{"title":"Sàágua和鲍姆特罗格的实践理性","authors":"David Botting","doi":"10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In “Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model” (2018, pp.193-230) Sàágua and Baumtrog offer what they call “a new ideal model of integrated practical reasoning and argumentation.” I will argue that their only really original contribution is a reconceptualization of argumentation schemes as producing pro tanto reasons, and such a reconceptualization is both wrong-headed in itself and makes their model less integrated than other models, not more. In fact, their work is itself an example of bad practical reasoning.","PeriodicalId":37515,"journal":{"name":"Cogency","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sàágua and Baumtrog on practical rationality\",\"authors\":\"David Botting\",\"doi\":\"10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In “Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model” (2018, pp.193-230) Sàágua and Baumtrog offer what they call “a new ideal model of integrated practical reasoning and argumentation.” I will argue that their only really original contribution is a reconceptualization of argumentation schemes as producing pro tanto reasons, and such a reconceptualization is both wrong-headed in itself and makes their model less integrated than other models, not more. In fact, their work is itself an example of bad practical reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogency\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32995/cogency.v13i2.376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
In “Practical Rationality at Work – A New Argumentation Model” (2018, pp.193-230) Sàágua and Baumtrog offer what they call “a new ideal model of integrated practical reasoning and argumentation.” I will argue that their only really original contribution is a reconceptualization of argumentation schemes as producing pro tanto reasons, and such a reconceptualization is both wrong-headed in itself and makes their model less integrated than other models, not more. In fact, their work is itself an example of bad practical reasoning.
CogencyArts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
Cogency is an international journal devoted to research and scholarship in reasoning and argumentation. The journal seeks to be a source of reference which elucidates our understanding of these fields of study with a particular interest in their educational dimension. It aims to contribute to education by advancing our theoretical and practical understanding of reasoning and argumentation. Authors are encourage to use and integrate perspectives originating in psychology, philosophy, linguistics, formal and informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, amongst others disciplines and angles. Cogency publishes articles and book reviews.