Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
burden of proof, epistemic qualifiers, linguistic normative model of argumentation, ontological qualifiers, presumption, presumptive inference
Start Date
22-5-2013 9:00 AM
End Date
25-5-2013 5:00 PM
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to identify and provide the normative conditions for presumptions and for presumptive inferences. Basically, the idea is adopting the distinction between epistemic and ontological qualifiers proposed in Bermejo-Luque (2011) in order to explain the difference between something being a correct presumption and something being presumably the case.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Fred J. Kauffeld, Commentary on: Lilian Bermejo-Luque's "Assessing presumptions in argumentation: Being a sound presumpion vs. being presumably the case"
Reader's Reactions
Fred J. Kauffeld, Commentary on: Lilian Bermejo-Luque's "Assessing presumptions in argumentation: Being a sound presumpion vs. being presumably the case" (May 2013)
Included in
Assessing presumptions in argumentation: Being a sound presumption vs. being presumably the case
University of Windsor
This paper is an attempt to identify and provide the normative conditions for presumptions and for presumptive inferences. Basically, the idea is adopting the distinction between epistemic and ontological qualifiers proposed in Bermejo-Luque (2011) in order to explain the difference between something being a correct presumption and something being presumably the case.
