Showing papers on "Abductive reasoning published in 1973"
TL;DR: The authors argue that a misleadingly incomplete account of the nature of analogy has unnecessarily complicated matters and that it has occasionally led away from fruitful accounts of judicial decision-making, and that the difficulty lies in a fixation on what they call "static analogies", which are only one component of useful analogical arguments, and probably not even the most important component at that.
Abstract: Analyses of legal reasoning, whatever the axes they grind, inevitably deal with analogy. But they have, so far at least, been disappointing in their failure to develop a convincing general account of validity for such arguments. Some are content to classify various types, noting with respect to each type where difficulties regarding validity are located. A few seem to imply that the necessity for analogical argument entails, ipso facto, that legal argument lacks adequate criteria of validity. Of course, the whole matter of the validity of nondemonstrative inferences is murky. But I want to argue that a misleadingly incomplete account of the nature of analogy has unnecessarily complicated matters-indeed, that it has occasionally led away from fruitful accounts of judicial decision making. The difficulty lies in a fixation on what I shall call \"static analogies,\" which, as it turns out, are only one component of useful analogical arguments, and probably not even the most important component at that. What I shall call \"dynamic analogies\" are the crucial component, and a component which carries on its face the outline of validity conditions for analogical arguments in general.
9 citations
TL;DR: In this article, Linguistics and logical reasoning are combined with teaching the young to think in the context of Linguistic and Logic Reasoning, with a focus on teaching the Young to Think.
Abstract: (1973). Linguistics and logical reasoning. Theory Into Practice: Vol. 12, Teaching the Young to Think, pp. 272-277.
1 citations