论证评价的非形式逻辑模型及其理论困境

发布时间：2018-05-26 19:31

本文选题：论证 + 论辩　；参考：《学术研究》2007年09期

【摘要】：论证有两种类型:一是指作为结果的论证,二是指作为过程的论证。哈贝马斯把前者称为"论证",后者称为"论辩"。然而,20世纪上半叶,论证结构被理想化了。数学证明被人们当作成功论证的范式,论证完全被从自然语言的语境中抽象出来,论证研究者们主要关注的是作为结果的论证。事实上,从20世纪40年代开始,斯特劳森、澳斯汀、塞尔等哲学家就开始关注论证评价的语用要素。遗憾的是,他们的工作对蒙太古及其追随者们发展起来的形式语义学影响极小。基于非形式逻辑的论证评价被宣称为针对日常生活中真实论证的分析评价模型,但在这个模型中,论证仍然被当作结果而非过程来处理。从这个意义上讲,非形式逻辑对真实论证的处理不是成功的。
[Abstract]:There are two types of arguments: one is the argument as a result, and the two is the argument of the process. Habermas called the former as "argument", and the latter is called "argument". However, in the first half of the twentieth Century, the argumentation structure was idealized. The proof of Mathematics was regarded as a paradigm of successful demonstration, and the argument was abstracted from the context of natural language. In fact, in fact, from the beginning of 1940s, Straw, Austin, Searl and other philosophers began to pay attention to the pragmatic elements of argumentation evaluation. Unfortunately, their work has little influence on the formal semantics developed by Montague and its followers. The argument evaluation is claimed to be an analytic evaluation model for the real argument in daily life, but in this model, the argument is still treated as a result rather than a process. In this sense, the non formal logic is not successful in dealing with the real argument.
【作者单位】：
【基金】：2006年国家社科基金项目“基于非形式逻辑的法律论证研究”(06BZX049) 2004年广东省高校人文社会科学重大项目“人文社会科学中的逻辑方法研究”(04ZD72001)的研究成果
【分类号】：B81

【相似文献】