Brun, Georg and Rott, Hans (2013) Interpreting enthymematic arguments using belief revision. SYNTHESE, 190 (18). pp. 4041-4063. ISSN 0039-7857, 1573-0964
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
This paper is about the situation in which an author (writer or speaker) presents a deductively invalid argument, but the addressee aims at a charitable interpretation and has reason to assume that the author intends to present a valid argument. How can he go about interpreting the author's reasoning as enthymematically valid? We suggest replacing the usual find-the-missing-premise approaches by an approach based on systematic efforts to ascribe a belief state to the author against the background of which the argument has to be evaluated. The suggested procedure includes rules for recording whether the author in fact accepts or denies the premises and the conclusion, as well as tests for enthymematic validity and strategies for revising belief state ascriptions. Different degrees of interpretive charity can be exercised. This is one reason why the interpretation or reconstruction of an enthymematic argument typically does not result in a unique outcome.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | DISTANCE SEMANTICS; MINIMAL CHANGE; RAMSEY TEST; Enthymeme; Argument; Interpretation; Charity; Belief revision |
| Subjects: | 100 Philosophy & psychology > 100 Philosophy |
| Divisions: | Philosophy, Art History, History, and Humanities > Institut für Philosophie > Lehrstuhl für Theoretische Philosophie (Prof. Dr. phil Hans Rott) |
| Depositing User: | Dr. Gernot Deinzer |
| Date Deposited: | 01 Apr 2020 08:38 |
| Last Modified: | 01 Apr 2020 08:38 |
| URI: | https://pred.uni-regensburg.de/id/eprint/15611 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
