17 ideas
19115 | You can 'rebut' an argument's conclusion, or 'undercut' its premises [Antonelli] |
19119 | We infer that other objects are like some exceptional object, if they share some of its properties [Antonelli] |
15382 | Paraconsistent reasoning can just mean responding sensibly to inconsistencies [Jago] |
19111 | Reasoning may be defeated by new premises, or by finding out more about the given ones [Antonelli] |
19114 | Should we accept Floating Conclusions, derived from two arguments in conflict? [Antonelli] |
19113 | Weakest Link Principle: prefer the argument whose weakest link is the stronger [Antonelli] |
19116 | Non-monotonic core: Reflexivity, Cut, Cautious Monotonicity, Left Logical Equivalence, Right Weakening [Antonelli] |
19117 | We can rank a formula by the level of surprise if it were to hold [Antonelli] |
19118 | People don't actually use classical logic, but may actually use non-monotonic logic [Antonelli] |
19110 | In classical logic the relation |= has Monotony built into its definition [Antonelli] |
19112 | Cautious Monotony ignores proved additions; Rational Monotony fails if the addition's negation is proved [Antonelli] |
2851 | Emotivists find it hard to analyse assertions of moral principles, rather than actual judgements [Brink] |
2848 | Two people might agree in their emotional moral attitude while disagreeing in their judgement [Brink] |
2853 | Emotivists claim to explain moral motivation by basing morality on non-cognitive attitudes [Brink] |
2852 | Emotivists tend to favour a redundancy theory of truth, making moral judgement meaningless [Brink] |
2849 | Emotivism implies relativism about moral meanings, but critics say disagreements are about moral reference [Brink] |
2850 | How can emotivists explain someone who recognises morality but is indifferent to it? [Brink] |