open to the possibility that guarantees of non-repetition are the fruit, not the precondition, of social order.

Gilbert as Disrupter

Michael Gilbert’s multi-modal theory of argument challenges earlier accounts of arguing assumed in formal and informal logic. His account of emotional, visceral, and kisceral modes of arguing rejects the assumption that all arguments must be treated as instances of one “logical mode.” This paper compares his alternative modes to other modes proposed by those who have argued for visual, auditory, and other “multimodal” modes of arguing. I conclude that multi-modal and multimodal (without the hyphen) modes are complementary. Collectively, they represent an important attempt to radically expand the scope of informal logic and the argumentation that it studies.

An informal logic of feedback-based temporal control.

A conceptual framework and mathematical model of the control of articulatory timing are presented, in which feedback systems play a fundamental role. The model applies both to relatively small timescales, such as within syllables, and to relatively large timescales, such as multi-phrase utterances. A crucial distinction is drawn between internal/predictive feedback and external/sensory feedback. It is argued that speakers modulate attention to feedback to speed up and slow down speech. A number of theoretical implications of the framework are discussed, including consequences for the understanding of syllable structure and prosodic phrase organization.

How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.

Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. The authors followed a five-step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real-world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation.

Logic of Legal Reasoning

This article deals with general problem of connection between legal reasoning, legal argumentation and, on the other hand, logic. Although this connection seems obvious since ancient times, its nature is still the subject of non-trivial discussions. The purpose of my study is to explore one important aspect of this connection, namely, is general, or formal, logic necessary and sufficient to determine relevant form of legal reasoning and argumentation? To reach this purpose, method of comparative analysis is employed both synchronically and diachronically. First, in order to prove importance of the issue, a diachronic comparison of several basic approaches is carried out (G.W. von Leibniz, O.W. Holmes, Jr., etc.). Then a comparative analysis of the views of some contemporary experts is carried out, especially Ilmar Tammelo and Stephen Toulmin. It is argued, in the field of law there is a special legal validity that differs significantly from the formal-logical validity. The legal validity is determined directly and mainly by the value of the right not by the value of formal or material truth. It is not the subject of formal logic, but of a special legal logic and, more broadly, informal logic. Therefore, formal logic does not determine relevant form of legal reasoning and argumentation, since, first of all, there is the essential difference between the formal-logical validity and the legal validity. It is argued, formal logic is neither sufficient nor necessary to think like a jurist. In this regard, it is shown that the formal-logical standard of proof is not sufficient to determine the relevant form of valid legal proof. There are at least three standards of legal proof – proof without reasonable doubt, proof by clear and convincing evidence, and proof by preponderance of the evidence. Each of them differs significantly from the formal-logical standard. The conclusion of this research is this: it cannot be said that general logic does not work at all in the field of law. However, in order to reason and argue like a successful jurist, one must to grasp and use, without any exceptions, the special legal logic that belongs to the domain of contemporary informal logic.

Chinese Studies on Informal Logic and Critical Thinking

This article traces the developmental trajectory of informal logic and critical thinking in mainland China. It surveys the current developmental situation relating to their curricula, the establishment of teaching material, translations of leading works in these fields, academic writings, dissertations, research organizations and so on. Furthermore, the present article particularly aims to cast some light on the important shifts of research trends in informal logic and critical thinking, from those being introduced from outside to those moving in the opposite direction. Finally, it will also address the currently existing inadequacies and expectations for the future development of these fields of study in China.

The Devil is in the Framework. Comment on Mizrahi vs. all Debate on the Strength of Arguments from an Expert Opinion

In one of his papers, Moti Mizrahi argues that arguments from an expert opinion are weak arguments. His thesis may seem controversial due to the consensus on this topic in the field of informal logic. I argue that its controversy is framework-dependent, and if translated into a different framework, it appears to be a correct, however trivial, claim. I will use a framework based on Douglas Walton’s argumentation scheme theory and his conception of examination dialogue to demonstrate that it is so. It appears that Mizrahi’s idiosyncratic framework provides an excessively restrictive conception of an argument from expert opinion than Walton’s scheme does. There is no quarrel between both frameworks, as they yield analogous, almost identical, outcomes of argument evaluation. The actual and crucial disagreement is on the topic of argument classification. Mizrahi’s conception of arguments from an expert opinion imposes exact conditions that such argument must fulfil: an expert’s opinion o truth-value must be unknown; o must be unsupported by any evidence; an expert’s peers neither accept o nor reject it. These exclude, by definition, every possible strong, in Walton’s terms, variant of such an argument. Therefore, if rephrased with the notions of the examination dialogue framework, Mizrahi’s thesis sounds as follows: weak arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments.

Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education

Douglas Walton, perhaps the most prolific author in Argumentation theory, has been of a great influence in the fields of Informal logic, Artificial intelligence, and Law. His contributions in the field of educational research, in particular in the field of argumentation and education, are less known. This review paper aims at shedding light on those aspects of Walton’s theory that have received educational researchers’ attention thus far, as well identifying existing lacks of consideration and open paths for future research.

Informal logic in Islamic theology: Argumentative study of the inferential structure theological debate: المنطق غير المحكم في علم الكلام: دراسة حجاجية للبنية الاستدلالية في المناظرة الكلامية

Informal logic aims to study arguments formulated in natural language, examine their inferential structure, and extrapolate general criteria that enable us to judge the invalidity of an argument or vice versa. It transcends its limit, which is confined to the infallibility of thought from error, and transcends it to work to overthrow false arguments. Therefore, we decided to reveal this kind of logic through the argumentative theory, which gives the possibility to evoke the domicile and contextual dimension of the subject of the argumentative process, and to highlight the role played by the Ethos, Pathos, Logos, enthymeme, and the introspection of implicit forms in the discourse, and taking into account the psychological and sociological dimensions. and the ideological background, and for this reason, one of the endeavors of this study is to analyze the inferential structure of Islamic theological discourse with analogous denominators, in which the pilgrims relied on the creed. To illustrate this, the "Al-Aslah wa Salaah" debate, which took place between "Al-Jabai" and "Al-Ash'ari", was chosen. by adopting a method that combines analysis and conclusion, imposed by the nature of the subject, which was among the reasons for choosing the intellectual and ideological conflict, which in a large part has become subject to purely political orientations, predicting ideological transformations of a significant degree of danger that seek to crush the constants, and to blind the insights through fallacies. Logical and dissemination on a large scale, so one of the most prominent recommendations that this study urges is to be able to use arguments and logical mechanisms to distinguish between right and wrong and protect oneself from being drawn into arguments that are formed in false and fragile logical images.