Exhibiting interpretational and representational validity

Autor(en): Baumgartner, Michael
Stichwörter: ADEQUATE FORMALIZATION; Argument reconstruction; CONSEQUENCE; Etchemendy; History & Philosophy Of Science; Interpretational validity; LOGIC; Logical formalization; Logical validity; Philosophy; PLURALISM; Representational validity; TARSKI
Erscheinungsdatum: 2014
Herausgeber: SPRINGER
Volumen: 191
Ausgabe: 7
Startseite: 1349
Seitenende: 1373
A natural language argument may be valid in at least two nonequivalent senses: it may be interpretationally or representationally valid (Etchemendy in The concept of logical consequence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990). Interpretational and representational validity can both be formally exhibited by classical first-order logic. However, as these two notions of informal validity differ extensionally and first-order logic fixes one determinate extension for the notion of formal validity (or consequence), some arguments must be formalized by unrelated nonequivalent formalizations in order to formally account for their interpretational or representational validity, respectively. As a consequence, arguments must be formalized subject to different criteria of adequate formalization depending on which variant of informal validity is to be revealed. This paper develops different criteria that formalizations of an argument have to satisfy in order to exhibit the latter's interpretational or representational validity.
ISSN: 00397857
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-013-0331-z

Show full item record

Page view(s)

Last Week
Last month
checked on Mar 5, 2024

Google ScholarTM