For example, from the point of view of pure conceptual analysis, since the reduction of what is not understood to what is understood is new understanding, explanation seems to involve growth of understanding. But is it the only kind of growth of understanding? It seems that explanation is quantitative growth of understanding. Could there be a qualitative growth of understanding and if so what would it be? And how would qualitative growth of understanding relate to explanation?

This is an interpretative and evaluative study of the thought of Antonio Gramsci, the founding father of the Italian Communist Party who died in 1937 after ten years of imprisonment in Fascist jails. It proceeds by a rigorous textual analysis of his Prison Notebooks, the scattered notes he wrote during his incarceration. Professor Finocchiaro explores the nature of Gramsci's dialectical thinking, in order to show in what ways Gramsci was and was not a Marxist, as well as to illustrate (...) correspondences with the work of Hegel, Croce, and Bukharin. The book provides a critical reappraisal of Gramsci as a thinker and of the dialectical approach as a mode of inquiry. (shrink)

Meta-arguments are arguments about one or more arguments, or argumentation in general. They contrast to ground-level arguments, which are about natural phenomena, historical events, human actions, abstract entities, etc. Although meta-arguments are common in all areas of human cognitive practice, and although implicit studies of them are found in many works, and although a few explicit scholarly contributions exist, meta-argumentation has never been examined explicitly, directly, and systematically in book-length treatment. This lacuna is especially unfortunate because such treatment can offer (...) not only an understanding of a special class of arguments, but also a promising way of doing logic and argumentation theory. This is the first book that attempts a systematic treatment of meta-arguments, providing both an illustration of the meta-argumentational approach to logical theory, and an analysis of an especially rich collection of meta-arguments. First, it elaborates an empirical methodology derived partly from a critical appreciation of Stephen Toulmin's applied-logic approach, and partly from a novel application of the author's historical-textual approach. Then it examines theoretical meta-arguments, by such scholars as Tony Blair, Robert Fogelin, Alvin Goldman, Trudy Govier, David Hitchcock, Ralph Johnson, Henry Johnstone, Erik Krabbe, Frans van Eemeren, Carl Wellman, and John Woods, on such topics as defining argument, methods of criticism, deep disagreements, and conductive or pro-and-con arguments. Thirdly, it studies famous meta-arguments by such classics as John Stuart Mill, David Hume, and Galileo Galilei, on such topics as freedom of discussion, women's liberation, the existence of God and intelligent design, and the motion of the earth. (shrink)

Following an approach that is empirical but not psychological, and dialectical but not dialogical, in this book Maurice Finocchiaro defines concepts such as reasoning, argument, argument analysis, critical reasoning, methodological reflection, judgment, critical thinking, and informal logic. Including extended critiques of the views of many contemporary scholars, he also integrates into the discussion Arnauld's Port-Royal Logic, Gramsci's theory of intellectuals, and case studies from the history of science, particularly the work of Galileo, Newton, Huygens, and Lavoisier.

This book collects a renowned scholar's essays from the past five decades and reflects two main concerns: an approach to logic that stresses argumentation, reasoning, and critical thinking and that is informal, empirical, naturalistic, practical, applied, concrete, and historical; and an interest in Galileo’s life and thought—his scientific achievements, Inquisition trial, and methodological lessons in light of his iconic status as “father of modern science.” These republished essays include many hard to find articles, out of print works, and chapters which (...) are not available online. The collection provides an excellent resource of the author's lifelong dedication to the subject. Thus, the book contains critical analyses of some key Galilean arguments about the laws of falling bodies and the Copernican hypothesis of the earth’s motion. There is also a group of chapters in which Galileo’s argumentation is compared and contrasted with that of other figures such as Socrates, Karl Marx, Giordano Bruno, and his musicologist father Vincenzo Galilei. The chapters on Galileo’s trial illustrate an approach to the science-vs-religion issue which Finocchiaro labels “para-clerical” and conceptualizes in terms of a judicious consideration of arguments for and against Galileo and the Church. Other essays examine argumentation about Galileo’s life and thought by the major Galilean scholars of recent decades. The book will be of interest to scholars in philosophy, logic, philosophy of science, history of science, history of religion, philosophy of religion, argumentation, rhetoric, and communication studies. (shrink)

A constructive interpretation is given of Paul Feyerabend's philosophy'of science as being not really irrationalistic but only pseudo-irrationalistic, and as being in need of an account of how science is distinct and how related to other activities. To this end, Benedetto Croce's philosophy is considered, constructively criticized, and shown to be unexpectedly promising; its valuable element is not the instrumentalistic theory of science officially present in his Logica but the distinctionism-relationism that he practiced everywhere and especially in his literary criticism. (...) A summary is then given of results obtained or expected from an investigation of Galileo Galilei's Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems carried out in the spirit of such a modified Crocean approach. (shrink)

PHILOSOPHERS have traditionally appreciated the relevance of Galileo in a number of ways. First, since his scientific contributions made him the "father of modern science," or at least one of its founders, philosophers like Husserl, Ortega y Gasset, and Burtt have studied his work to determine its epistemological implications and metaphysical foundations; this kind of approach is pursued more or less systematically by professional philosophers of science, for whom Galileo's work has become a standard test case for their theses and (...) analyses, as we find in books by Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Dudley Shapere. Second, since he was subjected to an Inquisition trial and condemnation that came to be labeled "the greatest scandal in Christendom," the interpretation and appraisal of the Galileo affair has become a cause célèbre, attracting the attention of cultural generalists and resulting in works of socio-political criticism with an anti-clerical tendency and of theological apologetics. A third type of philosophical appreciation has consisted in exploring and establishing conceptual and empirical ties between Galileo and the history of philosophy as such, which can be done and has been done in regard to his philosophical contemporaries such as Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Bruno, and Campanella, as well as successors like Hume, and predecessors like Plato; the last connection, in particular, had recently acquired some popularity, after having been pioneered by Koyré's celebrated "Galileo and Plato" in the pages of the Journal of the History of Ideas. More recently, the present reviewer has elaborated a fourth type of philosophical appreciation of Galileo, from the point of view of what is now generally called "informal logic." Here Galileo's work becomes a model for the analysis and evaluation of given arguments and for the construction of new ones, as well as a data base for the elaboration of a theory of reasoning oriented toward practice, applications, and everyday use. (shrink)

The publication in 1632 of Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican marked a crucial moment in the ‘scientific revolution’ and helped Galileo become the ‘father of modern science’. The Dialogue contains Galileo’s mature synthesis of astronomy, physics, and methodology, and a critical confirmation of Copernicus’s hypothesis of the earth’s motion. However, the book also led Galileo to stand trial with the Inquisition, in what became known as ‘the greatest scandal in Christendom’. In The Routledge Guidebook (...) to Galileo's Dialogue , Maurice A. Finocchiaro introduces and analyzes: the intellectual background and historical context of the Copernican controversy and Inquisition trial; the key arguments and critiques that Galileo presents on both sides of the ‘dialogue’; the Dialogue ’s content and significance from three special points of view: science, methodology, and rhetoric; the enduring legacy of the Dialogue and the ongoing application of its approach to other areas. This is an essential introduction for all students of science, philosophy, history, and religion wanting a useful guide to Galileo’s great classic. (shrink)

Chapter 2 of Mill’s On Liberty is reconstructed as a complex argument for freedom of discussion; it consists of three subarguments, each possessing illative and dialectical components. The illative component is this: freedom of discussion is desirable because it enables us to determine whether an opinion is true, whereas its denial amounts to an assumption of infallibility; it improves our understanding and appreciation of the supporting reasons of true opinions, and our understanding and appreciation of their practical or emotional meaning; (...) it enables us to understand and appreciate every side of the truth, given that opinions tend to be partly true and partly false and people tend to be one-sided. The dialectical component consists of replies to ten objections, five in the first subargument, three in the second, one in the third, and one general. An analysis of Mill’s argument suggests that it is a contribution to argumentation theory; it advocates and practices a dialectical approach; its reconstruction and analysis are a contribution to argumentation theory; and it raises in a striking manner the issue of the relationship between epistemology and argumentation theory. (shrink)

This is meant to be a study in the philosophy of history of science as well as in informal logic. From the point of view of the latter, It is shown how the logical dimension of galileo's "two chief world systems" has been neglected by some of the best scholars, Through logically insensitive commentary, Transcription, And translation. From the point of view of the former, It is shown concretely how logical analysis can be relevant to history-Of-Science scholarship by helping it (...) solve its own problems. From the point of view of galilean studies, A re-Examination of this crucial work is suggested. (shrink)

Preface and Acknowledgments Introduction. The Galileo Affair from Descartes to John Paul II: A Survey of Sources, Facts, and Issues 1. The Condemnation of Galileo 2. Promulgation and Diffusion of the News 3. Emblematic Reactions: Descartes, Peiresc, Galileo’s Daughter 4. Polarizations: Secularism, Liberalism, Fundamentalism 5. Compromises: Viviani, Auzout, Leibniz 6. Myth-making or Enlightenment? Pascal, Voltaire, the Encyclopedia 7. Incompetence or Enlightenment? Pope Benedict XIV 8. New Lies, Documents, Myths, Apologies 9. Napoleonic Wars and Trials 10. The Inquisition on Galileo’s Side? (...) The Settele Affair and Beyond 11. Varieties of Torture: Demythologizing Galileo’s Trial? 12. A Miscarriage of Justice? The Documentation of Impropriety 13. Galileo Right Again, Wrong Again: Hermeneutics, Epistemology, "Heresy" 14. A Catholic Hero: Tricentennial Rehabilitation 15. Secular Indictments: Brecht’s Atomic Bomb and Koestler’s Two Cultures 16. History on Trial: The Paschini Affair 17. More "Rehabilitation": Pope John Paul II Epilogue: Unfinished Business. (shrink)

David N. Perkins has studied everyday reasoning by an experimental-critical approach involving taped interviews during which subjects reflect on controversial issues and articulate their reasoning on both sides. The present author has studied scientific reasoning in natural language by an historical-textual approach involving the reconstruction and evaluation of the arguments in Galileo's Two Chief World Systems. They have, independently, reached the strikingly similar substantive conclusion that the most common flaw of informal reasoning is the failure to consider lines of argument (...) supporting conclusions contrary to the one in fact reached. This article describes, compares, and contrasts their respective approaches, results, and theoretical frameworks. (shrink)

In an attempt to clarify and strengthen the thesis that theory choice is a form of value judgment, I elaborate a central point advanced by Kuhn and McMullin and defend it from what appears to be a criticism by Laudan. I explore some aspects of the process by giving several realistic examples, by reconstructing some of the underlying reasoning, and by discussing several kinds of agreement and disagreement that result. Despite the considerable work that remains to be done, there seems (...) to be no doubt that theory choice is simultaneously a form of evaluation, of judgment, and of reasoning. (shrink)

Although Hume’s critique of the design argument is a powerful non-inductive meta-argument, the main line of critical reasoning is not analogical but rather a complex meta-argument. It consists of two parts, one interpretive, the other evaluative. The critical meta-argument advances twelve criticisms: that the design argument is weak because two of its three premises are justified by inadequate subarguments; because its main inference embodies four flaws; and because the conclusion is in itself problematic for four reasons. Such complexity is quite (...) manageable in a meta-argumentation approach. (shrink)

This is a critical appreciation of Govier’s 2006 ISSA keynote address on the fallacy of composition, and of economists’ writings on this fallacy in economics. I argue that the “fallacy of composition” is a problematical concept, because it does not denote a distinctive kind of argument but rather a plurality, and does not constitute a distinctive kind of error, but rather reduces to oversimplification in arguing from micro to macro. Finally, I propose further testing of this claim based on examples (...) involving public vs. private debt in economics; oligarchic tendencies in politics, and the emergence of societal wholes in sociology. (shrink)

A critical examination of the dialectical approach, focusing on a comparison ofthe illative and the dialectical definitions of argument. I distinguish a moderate, a strong and a hyper dialectical conception of argument. I critique Goldman's argument for the moderate conception and Johnson's argument for the strong conception, and argue that the moderate conception is correct.

Although the fallacy of composition is little studied and trivially illustrated, some view it as ubiquitous and paramount. Furthermore, although definitions regard the concept as unproblematic, it contains three distinct elements, often confused. And although some scholars apparently claim that fallacies are figments of a critic’s imagination, they are really proposing to study fallacies in the context of meta-argumentation. Guided by these ideas, I discuss the important historical example of Michels’s iron law of oligarchy.

Following a linguistic-descriptivist approach, Marianne Doury has studied debates about “parasciences”, discovering that “parascientists” frequently argue by “appeal to Galileo” ; opponents object by criticizing the analogy, charging fallacy, and appealing to counter-examples. I argue that Galilean appeals are much more widely used, by creationists, global-warming skeptics, advocates of “settled science”, great scientists, and great philosophers. Moreover, several subtypes should be distinguished; critiques questioning the analogy are proper; fallacy charges are problematic; and appeals to counter-examples are really indirect critiques of (...) the analogy. (shrink)

In the context of a study of meta-arguments in general, and famous meta-arguments in particular, I reconstruct chapter 1 of Mill’s Subjection of Women as the meta-argument: women’s liberation should be argued on its merits because the universality of subjection derives from the law of force and hence provides no presumption favoring its correctness. The raises the problem of the relationship among illative, dialectical, and meta-argumentative tiers.

Abstract This essay examines Gramsci?s writings about the First World War, primarily his immediate reflections in 1914?1918, but also relevant prison notes (1926?1937). The most striking feature of his attitude during the war years is ?Germanophilia?, a label I adapt from Croce, whose writings on the Great War also exhibited this attitude. A key common motivation was that political conflicts should not be turned into religious ones in which one portrays the enemy as an evil to be annihilated. But they (...) also had other divergent motivations. Another striking feature of Gramsci?s writings during the war years was his opposition to economic measures against Germany. He seemed to suggest that a military conflict should not be automatically expanded to include an economic war, conflating politics and economics. But later in prison he theorised that modern wars tend to be wars of position, in which military operations and industrial production are vitally connected. (shrink)