Ceci n’est pas un argument appropré (this is not a proper argument)
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
The Proper Fiducial Argument
The paper describes the proper interpretation of the fiducial argument, as given by Fisher in (only) his first papers on the subject. It argues that far from being a quaint, little, isolated idea, this was the first attempt to build a bridge between aleatory probabilities (the only ones used by Neyman) and epistemic probabilities (the only ones used by Bayesians), by implicitly introducing, as ...
متن کاملWhat is a “Real” Argument?
Numerous informal logicians and argumentation theorists restrict their theorizing to what they call “real” arguments. But is there a clear distinction to be made between “real” and “non-real” arguments? Here I explore four possible accounts of the alleged distinction and argue that none can serve the theoretical uses to which the distinction is most often put. Résumé: Plusieurs logiciens non fo...
متن کاملCeci n'est pas un Objet? Talking About Objects in E-mail
E-mail, far from being a poor, technically limited substitute for face-to-face communication, has some unique and compelling properties that make it ideally suited for talking about objects. In this article we show how e-mail users have evolved new forms of electronic deictic references to refer to work objects and have taken full advantage of the fluid boundaries between the different roles th...
متن کاملArgument or no argument ?
We will call such adjuncts instances of the X or no X construction It was suggested in the middle 1980s by Alexis Manaster-Ramer that well-formed instances of X or no X involve a string X of unbounded length preceding or no, with an exact copy following (for a brief allusion to it in print, see Manaster-Ramer 1986). This claim has received hardly any discussion at all in the subsequent literatu...
متن کاملCognition Is Not Computation: The Argument from Irreversibility
The dominant scientific and philosophical view of the mind — according to which, put starkly, cognition is computation — is refuted herein, via specification and defense of the following new argument: Computation is reversible; cognition isn’t; ergo, cognition isn’t computation. After presenting a sustained dialectic arising from this defense, we conclude with a brief preview of the view we wou...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Studies in Theatre and Performance
سال: 2015
ISSN: 1468-2761,2040-0616
DOI: 10.1080/14682761.2015.1111012