Conceivability Arguments

2010

This chapter collects the contributions discussed during the working sessions of the WG2 at CERME6. The work of the participants of the Thematic Working Group on Argumentation and Proof was organized around the goals of • Putting our research studies in relation to each other. • Getting feedback for improving both our research work and our papers. Each participant was expected to act as reactor to one of the other papers, presenting the key issues and posing questions to the author(s). Such intervention was aimed to trigger a collective discussion on the paper in focus as well on general issues. Although they all share the issue of proof and argumentation, the contributions offer a quite varied spectrum of perspectives, both from the point of view of theoretical frameworks assumed and of issues in focus. The main themes that emerged from the papers were the frame according to which the working sessions of the group were organized, and it is the same frame we use to organize this int...

It is widely suspected that arguments from conceivability, at least in some of their more notorious instances, are unsound. However, the reasons for the failure of conceivability arguments are less well agreed upon, and it remains unclear how to distinguish between sound and unsound instances of the form. In this paper I provide an analysis of the form of arguments from conceivability, and use this analysis to diagnose a systematic weakness in the argument form which reveals all its instances to be, roughly, either uninformative or unsound. I illustrate this conclusion through a consideration of David Chalmers' modal argument against physicalism.

The Reasoner, 2019

October 2019 update on the Logic of Conceivability project outcomes.

2010

The aim of this paper is to develop and justify a specific methodology of interpreting arguments for judging their argumentative validity and adequacy, i.e. the aim is to provide a useful tool which may be used for a specific purpose. This does not exclude that there are or may be other useful methodologies for interpreting arguments which could serve for different purposes. The methodology exposed in the paper will not only be theoretically justified but also specified up to detailed rules which can be used in classroom for analyzing found scientific arguments. 1. What Is an Interpretation of a Text in General? Arguments in the sense of argumentative acts (as opposed to the content of an argument) are speech acts or if one takes speech acts to be smaller units confining them to the level of sentences consist of speech acts. In the analytical tradition there exist two major approaches to the interpretation of speech acts. The first may be called the "rationality presupposition ...

The thesis is concerned with Peter Abelard's (1079-1142) understanding of sentences involving alethic modality (possibility and necessity). As a starting point, I present a line of reasoning advanced in the anonymous treatise Secundum magistrum Petrum sententie (SMPS), which has been tentatively ascribed to Abelard. It consists in a refutation of the following sophism: 'This man is this body; but this body can exist without this man; so this man can exist without this man'. The solution is based on the claim that the mode (modus) expressed by the modal predicate 'can' depends on the subject term to which it is attached.

Philosophical Studies, 2005

This paper advances the thesis that we can justifiably believe philosophically interesting possibility statements. The first part of the paper critically discusses van Inwagen’s skeptical arguments while at the same time laying some of the foundation for a positive view. The second part of the paper advances a view of conceivability in terms of imaginability, where imaginging can be propositional, pictorial, or a combination of the two, and argues that conceivability can, and often does, provide us with justified beliefs of what is metaphysically possible. The notion of scenarios is developed, as is an account of how filling out scenarios can uncover a defeater or, in many cases, strengthen the justification for the relevant possibility statement.

2020

In this article, a new, idealizing-hermeneutic methodological approach to developing a theory of philosophical arguments is presented and carried out. The basis for this is a theory of ideal philosophical theory types developed from the analysis of historical examples. According to this theory, the following ideal types of theory exist in philosophy: 1. descriptive-nomological, 2. idealizing-hermeneutic, 3. technical-constructive, 4. ontic-practical. These types of theories are characterized in particular by what their basic types of theses are. The main task of this article is then to determine the types of arguments that are suitable for justifying these types of theses. Surprisingly, practical arguments play a key role here.

Master of Arts thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2012

Chalmers proposes a notion of conceivability such that it entails possibility of a certain kind - primary possibilities, and defines the a priori in terms of primary necessities. I discuss problems with his project. I will also point out that what he takes to be primarily possible, that water is XYZ, is not primarily possible. I will end with a positive account.

The Philosophical Quarterly, 2016

Famous examples of conceivability arguments include: (i) Descartes' argument for mind-body dualism; (ii) Kripke's 'modal argument' against psychophysical identity theory; (iii) Chalmers' 'zombie argument' against materialism; and (iv) modal versions of the ontological argument for theism. In this paper we show that for any such conceivability argument, C, there is a corresponding 'mirror argument', M. M is deductively valid and has a conclusion that contradicts C's conclusion. Hence a proponent of C-henceforth, a 'conceivabilist'-can be warranted in holding that C's premises are conjointly true only if she can find fault with one of M's premises. But M's premises-of which there are just two-are modeled on a pair of C's premises. The same reasoning that supports the latter supports the former. For this reason a conceivabilist can repudiate M's premises only on pain of severely undermining C's premises. We conclude on this basis that all conceivability arguments, including each of (i)-(iv), are fallacious.

Argumentation, 2004

Argumentation is to my knowledge the first English textbook on argumentation based on the pragma-dialectical theory, and written by leading researchers in that field. Since the authors come from a different theoretical orientation than mine, and use their textbook in a different educational setting, it seemed prudent to send them (except Rob Grootendorst, who unfortunately passed away a few years ago) an earlier version of this paper in order to present a more fair and accurate book review. It will include some information from my profitable exchange with them. Argumentation is intended to accomplish two general goals: to provide students with an opportunity to apply fundamental aspects of the pragmadialectical theory, and to introduce them to the analysis, evaluation, and presentation of written and oral arguments. We must bear in mind that this textbook is used in a course that typically covers an introduction to subjects such as the classical backgrounds of argumentation theory (including syllogistic logic), classical and modern approaches to rhetoric and persuasion theory, argumentation in special fields, such as politics and law, speech act theory and Gricean conversational implicatures, conversation analysis and discourse analysis, theories about the writing process, text genres and stylistics. In fact, students use the textbook for about six weeks, and spend the remainder of the eight weeks on these other subjects. The authors intended this book to be concise precisely in order to give them the flexibility to cover these other interesting areas of argumentation and communication. Where there is conciseness, omissions are inescapable. So in fairness to the authors, we should keep in mind their goals when I identify some omission. Though this textbook does cover many of the core concepts and skills found in North American critical thinking textbooks, it is not intended nor would it be appropriate by itself, due to its conciseness, to replace these textbooks in the North American context. If one were to do so, as I did in the summer of 2003, one would be required to supplement the text with more information and assignments. I was informed by the authors that they also include additional assignments, for instance, identifying missing premises and/or conclusions, analysing and evaluating longer arguments, writing a critical review, finding examples of fallacies and writing a short essay justifying why the examples should be considered fallacious. Their textbook also sometimes uses a theoretical vocabulary when ordinary words would be just as adequate and more useful to a North American first year student, who typically has practical rather than theo-ARGU ART. NO. 340BR PIPS. NO. 5265948 DISK, CP PDF OUTPUT