In this paper, we contend that there are two ways of arguing, namely sincere and insincere arguing. We draw such a distinction, based on the felicity conditions of the complex speech act of arguing as modelled in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical approach. We introduce a conversa-tional setting, which contains a speech act of arguing that does not count as in-sincere arguing, while being a sui gene-ris form of sincere arguing. We desig-nate it as “cooperative inquiry”. Finally, we show that (...) argument evaluation plays a key role in determining whether an in-stance of arguing counts as either argu-ing sincerely or insincerely. Résumé: Dans cet article, nous affir-mons qu’il existe deux manières d’argu-menter, à savoir l’argumentation sincère et l’argumentation non sincère. Nous établissons une telle distinction, basée sur les conditions de félicité de l’acte de parole complexe consistant à argu-menter, tel que modélisé dans l’ap-proche pragma-dialectique de van Eemeren et Grootendorst. Nous intro-duisons un cadre conversationnel, qui contient un acte de parole d'argumenta-tion qui n'est pas considéré comme une argumentation non sincère, tout en étant une forme sui generis d'argumentation sincère. Nous la désignons comme « enquête coopérative ». Enfin, nous montrons que l’évaluation des argu-ments joue un rôle clé pour déterminer si un cas d’argumentation compte comme une argumentation sincère ou non. (shrink)

The paper provides a reconstruction of proof by contradiction in Kant’s pure general logic. A seemingly less-explored point of view on this topic is how apagogical proof can account for the formal truth of a judgement. Integrating the argument held by Kjosavik (2019), I intend to highlight how one can use proof by contradiction, conceived as a modus tollens, to establish the logical actuality (logical or formal truth) of a cognition. Although one might agree on the capacity of the proof (...) to prove formal falsity, the logical actuality of a judgement is assessable based on a logically grounded judgement and, as for transcendental logic, this cognitive operation has to presuppose the real possibility of an object. (shrink)

In this short comment, I will first recapitulate some of the substantive claims Textor attributes to Brentano, and then propose to use Kant’s epistemology to extend the central argumentative conclusion of Textor’s article, namely the assertion that “where there is something mental, there is awareness of marks”.

This article focuses on the interpretation of the metaphysical deductions of the higher cognitive faculties in Gabriele Gava’s Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the Method of Metaphysics. The aim is to assess the role that Kant’s general logic plays in these metaphysical deductions, the consequences for the analysis of the faculties, and the place of general logic in Gava’s overall theoretical analysis of Kant’s first Critique.

In this paper, we contend that there are two ways of arguing, namely sincere and insincere arguing. We draw such a distinction, based on the felicity conditions of the complex speech act of arguing as modelled in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical approach. We introduce a conversa-tional setting, which contains a speech act of arguing that does not count as in-sincere arguing, while being a sui gene-ris form of sincere arguing. We desig-nate it as “cooperative inquiry”. Finally, we show that (...) argument evaluation plays a key role in determining whether an in-stance of arguing counts as either argu-ing sincerely or insincerely. Résumé: Dans cet article, nous affir-mons qu’il existe deux manières d’argu-menter, à savoir l’argumentation sincère et l’argumentation non sincère. Nous établissons une telle distinction, basée sur les conditions de félicité de l’acte de parole complexe consistant à argu-menter, tel que modélisé dans l’ap-proche pragma-dialectique de van Eemeren et Grootendorst. Nous intro-duisons un cadre conversationnel, qui contient un acte de parole d'argumenta-tion qui n'est pas considéré comme une argumentation non sincère, tout en étant une forme sui generis d'argumentation sincère. Nous la désignons comme « enquête coopérative ». Enfin, nous montrons que l’évaluation des argu-ments joue un rôle clé pour déterminer si un cas d’argumentation compte comme une argumentation sincère ou non. (shrink)

This paper addresses the relatively overlooked field of rehabilitation and physical medicine, offering an epistemological perspective on clinical reasoning in these disciplines, focusing on three different domains: diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Rehabilitation sciences, often overshadowed by medicine and nursing, present unique challenges in terms of clinical reasoning. We explore these challenges, highlighting the distinctive features that set rehabilitation apart from clinical medicine. Notably, rehabilitation focuses on functions, aiming to improve an individual’s quality of life, setting it apart from disease-centered medicine. (...) Drawing also from philosophical insights in nursing literature, we offer a multidisciplinary perspective on the epistemological dimensions of rehabilitation and physical medicine, shedding light on their placement within healthcare disciplines. (shrink)