simon/wildwood
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Added tests for schema - and all pass.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Simon Brooke 2020-04-23 12:07:21 +01:00
parent b623fba639
commit 0dabc8da0c
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: A7A4F18D1D4DF987
6 changed files with 132 additions and 49 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
docs/codox/Analysis.html
View file

@ -229,9 +229,7 @@ a is x
<p>The use of ‘correct’ here is the problem. It appears to imply that one knows that the answer which one knows maps in some unproblematic way onto something real in the external world. Thus Achinstein, too, falls into the trap sprung by the radicals. In the absence of some definition of what is to be understood by ‘correct’, these definitions are simply meaningless.</p>
<p>This account does not address many of the facets of common sense explanation.</p>
<p>It has nothing to say about the amount of detail contained in an explanation. It has nothing to say about the need to express an explanation in terms of an account of the world which is accessible to the auditor. lt fails to account for the possibility of explanation by analogy, or of unintentional explanation.</p>
<p>It appears that Achinstein’s motivation in producing a new account has less to do with addressing these real world problems than with overcoming such philosophical puzzles as the Paradox of the Ravens; so his account takes us no nearer to providing a model which will support the construction of better common sense explanations. 5</p>
<p>A [ mh L/Go/w%` \</p>
<p>` Eegozi</p>
<p>It appears that Achinstein’s motivation in producing a new account has less to do with addressing these real world problems than with overcoming such philosophical puzzles as the Paradox of the Ravens; so his account takes us no nearer to providing a model which will support the construction of better common sense explanations.</p>
<h2><a href="#toulmin" name="toulmin"></a>Toulmin</h2>
<p>Turning aside for the moment from those philosophers who have made a study of explanation per se, there is another whose work is currently attracting fashionable attention in Expert Systems (and especially mechanised explanation) circles; one must make passing reference to Toulmin, and, unless one chooses to use his argument schema, one must produce a very good argument for not doing so. Therfore it is important to know what he actually argued.</p>
<p>A Toulmin’s programme was to replace the syllogistic with a new logical schema of his own. He did not address symbolic logic except by dismissing it as irrelevant to the study of real world arguments:</p>