Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Overview of M. Koszowy's essay and treatment of the topic Working generally within a framework of argumentation theory and the tradition of informal logic, Marcin Koszowy argues that the concept of logical error is more inclusive than the concept of logical fallacy and, therefore, that it better serves evaluating human mistakes.His essay has five sections: an introduction; a section each on the two concepts; a defense of their distinction; and some concluding remarks.Below we first review the salient points of this essay and we then provide some comments whose aim is to caution against psychologism.Koszowy begins with the thematic question of his essay: "Does the concept of logical fallacy capture all cases of human 'illogical moves?'" (emphasis added).The 'all' here is not extraneous to his thesis, nor also is his use of 'moves,' nor again his later use of 'behavior,' which use signals a theme of his essay.He then introduces what he takes to be a philosophically important distinction between two admittedly ambiguous notions -logical fallacy and logical error -both of which he affirms involve violations: the one concerning the "norms of argumentative discourse," the other, now associated with illogical moves, concerning the "norms of 'logic' governing certain human knowledge-seeking activities."Koszowy here asks about the relationship between the two notions and then introduces another issue, one he believes vital to argumentation theorists: "what kind of general logical concepts are involved in describing illogical moves?"He links this question to Toulmin's concern about 'failures of rationality' and, indeed, about the very 'criteria of rationality.'In this connection, Koszowy reaches to relate his discussion to "the genesis of illogical thinking" and "the problem of describing and explaining non-logical moves" (emphases added).By making these moves he seems accordingly to have set himself the project of providing "criteria of human rational behavior"; and this is just what he is really after, notwithstanding the title of his essay.Koszowy closes his introduction by presenting his thesis that the concept of logical error -being more general than that of logical fallacy and thereby well qualified as a philosophically meritorious concept -is more pragmatically efficacious in capturing what is involved in the human behavior of making illogical moves.Again, his use of 'behavior' signals his orientation to a theory of logic.At the end of his essay Koszowy reaffirms this position by noting that his intention is not to replace the concept of logical fallacy with that of logical error, but only to introduce another theoretical concept that can better assess the "logical incorrectness of human thought," and again we encounter his affinity with Toulmin's notion of rationality.From here Koszowy aims to steer his reader through a maze of philosophical concepts, generally using the terminology of argumentation theorists.A resonant, underlying theme becomes readily apparent: Koszowy, as many informal logicians cum argumentation and speechact theorists, stresses the human activity of reasoning -he is interested to assess cognitive correctness and cognitive error.Indeed, Koszowy focuses on human behavior -namely, on the matter of "the criteria of human rational behavior."Logic, then, which notion he recognizes
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».