Abstract

Three polemical exchanges between Bertrand Russell and F. H. Bradley, F. C. S. Schiller, and the prosecutor in Russell's trial for violating the Defence of the Realm Act in 1916 are examined in order to bring to light some paradigms of informal reasoning, with a view to encouraging research into the logic of natural language. Ten such paradigms are expressed, e.g., Agree with the contention but not for the reasons given; Agree that the criticism is valid and report that one has modified the criticized doctrine but not in the manner suggested