In philosophical logic, defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is rationally compelling, though not deductively valid. It usually occurs when a rule is given, but there may be specific exceptions to the rule, or subclasses that are subject to a different rule.
What is a defeasible argument?
Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
What is a defeasibility condition?
So more generally, defeasibility refers to a kind of epistemic liability or vulnerability, the potential of loss, reduction, or prevention of some positive epistemic status. A defeater is, broadly speaking, a condition that actualizes this potential.
What is defeasible a posteriori?
James Freeman proposes to classify arguments on two dimensions. An argument is “defeasible” if its warrant admits of exceptions, “conclusive” otherwise. It is “a posteriori” if its warrant has to be backed by sense experience, “a priori” otherwise.
What are defeaters in philosophy?
(logic, philosophy) A belief which, if proved to be true, would imply outright or indirectly that another belief were false.
What do you understand by epistemology?
epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.
What is demonstrative argument?
A demonstrative argument establishes a conclusion whose negation is a contradiction. The negation of the conclusion of the inductive inference is not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction that the next piece of bread is not nourishing.
What is an undefeated defeater?
Undefeated defeater: “When one has a defeater d for one’s belief that p that is not itself defeated” (439); incompatible with testimonial knowledge.
What is a normative defeater?
In the context of normative deliberation, a defeater is a normative claim. that blocks, silences, undercuts, or undermines the normative force of other normative claims in. rational deliberation.
What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori?
“A priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how, or on what basis, a proposition might be known. An a priori concept is one that can be acquired independently of experience, which may – but need not – involve its being innate, while the acquisition of an a posteriori concept requires experience.
What is analytic a priori?
According to the analytic explanation of the a priori, all a priori knowledge is analytic; so a priori knowledge need not require a special faculty of pure intuition, since it can be accounted for simply by one’s ability to understand the meaning of the proposition in question.
Is Constructivism an ontology or epistemology?
Constructivism can be cognitive or ontological. The former holds that concepts and hypotheses are human constructions rather than either innate ideas or the product of revelation, perception, or intuition. Ontological constructivism claims that the knower makes the world.
What is the difference between justification and defeasibility?
Defeasibility as a means of controlling an investigative or social process: Here, justification is the result of the right kind of procedure (e.g., a fair and efficient hearing), and defeasible reasoning provides impetus for pro and con responses to each other.
What is defeasible reasoning?
Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning, where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. In other words, defeasible reasoning produces a contingent statement or claim.
What does defeasible mean in law?
Legal Definition of defeasible : subject to or capable of being annulled or made void a defeasible interest his rights are not defeasible by agreement — J. D. Calamari and J. M. Perillo WORD OF THE DAY
Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
