A co-premise is a premise in reasoning and informal logic which is not the main supporting reason for a contention or a lemma, but is logically necessary to ensure the validity of an argument. One premise by itself, or a group of co-premises can form a reason.
Every significant term or phrase appearing in a premise of a simple argument, should also appear in the contention/conclusion or in a co-premise. But this by itself does not guarantee a valid argument, see the fallacy of the undistributed middle for an example of this.
Sometimes a co-premise will not be explicitly stated. This type of argument is known as an 'enthymematic' argument, and the co-premise may be referred to as a 'hidden' or an 'unstated' co-premise and will often be subject to an inference objection. In this argument map of a simple argument the two reasons for the main contention are co-premises and not separate reasons for believing the contention to be true. They are both necessary to ensure that the argument as a whole retains logical validity.
In this example, "What the Bible says is true" is a hidden co-premise.
Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.
La logique informelle, intuitivement, est l'étude des principes de la logique et de la pensée logique en dehors d'une théorie formelle, c'est-à-dire abstraite. Cependant, peut-être à cause de la mention du terme informelle dans le titre, la définition précise de la logique informelle est un sujet de litige. Ralph H. Johnson et J. Anthony Blair définissent la logique informelle comme « une branche de la logique dont la tâche est de développer des normes, des critères, des procédures non formels pour l'analyse, l'interprétation, l'évaluation, la critique et la construction de l'argumentation ».
An argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map typically includes all the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons. Argument maps can also show co-premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, and lemmas. There are different styles of argument map but they are often functionally equivalent and represent an argument's individual claims and the relationships between them.
In a recent article M. Colyvan has argued that Quinean forms of scientific realism are faced with an unexpected upshot. Realism concerning a given class of entities, along with this route to realism, can be vindicated by running an indispensability argumen ...