Works by James B. Freeman
54 found
Order:
1 filter applied
DisambiguationsDisambiguations:
| James B. Freeman [55] | James Beaumont Freeman [1] |
- Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure.James B. Freeman -1991 - Berlin ; New York: Foris Publications.Chapter The Need for a Theory of Argument Structure. THE STANDARD APPROACH The approach to argument diagramming which we call standard was originated, ...
- Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem.James B. Freeman -2004 - New York: Cambridge University Press.When, if ever, is one justified in accepting the premises of an argument? What is the proper criterion of premise acceptability? Can the criterion be theoretically or philosophically justified? This is the first book to provide a comprehensive theory of premise acceptability and it answers the questions above from an epistemological approach that the author calls common sense foundationalism. It will be eagerly sought out not just by specialists in informal logic, critical thinking, and argumentation theory but also by a (...) broader range of philosophers and those teaching rhetoric. (shrink)
- Argument structure: representation and theory.James B. Freeman -2011 - New York: Springer.An approach to argument macrostructure -- The dialectical nature of argument -- Toulmin's problematic notion of warrant -- The linked-convergent distinction, a first approximation -- Argument structure and disciplinary perspective : the linked-convergent versus multiple-co-ordinatively compound distinctions -- The linked-convergent distinction, refining the criterion -- Argument structure and enthymemes -- From analysis to evaluation.
- Systematizing Toulmin’s Warrants: An Epistemic Approach.James B. Freeman -2005 -Argumentation 19 (3):331-346.Relevance of premises to conclusion can be explicated through Toulmin’s notion of warrant, understood as an inference rule, albeit not necessarily formal. A normative notion of relevance requires the warrant to be reliable. To determine reliability, we propose a fourfold classification of warrants into a priori, empirical, institutional, and evaluative, with further subdivisions possible. This classification has its ancestry in classical rhetoric and recent epistemology. Distinctive to each type of warrant is the mode by which such connections are intuitively discovered (...) and the grounds on which we ultimately justify them. The classification of warrants is thus epistemic. We illustrate the difference by contrasting empirical physical with institutional intuition, and argue for the advantages of this approach over Toulmin’s conception of field dependence. (shrink)
- The Place of Informal Logic in Philosophy.James B. Freeman -2000 -Informal Logic 20 (2).We argue that informal logic is epistemological. Two central questions concern premise acceptability and connection adequacy. Both may be explicated in tenns of justification, a central epistemological concept. That some premises are basic parallels a foundationalist account of basic beliefs and epistemic support. Some epistemological accounts of these concepts may advance the analysis of premise acceptability and connection adequacy. Infonnallogic has implications for other aspects of philosophy. If causal interpretations are acceptable premises and thus justified, does the world have a (...) causal structure? If evaluative premises are acceptable, i.e., justified, is value an objective feature of the world? (shrink)
- Relevance, warrants, backing, inductive support.James B. Freeman -1992 -Argumentation 6 (2):219-275.We perceive relevance by virtue of inference habits, which may be expressed as Pierce's leading principles or as Toulmin's warrants. Hence relevance in a descriptive sense is a ternary relation between two statements and a set of inference rules. For a normative sense, the warrants must be properly backed. Different types of warrant to empirical generalizations, we introduce L.J. Cohen's notion of inductive support. A to empirical generalizations, we introduce L.J. Cohen's notion of inductive support. A generalization H is supported (...) by evidence E to degree i/in iff E indicates that H passes canonical test i, where there are n canonical tests. In a canonical test, one or more relevant variables, factors which may falsify H, are varied. H passes a test if it is not falsified. The tests are cumulative. Degree of support is relative to the canonical test, and may be modeled as relative to a point in a dialectical situation. A value of a variable at which H is falsified is a rebutting value. A is normatively relevant to B with respect to W iff sup[associated generalization(W), E] = i/n and for j > i, there is a presumption that the values of j are non-rebuting. (shrink)
- An analysis of the subjunctive conditional.Charles B. Daniels &James B. Freeman -1980 -Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21 (4):639-655.
- What Types of Statements are There?James B. Freeman -2000 -Argumentation 14 (2):135-157.Building on the work of Sproule, Fahnestock and Secor, and Kruger, we present a specific typology of statements. In particular, we distinguish broadly logically determinate statements, descriptions, interpretations, and evaluations. We generate this typology through a series of dichotomous divisions of statements. We divide statements first into the broadly logically determinate versus contingent, the contingent into the evaluational versus natural, and the natural into the extensional versus intensional. We show that the rationales for these distinctions are well motivated and philosophically (...) important. In particular, we argue that identifying the type of a statement is relevant to showing whether or not the sources vouching for it render the statement epistemically acceptable. (shrink)
- Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective.James B. Freeman -2001 -Argumentation 15 (4):397-423.Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. (...) Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses. (shrink)
- Logical Form, Probability Interpretations, and the Inductive/Deductive Distinction.James B. Freeman -1983 -Informal Logic 5 (2).Logical Form, Probability Interpretations, and the Inductive/Deductive Distinction.
- What types of arguments are there?James B. Freeman -unknownOur typology is based on two ground adequacy factors, one logical and one epistemic. Logically, the step from premises to conclusion may be conclusive or only ceteris paribus. Epistemically, warrants may be backed a priori or a posteriori. Hence there are four types of arguments: conclusive a priori, defeasible a priori, defeasible a posteriori, and prima facie conclusive a posteriori. We shall give an example of each and compare our scheme with other typologies.
- Govier’s Distinguishing A Priori from Inductive Arguments by Analogy: Implications for a General Theory of Ground Adequacy.James B. Freeman -2013 -Informal Logic 33 (2):175-194.In a priori analogies, the analogue is constructed in imagination, sharing certain properties with the primary subject. The analogue has some further property clearly consequent on those shared properties. Ceteris paribus the primary subject has that property also. The warrant involves non-empirical, e.g., moral intuition but is also defeasible. The argument is thus neither deductive nor inductive, but an additional type. In an inductive analogy, the analogues back the warrant from below. Distinguishing these two types of arguments by analogy gives (...) epistemic evaluative factors primacy over resemblance factors in classifying arguments—a prescient insight on Govier’s part. (shrink)
- Dialectical situations and argument analysis.James B. Freeman -1985 -Informal Logic 7 (2).Dialectical Situations and Argument Analysis.
- Argument Strength, the Toulmin Model, and Ampliative Probability.James B. Freeman -2006 -Informal Logic 26 (1):25-40.We argue that Cohen’s concept of inductive or ampliative probability facilitates proper explication of sufficient strength for non-demonstrative arguments conforming to the Toulmin model. The data and claims of such arguments are singular statements. We may epistemically classify the warrants of such arguments as empirical (either physical or personal), institutional, or evaluative. Backing evidence and rebutting considerations vary with the epistemic type of warrant, but in each case the notion of ampliative probability for arguments with warrants of that type can (...) be characterized. We may then use ampliative probability to define sufficient strength and related notions for Toulmin arguments. (shrink)
- Walton`s Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation.James B. Freeman -1996 -Informal Logic 18 (2).
- Classical second-order intensional logic with maximal propositions.Charles B. Daniels &James B. Freeman -1977 -Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (1):1 - 31.By the standards presented in the Introduction, CMFC2 is deficient on at least one ontological ground: ‘∀’ is a syncategorematic expression and so CMFC2 is not an ideal language. To some there may be an additional difficulty: any two wffs provably equivalent in the classical sense are provably identical. We hope in sequel to present systems free of these difficulties, free either of one or the other, or perhaps both.This work was done with the aid of Canada Council Grant S74-0551-S1.
- (1 other version)Algebraic Semantics for Modal Predicate Logic.James B. Freeman -1976 -Mathematical Logic Quarterly 22 (1):523-552.
- Compactness for RQ.James B. Freeman -1975 -Studia Logica 34 (3):269 - 274.
- Epistemic justification and premise acceptability.James B. Freeman -1996 -Argumentation 10 (1):59-68.In this paper, we want to explore the connection between premises' being acceptable and their being in some sense justified. The equivalence of premise acceptability and justification seems intuitively correct. But to argue for such a connection, we need to analyze the concepts of acceptability and justification. Such an analysis also seems necessary if this equivalence is to advance our understanding of premise acceptability. Following L. J. Cohen, we may say S believes that p when S is disposed to feel (...) it true that p, while S accepts that p when S takes that p as a premise for further deliberation or action. Reasons for belief are reasons for acceptance, and epistemological (as opposed to pragmatic) reasons for acceptance are reason for belief. Following William P. Alston, we may explicate being a justifying reason for belief through the notion of an adequate ground on which the belief is based. In turn, adequacy of ground means that the mechanism grounding the belief is reliable. Given these notions, we may define a concept of justification in terms of presumptive adequacy. (shrink)
- Fairness and the value of disjunctive actions.James B. Freeman -1973 -Philosophical Studies 24 (2):105 - 111.No categories
- The truth about truth as a condition of premise adequacy.James B. Freeman -unknownIs truth a condition of premise adequacy? We may distinguish objective and subjective argument correctness. Objective correctness means true premises rendering the conclusion true or probable. Subjective correctness means acceptable pr emises rendering the conclusion acceptable. Acceptability depends on evidence available and so is internalist. Objective and subjective correctness of the premises is ordinarily distinct. For connection adequacy, objective rightness and subjective righ tness coincide. We recognize entailment or rendering probably a priori. Logic is thus internalist. Logic needs an internalist (...) notion of acceptability for premise evaluation to fall within its purview, although it need not deny the objective sens e of rightness. (shrink)No categories
- What Types of Statements are There? A Philosophical Look at Stasis Theory.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Two Notions of Truth.Charles B. Daniels &James B. Freeman -1980 -Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61 (4):333-345.
- The Fallacy of Misplaced Presumption.James B. Freeman -2023 -Argumentation 37 (2):217-231.One takes one’s word that p when a source vouches for p and one accepts the word of that source. If the source is reliable in this case, p is acceptable. The reliability of the source is a measure of its plausibility. If a source has the relevant competence, credibility, authority, that word is acceptable. Likewise, the word may be acceptable if accompanied by a cogent argument, but presumption may be misplaced. One may recognize a presumption for a statement when (...) such recognition is not justified, the positive version of the fallacy. One may refuse to recognize a presumption for a statement when there really is a presumption for the statement, the negative version of the fallacy. The essay proceeds to explore various dimensions of when it is justified to take a source’s word for a claim, and when it is justified to reject a claim from a source. The discussion ranges over considerations of sexism and race, cultural differences, and the relationship of presumptions to fallacies. Also considered is the role of trust in taking someone’s word and the factors involved in trusting someone. (shrink)No categories
- Arguments about arguments.James B. Freeman -2007 -Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37 (4):525-540.We survey the contents of Finocchiaro's papers collected in Arguments about Arguments , pointing out, where appropriate, their expected interest for readers of Philosophy of the Social Sciences. The papers include essays about argument theory and reasoning, the nature of fallacies and fallaciousness, critiques of noteworthy contributions to argumentation theory, and historical essays on scientific thinking. Key Words: arguments • dialectic • dialectical approach • empirical logic • evaluation • fallacies • informal logic • interpretation • reasoning.
- A Caution on Propositional Identity.James B. Freeman -1977 -Analysis 37 (4):149 - 151.
- Aristotelian Intellectual Intuition, Basic Beliefs and Naturalistic Epistemology.James B. Freeman -1998 -The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 45:88-93.I first argue that Aristotelian intellectual intuition generates basic beliefs which are not inferred — inductively or deductively — from other beliefs. Both involve synthetic intuitive insight. Epagoge grasps a connection and nous sees its general applicability. I next argue that such beliefs are properly basic by adapting an argument made by Hilary Kornblith. According to Kornblith, the world is objectively divided into natural kinds. We humans perceive the world divided into natural kinds. There is empirical evidence suggesting that we (...) divide the world not only as it is objectively divided, but in making inductive inferences, that is, in inferring that an object will have certain properties on the basis of its having others. This grounds the reliability of inductive inferences. But the leading principles of these inferences are basic beliefs generated through intellectual intuition. Hence intellectual intuition generates certain properly basic beliefs. (shrink)No categories
- Aristotelian Logic.James B. Freeman -1994 -Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (1):130-131.
- A second-order relevance logic with modality.James B. Freeman &Charles B. Daniels -1979 -Studia Logica 38 (2):113 - 135.In this paper a system, RPF, of second-order relevance logic with S5 necessity is presented which contains a defined, notion of identity for propositions. A complete semantics is provided. It is shown that RPF allows for more than one necessary proposition. RPF contains primitive syntactic counterparts of the following semantic notions: (1) the reflexive, symmetrical, transitive binary alternativeness relation for S5 necessity, (2) the ternary Routley-Meyer alternativeness relation for implication, and (3) the Routley-Meyer notion of a prime intensional theory, as (...) well as defined syntactic counterparts, of the semantic notions of a possible world and the Routley-Meyer * operator. (shrink)
- Can Interpretations Ever Be Acceptable Basic Premises?James B. Freeman -unknown
- Commentary on Blair.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Commentary on Goddu.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Commentary on Kauffeld.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Commentary on Los.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Commentary on: Scott Aikin and John Casey's "Don't feed the trolls: Straw men and iron men".James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Errors of Reasoning, Naturalizing the Logic of Inference.James B. Freeman -2016 -Informal Logic 36 (3):395-426.
- Govier's The Philosophy of Argument.James B. Freeman -2002 -Informal Logic 22 (1).
- Higher Level Moral Principles in Argumentation.James B. Freeman -unknownSuppose two persons disagree over whether an act is right, justifying their judgments by appealing to divergent higher-level moral principles. These principles function as backing and rebuttals in their argumentation. To justify these principles, we may argue either that they would be accepted in some ideal model or that they are in reflective equilibrium with our considered moral judgments. Disagreement over the model indicates difference in philosophical anthropology but does not preclude resolution through argument.
- Maximal propositions and the coherence theory of truth.James B. Freeman &Charles B. Daniels -1978 -Dialogue 17 (1):56-71.In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein maintains that “The world is all that is the case.” Some philosophers have seen an advantage in introducing into a formal language either a constant which will represent the world, or an operator, e.g., ‘Max’, such that indicates that p gives a complete description of the actual world, of the world at some instant of time, or of a possible world. Such propositions are called world propositions, possible world propositions, or maximal propositions. For us, a maximal (...) proposition is a possible world proposition; it gives a complete description of one way the world might be. A maximal proposition p is not logically false, and for any proposition q, either p entails q or p entails not-q. (shrink)
- 19. Premiss Acceptability and Truth.James B. Freeman -2005 - In Kent A. Peacock & Andrew D. Irvine,Mistakes of reason: essays in honour of John Woods. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. pp. 348-363.
- Premise Acceptability, Deontology, Internalism, Justification.James B. Freeman -1995 -Informal Logic 17 (2).Acceptability is a thoroughly normative epistemic notion. If a statement is acceptable, i.e. it is proper to take it as a premise, then one is justified in accepting it. We also hold that a statement is acceptable just in case there is a presumption of warrant in its favor. We thus see acceptability connected to epistemic normativity on the one hand and to warrant on the other. But there is a distinct tension in this dual connection. The dominant tradition in (...) modern epistemology sees epistemic justification as an internalist notion. We are justified in holding a belief just in case certain conditions are fulfilled of which we have privileged access. Warrant is an externalist notion. We have no privileged access to the conditions of warrant. Is our understanding of acceptability as both normative and definable in terms of presumption of warrant philosophically coherent? We shall argue that it is a philosophically coherent notion. Presumption of warrant, unlike warrant, is an internalist notion. Our position can be characterized as an externalist internal ism. It avoids the charge brought against externalism of allowing one to be justified in accepting some claim even if one has no evidence for it. We meet the classical internalist challenge that acceptance is normatively proper only if one has done one's epistemic duty and thus one is aware of the normative propriety of the acceptance by providing a non-deontological definition of epistemic justification, and arguing that this is still a sufficiently normative notion for acceptability. (shrink)
- Progress Without Regress on the Dialectical Tier.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Resolving Moral Dissensus: Possibilities for Argumentation.James B. Freeman -unknownMoral dissensus may arise first because persons may disagree over the warrants licensing inferring an evaluative conclusion from premises asserting that properties alleged evaluatively relevant hold. This results in seeing different properties as evaluatively relevant. Secondly, such properties will frequently not be descriptive but interpretive, asserting some nomic connection. Persons may disagree over what evaluatively relevant properties hold in a given case. We explore the possibilities for argumentation to resolve these two types of disagreement.
- Reply to commentary on "The Method of Relevant Variables, Objectivity, and Bias".James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- Reply to my Commentator - Freeman.James B. Freeman -unknownNo categories
- The Human Image System and Thinking Critically in the Strong Sense.James B. Freeman -1989 -Informal Logic 11 (1).The Human Image System and Thinking Critically in the Strong Sense.
- The Logical Dimension of Argumentation and Its Semantic Appraisal in Bermejo-Luque’s Giving Reasons.James B. Freeman -2011 -Theoria 26 (3):289-299.We critically examine Bermejo-Luque’s account of the logical dimension of argumentation and its logical or semantic evaluation. Our considerations concern her views on inference claims, validity, logical normativity, warrants, necessity, warrants and the justification of inferences, ontological versus epistemic modal qualifiers, ontological versus epistemic probability, and ontological versus conditional probability.
- van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Kruiger`s Handbook of Argumentation Theory: A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies.James B. Freeman -1987 -Informal Logic 9 (1).
- Why Classical Foundationalism Cannot Provide a Proper Account of Premise Acceptability.James B. Freeman -1996 -Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15 (4):17-26.
- Walton's Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation.James B. Freeman -1990 -Informal Logic 12 (2).
| 1 — 50 / 54 |
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5b9ff6f457-xbt84 uwo