scholarly journals Computing Trust as a Form of Presumptive Reasoning

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierpaolo Dondio ◽  
Luca Longo
Keyword(s):  
Presumptive Reasoning

scholarly journals A dialectical approach to presupposition

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Macagno
Keyword(s):  
Dialectical Approach ◽  
Implicit Arguments ◽  
Presumptive Reasoning

Abstract This 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

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Macagno
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Patient Communication ◽  
Doctor Patient Communication ◽  
Presumptive Reasoning

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.

Presumptive Reasoning/Argument

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 46-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Anthony Blair ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Presumptive Reasoning

WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 561-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jazlin Ebenezer ◽  
Anton Puvirajah
Keyword(s):  
Particle Theory ◽  
Presumptive Reasoning

scholarly journals The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises. Presumptions in Enthymemes.

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Macagno ◽  
Giovanni Damele
Keyword(s):  
Rhetorical Strategy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Presumptive Reasoning

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.

scholarly journals Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance

Argumentation ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 579-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petar Bodlović
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Presumptive Reasoning ◽  
Practical Arguments

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals The Presumptions of Meaning. Hamblin and Equivocation.

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Macagno
Keyword(s):  
Presumptive Reasoning ◽  
Epistemic Gap

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.

Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Presumptive Reasoning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document