Presumptive Reasoning Research Articles

A Logical Pragmatics Study of Argument in Islamic-Christian Debates

Lately, pragmatics has attracted the attention of linguists and philosophers. It has been integrated into many fields of study that have contributed to the study of language. A debate is a special form of an argumentative dialogue in which two or more parties take part in attacking and defending certain claims through reasoned discourse. This study has set itself to pragmatically analyze and evaluate selected arguments of religious debates. Islamic-Christian debates are specifically chosen as data for the current study because they have not received due attention in language studies. This study is essentially concerned with investigating the logical pragmatics in the context of Deedat-Swaggart‟s debate. Consequently, the study aims at: identifying the most frequently utilized logical pragmatics strategies; showing whether the pragmatic criteria are frequently kept to or violated. To fulfill the aims, it is hypothesized that debaters utilize certain logical pragmatics strategies (grounds, warrants, claims, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals, certain types of reasoning, and argumentation schemes), the pragmatic criteria are frequently violated. The study employs a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) to analyze the data and to verify or reject the hypotheses. The results of the study reveal that the most frequent pragmatic strategies utilized by Deedat are: grounds, deductive reasoning, argument from expert opinion. Swaggart, on the other hand, highly employs: grounds, presumptive reasoning, argument from expert opinion. The results have also shown that Deedat‟s chains of arguments are stronger and more persuasive than Swaggart‟s in terms of satisfying the logical criteria of argument evaluation.

NAİM FRASHERİ’NİN ŞİİRİ ÜZERİNDEKİ FARS EDEBİYATININ İZLERİ

This paper deals with the traces of Persian literature on Naim Frasheri’s poetry. It also explores literary and extra literary factors that were of crucial significance during the process of his intellectual formation and ontological manifestation. The paper argues that author’s ideas are the result of the interactions of different cultures, in our case Persian and Albanian cultures. We try to comprehend the social environment and presumptive reasons and sources of author’s motivation and inspiration for his poetic creation. The extra literary factors which have been connecting the poet to Persian language and literature and some epistemes traced in Naim’s poetry were found to be related to epistemic circulation of cultural and literary societies during the Ottoman Empire in the Balkan Region. In this context, special attention has been given to the influences, concepts, archetypes and topics of Persian literature in Naim’s poetry in order to identify the most significant Persian traces in the epistemology and ontology of the Albanian people and their culture. A comparative analysis was conducted on the basis of the letters of poets such as Mewlana, Sa’adi and Hafiz Shirazi within the scope of this study.

Coercion and the Prima Facie Duty to Obey the Law

This article examines the role of coercion in grounding a prima facie duty to obey the positive law. I argue that there is at least a weak prima facie duty to obey the positive law in a minimally effective and just legal system. The fact that a norm holds positive legal status within a minimally effective and just legal system gives people presumptive reason to believe that the norm is a salient and reasonable means of social coordination and therefore that they have pro tanto reason to follow it. Coercive sanctions may bolster the salience of social norms by giving people incentive to follow them. They also make it more likely that an agent’s decision to follow a particular norm will be reasonable, by creating the prospect that the reasons supplied by the sanctions will override any deficits in the salience or reasonableness of the norm itself. A legal system with strong coercive enforcement is therefore more likely than a less coercive system (other things being equal) to present its subjects with both prima facie and pro tanto moral obligations. This reliance on coercion, however, carries a significant moral hazard, since it may bootstrap inefficient or unreasonable norms into a position of epistemological and moral weight.

Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance

By explaining the argument from ignorance in terms of the presumption of innocence, many textbooks in argumentation theory suggest that some arguments from ignorance might share essential features with some types of presumptive reasoning. The stronger version of this view, suggesting that arguments from ignorance and presumptive reasoning are almost indistinguishable, is occasionally proposed by Douglas Walton. This paper explores the nature and limits of the stronger proposal and argues that initial presumptions and arguments from ignorance are not closely connected. There are three main reasons. First, the argument from ignorance, unlike typical presumptive reasoning, is a negative kind of inference. Second, the typical initial presumption is sensitive to a broader set of defeaters and thus assumes a higher (negative) standard of acceptability. Third, in dialectical terms, initial presumption and argument from ignorance bring different attacking rights and obligations. I conclude that Waltonian intuition is unsupported or, at best, is limited only to practical presumptions and practical arguments from ignorance.

Soft Law, Authoritative Advice and Non-binding Agreements

Abstract One of the most fascinating developments in the domain of international law in the last few decades is the astonishing proliferation of non-binding legal instruments or soft law, namely, norms or directives explicitly avoiding the imposition of legal obligations on the relevant parties. From a philosophical perspective, this is rather puzzling: how can we explain the idea of a non-binding directive or a non-binding contract? In this article I aim to provide an account of the rationale of soft law from the perspective of the practical reasons in play. First, I analyse the idea of authoritative advice, suggesting that when authorities advise their putative subjects, they purport to give the subject presumptive reasons for action. I explain what presumptive reasons are. Secondly, I suggest the possibility that something very similar is at work in cases of non-binding agreements, coupled with special accountability relations that such agreements invariably constitute.

A dialectical approach to presupposition

AbstractThis paper advances an approach to presupposition rooted in the concept of commitment, a dialectical notion weaker than truth and belief. It investigates ancient medieval dialectical theories and develops the insights thereof for analyzing how presuppositions are evaluated and why a proposition is presupposed. In particular, at a pragmatic level, presuppositions are reconstructed as the conclusions of implicit arguments from presumptive reasoning, grounded on presumptions of different type and nature. A false (or rather unaccepted) presupposition can be thus represented as the outcome of a conflict of presumptions – the ones used by the speaker and the ones commonly accepted or backed by evidence. From an interpretative perspective, this defaulted presumptive reasoning can be explained by comparing the available presumptions and repaired by replacing the weaker and unacceptable ones.

Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings

Abstract The detection and analysis of misunderstandings are crucial aspects of discourse analysis, and presuppose a twofold investigation of their structure. First, misunderstandings need to be identified and, more importantly, justified. For this reason, a classification of the types and force of evidence of a misunderstanding is needed. Second, misunderstandings reveal differences in the interlocutors’ interpretations of an utterance, which can be examined by considering the presumptions that they use in their interpretation. This paper proposes a functional approach to misunderstandings grounded on presumptive reasoning and types of presumptions, in which incompatible interpretations or interpretative failures are examined as defaults of the underlying interpretative reasoning, caused by overlooked evidence or conflicting presumptions. Moreover, it advances a classification of the types and the probative weights of the evidence that can be used to detect misunderstandings. The proposed methodology and its implications are illustrated through the analysis of doctor–patient communication in diabetes care.

Understanding misunderstandings. Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor-patient chronic care consultations

AbstractPragmatic presupposition is analyzed as grounded on an implicit reasoning process based on a set of presumptions, which can define cultural differences. The basic condition for presupposing a proposition is represented as a reasoning criterion, namely reasonableness. Presuppositions, on this view, need to be reasonable, namely they need to be the reasonable conclusions of an underlying presumptive reasoning, which does not or may not contain contradictions with other presumptions. Presumptions are in turn analyzed considering their nature and their hierarchy, namely their subject matter and their possible contextual backing, which eliminates some of their possible defaults. This analysis of presupposition brings to light the relationship between misunderstandings deriving from presuppositional failures and the underlying system of presumptions. This approach is applied to the investigation of communicative issues within the medical context, and more precisely doctor-patient communication in diabetes cases.

Improving the catalytic efficiency of Bacillus pumilus CotA-laccase by site-directed mutagenesis.

Bacterial laccases are potential enzymes for biotechnological applications because of their remarkable advantages, such as broad substrate spectrum, various reactions, high thermostability, wide pH range, and resistance to strongly alkaline environments. However, the use of bacterial laccases for industrialized applications is limited because of their low expression level and catalytic efficiency. In this study, CotA, a bacterial laccase from Bacillus pumilus, was engineered through presumptive reasoning and rational design approaches to overcome low catalytic efficiency and thermostability. L386W/G417L, a CotA double-mutant, was constructed through site-directed mutagenesis. The catalytic efficiency of L386W/G417L was 4.3 fold higher than that of wild-type CotA-laccase, but the thermostability of the former was decreased than that of the latter and other mutants. The half-life (t 1/2) of wild-type and G417L were 1.14 and 1.47h, but the half-life of L386W/G417L was only 0.37h when incubating the enzyme at 80°C. Considering the high catalytic efficiency of L386W/G417L, we constructed L386W/G417L/G57F, another mutant, to improve thermostability. Results showed that the half-life of L386W/G417L/G57F was 0.54h when incubating the enzyme at 90°C for 2h with about 34% residual activity, but the residual activity of L386W/G417L was less than 40% when incubating the enzyme at 90°C for 5min. L386W/G417L was more efficient in decolorizing various industrial dyes at pH10 than other mutants. L386W/G417L/G57F also exhibited an efficient decolorization ability. L386W/G417L/G57F is appropriate for biotechnological applications because of its high activity and thermostability in decolorizing industrial dyes. CotA-laccase may be further subjected to molecular modification and be used as an enhancer to improve decolorization efficiency for the physical and chemical treatment of dye wastewater.

Uncommon ground

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to show how microargumentation mechanisms of presumptive reasoning and reasoning from best explanation can be used to explain some cases of presupposition suspension. It will be shown how the relationship between presupposition triggers and pragmatic presuppositions can be analyzed in terms of presumptive and nonpresumptive polyphonic articulation of an utterance, resulting in different types of commitments for the interlocutors. This approach is grounded on the two interconnected notions of presumptions and commitments. In some complex cases of presupposition suspension, the speaker presumes the hearer’s acceptance of, and commitment to, propositions that do not belong to the common ground or that have been explicitly rejected as being commonly shared. This phenomenon triggers a complex type of reasoning that can be represented as kind of abduction, grounded on hierarchies of presumptions and aimed at providing an interpretation that solves this conflict of presumptions. Several cases of presupposition suspension will be shown to result from nonpresumptive polyphonic articulations, in which different voices responsible for distinct commitments are distinguished. By indirectly reporting an element of discourse, the speaker can refuse to take responsibility for the presupposed proposition, and correct the commitments that may result for him or her. This polyphonic treatment of utterances can explain how and why a presupposition is suspended, and can be used to identify the conflicting presumptions that can be further solved through reasoning from best explanation. This reasoning can result in a different reconstruction of the developed logical form or the illocutionary force of an utterance.

Testimonial Injustice Without Credibility Deficit (or Excess)

Miranda Fricker has influentially discussed testimonial injustice: the injustice done to a speaker S by a hearer H when H gives S less-than-merited credibility. Here, I explore the prospects for a novel form of testimonial injustice, where H affords S due credibility, that is, the amount of credibility S deserves. I present two kinds of cases intended to illustrate this category, and argue that there is presumptive reason to think that testimonial injustice with due credibility exists. I show that if it is denied that ultimately these cases exemplify testimonial injustice without credibility deficit, then either they must be taken to exemplify a novel kind of epistemic, non-testimonial injustice, or they bring to light a significant exegetical result.

Analogical reasoning in public health

Analogical reasoning is a valuable logical resource in a public health context. It is used extensively by public health scientists in risk assessments of new technologies, environmental hazards and infectious diseases. For its part, the public also avails of analogical reasoning when it assesses a range of public health problems. In this article, some of these uses of analogical reasoning in public health are examined. Analogical arguments have courted approval and disapproval in roughly equal measure by a long succession of logicians and philosophers. The logical features of these arguments which make them simultaneously compelling and contemptible are considered. As a form of presumptive reasoning, analogical arguments have a valuable role to play in closing epistemic gaps in knowledge. This heuristic function of these arguments is illustrated through an examination of some uses of analogical reasoning in recent public health crises. Finally, the results of a study of analogical reasoning in 879 members of the public are reported. This study reveals that lay members of the public are able to discern the logical and epistemic conditions under which analogical arguments are rationally warranted in a public health context.

Vaccination hépatite B et sclérose en plaques : de l’incertitude médicale à l’indemnisation des victimes

Cases of multiple sclerosis appearing after a mass hepatitis B vaccination program can lead to claims for compensation. The legal jurisdiction under which such claims will be examined depends on whether the vaccination was carried out as part of a mandatory program (implying liability of the State or employers) or in application of recommendations (implying responsibility of the vaccine manufacturer). In the literature, there is no evidence demonstrating a statistically significant relationship between anti-hepatitis B vaccination and the onset or exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, questioning even the notion of compensation. The analysis of the jurisprudence shows that, in a first period, the scientific uncertainty of a link between vaccination and onset of multiple sclerosis precluded any compensation to victims. Subsequently, judicial and administrative courts ignored this scientific uncertainty, which enabled them to examine claims for compensation by adopting a presumptive reasoning based on specific criteria and different regulations depending on the legal jurisdiction. According to the French high courts (Cour de cassation and Conseil d’État) scientific causality and legal causality do not necessarily have to be consistent, such that medical uncertainty should not be an obstacle to compensation for victims.

The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises. Presumptions in Enthymemes.

The implicit dimension of enthymemes is investigated from a pragmatic perspective to show why a premise can be left unexpressed, and how it can be used strategically. The relationship between the implicit act of taking for granted and the pattern of presumptive reasoning is shown to be the cornerstone of kairos and the fallacy of straw man. By taking a proposition for granted, the speaker shifts the burden of proving its un-acceptability onto the hearer. The resemblance (likeliness) of the tacit premise with what is commonly acceptable or has been actually stated can be used as a rhetorical strategy.

Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions

This paper shows how reasoning from best explanation combines with linguistic and factual presumptions during the process of retrieving a speaker’s intention. It is shown how differences between presumptions need to be used to pick the best explanation of a pragmatic manifestation of a dialogical intention. It is shown why we cannot simply jump to an interpretative conclusion based on what we presume to be the most common purpose of a speech act, and why, in cases of indirect speech acts, we need to depend on an abductive process of interpretation.

The Presumptions of Meaning. Hamblin and Equivocation.

When we use a word, we face a crucial epistemic gap: we ground our move on the fact that our interlocutor knows the meaning of the word we used, and therefore he can interpret our dialogical intention. However, how is it possible to know the other’s mind? Hamblin explained this dialogical problem advancing the idea of dialectical meaning: on his view, the use of a word is based on a set of presumptions. Building on this approach, the use of a word in a dialogue can be analyzed in terms of presumptive reasoning, while the manipulative strategies based on slanted or loaded terms or redefinitions can be conceived as forms of conflicts of presumptions. A presumptive approach to meaning can also ground different dialectical strategies to solve misunderstanding or definitional disagreements, or tactics to undermine the interlocutor’s arguments by advancing charges of equivocation.

Presumptive arguments turned into a fallacy of presumptuousness: Pre-election debates in a democracy of promises

This paper deals with pre-election discourse in Hungary identifying complex argumentative moves that call for modifications in traditional research methodologies. Based on theoretical studies and real-life public debates a fine-grained analysis is offered to discern substantive arguments from presumptive arguments. The assessment of politicians’ argumentative practices takes into account both the critical-rationalist and the pragma-dialectical perspectives on reasoned discussion. The results show that presumptions function as special kinds of inferences grounded in considerations related to the context or circumstances in which the inferences are to be drawn. Presumptive reasoning is shown to be a paradigm case of rational activity in assessing the expectations of others. In the analysis of political discourse the aim is to find out what beliefs electors entertain and how their positions on certain issues get influenced by politicians’ arguments. Thus, the paper offers a new look at the notion of rational discussion. The early bed-rock certainty of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation as a prime example of normative pragmatics seems to be losing its primacy: at best we can try to adhere to a mixture of a critical-rationalistic view of reasonableness and the dialectical notion of reasonableness in real-life debates and public argumentations.

Acute appendicitis: an overview.

To provide an overview of the changing epidemiology of acute appendicitis in the developed and developing countries and the presumptive reasons. Major published series of the last two decades were reviewed using Medline Search and Index Medicus. The myriad of diagnostic approaches currently employed to reduce the hitherto high rates of negative appendicectomy were examined and current trends of management analysed. The treatment modalities of acute appendicitis have undergone tremendous changes in the last decade.

Intravascular Flow Patterns in Transforaminal Epidural Injections: A Comparative Study of the Cervical and Lumbar Vertebral Segments

Transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) is commonly used in the treatment of radicular pain. However, there have been many published cases of serious complications after a TEI, occurring most often in cervical levels. One of the presumptive reasons for this complication is inadvertent intravascular injection. We sought to identify the incidence of intravascular injections in cervical and lumbar spinal segments during TEI. All patients with radicular symptoms or herpes zoster-associated pain underwent cervical and lumbar TEIs (LTEIs) prospectively by one of the authors. After an ideal needle position was confirmed by biplanar fluoroscopy, 3 mL of a mixture containing nonionic contrast and normal saline was continuously injected at the rate of 0.3-0.5 mL/s with real-time fluoroscopic visualization. One hundred eighty-two TEIs were performed. Fifty-six cases (30.8%) showed intravascular spreading patterns, 45 cases occurring during a cervical TEI (CTEI) and 11 during a LTEI. The incidences of simultaneous perineural and vascular injection in cervical and LTEIs were 52.1% and 9%, respectively, and pure vascular flow pattern rates in cervical and LTEIs were 11.3% and 0.9%, respectively. The incidence of vascular injection in CTEIs is significantly higher than in LTEIs, suggesting that CTEIs should be performed more cautiously. Furthermore, the vascular injection rate of CTEIs is much higher than that previously reported. This finding suggests the need for a proper volume of contrast injection (3 mL) to detect vascular flow, especially in simultaneous perineural and vascular injections.

Flow Impairment During Protected Carotid Artery Stenting:Impact of Filter Device Design

To investigate the impact of filter design on blood flow impairment in the internal carotid artery (ICA) among patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) using filter-type emboli protection devices (EPD). Between July 2003 and March 2007, 115 filter-protected CAS procedures were performed at an academic institution in 107 consecutive patients (78 men; mean age 68 years, range 38-87). The Angioguard, FilterWire EZ, and Spider filters were used in 68 (59%), 32 (28%), and 15 (13%) of cases, respectively. Patient characteristics, procedural and angiographic data, and outcomes were prospectively entered into an electronic database and reviewed retrospectively along with all angiograms. Flow impairment while the filter was in place was observed in 25 (22%) cases. The presumptive reason of flow impairment was filter obstruction in 21 (18%) instances and flow-limiting spasm at the level of the filter in 4 (4%). In all cases, flow was restored after retrieval of the filter. Flow obstruction in the ICA occurred more frequently with Angioguard (22/68; 32.3%) than with FilterWire EZ (2/32; 6.2%) or Spider (1/15; 6.7%; p = 0.004). No flow occurred in 13 (19%) procedures, all of them protected with Angioguard; no patient treated with other devices experienced this event (p = 0.007). Two (8.0%) strokes occurred in procedures associated with flow impairment, while 1 (1.1%) event was observed in the presence of preserved flow throughout the intervention (p = 0.11). Flow impairment in the ICA during filter-based CAS is common and related to the type of filter used.