Year: 2005
Type: book-chapter
Abstract: Recently Oaksford and Hahn (2004) proposed a Bayesian reconstruction of a classic argumentation fallacy- Locke’s ‘argument from ignorance. ’ Here this account is extended to what is probably the most well-known of all argumentation fallacies: circular reasoning or ‘begging the question’. A Bayesian analysis is shown to clarify when and where circular reasoning is good or bad, and how seeming paradoxes about circular reasoning from the informal reasoning literature can be resolved with a more precise notion of argumentation and argument strength. 1.
Authors: Ulrike Hahn, Mike Oaksford, N. Corner
Institution: Cardiff University
Language: English
Subfield: Linguistics and Language
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2558149781