ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Agazzi, Evandro
Data de Publicação: 2015
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642010
Resumo: Humans have used arguments for defending or refuting statements long before the creation of logic as a specialized discipline. This can be interpreted as the fact that an intuitive notion of “logical consequence” or a psychic disposition to articulate reasoning according to this pattern is present in common sense, and logic simply aims at describing and codifying the features of this spontaneous capacity of human reason. It is well known, however, that several arguments easily accepted by common sense are actually “logical fallacies”, and this indicates that logic is not just a descriptive, but also a prescriptive or normative enterprise, in which the notion of logical consequence is defined in a precise way and then certain rules are established in order to maintain the discourse in keeping with this notion. Yet in the justification of the correctness and adequacy of these rules commonsense reasoning must necessarily be used, and in such a way its foundational role is recognized. Moreover, it remains also true that several branches and forms of logic have been elaborated precisely in order to reflect the structural features of correct argument used in different fields of human reasoning and yet insufficiently mirrored by the most familiar logical formalisms.
id UNICAMP-17_05412a2efb516c69f90fa2e00c4ee628
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8642010
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICSLogical consequence. Psychology of logic. Descriptive and normative in logic. Commonsense reasoning.Humans have used arguments for defending or refuting statements long before the creation of logic as a specialized discipline. This can be interpreted as the fact that an intuitive notion of “logical consequence” or a psychic disposition to articulate reasoning according to this pattern is present in common sense, and logic simply aims at describing and codifying the features of this spontaneous capacity of human reason. It is well known, however, that several arguments easily accepted by common sense are actually “logical fallacies”, and this indicates that logic is not just a descriptive, but also a prescriptive or normative enterprise, in which the notion of logical consequence is defined in a precise way and then certain rules are established in order to maintain the discourse in keeping with this notion. Yet in the justification of the correctness and adequacy of these rules commonsense reasoning must necessarily be used, and in such a way its foundational role is recognized. Moreover, it remains also true that several branches and forms of logic have been elaborated precisely in order to reflect the structural features of correct argument used in different fields of human reasoning and yet insufficiently mirrored by the most familiar logical formalisms.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2015-11-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642010Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 34 n. 1 (2011): Jan./Jun.; 51-88Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 34 No. 1 (2011): Jan./Jun.; 51-88Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 34 Núm. 1 (2011): Jan./Jun.; 51-882317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642010/14962Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAgazzi, Evandro2017-01-09T09:49:09Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8642010Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2017-01-09T09:49:09Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
title ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
spellingShingle ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
Agazzi, Evandro
Logical consequence. Psychology of logic. Descriptive and normative in logic. Commonsense reasoning.
title_short ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
title_full ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
title_fullStr ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
title_full_unstemmed ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
title_sort ONE REASON, SEVERAL LOGICS
author Agazzi, Evandro
author_facet Agazzi, Evandro
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Agazzi, Evandro
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Logical consequence. Psychology of logic. Descriptive and normative in logic. Commonsense reasoning.
topic Logical consequence. Psychology of logic. Descriptive and normative in logic. Commonsense reasoning.
description Humans have used arguments for defending or refuting statements long before the creation of logic as a specialized discipline. This can be interpreted as the fact that an intuitive notion of “logical consequence” or a psychic disposition to articulate reasoning according to this pattern is present in common sense, and logic simply aims at describing and codifying the features of this spontaneous capacity of human reason. It is well known, however, that several arguments easily accepted by common sense are actually “logical fallacies”, and this indicates that logic is not just a descriptive, but also a prescriptive or normative enterprise, in which the notion of logical consequence is defined in a precise way and then certain rules are established in order to maintain the discourse in keeping with this notion. Yet in the justification of the correctness and adequacy of these rules commonsense reasoning must necessarily be used, and in such a way its foundational role is recognized. Moreover, it remains also true that several branches and forms of logic have been elaborated precisely in order to reflect the structural features of correct argument used in different fields of human reasoning and yet insufficiently mirrored by the most familiar logical formalisms.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-11-29
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642010
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642010
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642010/14962
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscrito
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscrito
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 34 n. 1 (2011): Jan./Jun.; 51-88
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 34 No. 1 (2011): Jan./Jun.; 51-88
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 34 Núm. 1 (2011): Jan./Jun.; 51-88
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216565284601856