@misc{10481/35051,
year = {2014},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10481/35051},
abstract = {In a recent paper, Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013) proposes a defence of Waller’s deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation. This defence has several flaws, the most important of them being that many good analogical arguments would be deemed bad or deficient. Additionally, Shecaira misrepresents my alternative account as something in between deductivism and non-deductivism. This paper is both an attempt at solving this misunderstanding and an analysis and criticism of Waller and Shecaira’s forms of deductivism.},
abstract = {Dans un article récent,
Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013) défend
l’approche déductiviste de Waller
pour évaluer des arguments par
analogie traitant de sujets moraux.
Cette défense a plusieurs défauts, le
plus important d'entre eux est que
plusieurs bons arguments par
analogie seraient jugés mauvais ou
faibles. En outre, Shecaira dénature
mon approche alternative en la
décrivant comme quelque chose
entre un déductivisme et un non
déductivisme. Je tente à la fois de
résoudre ce malentendu et d’offrir
une analyse et une critique des
formes de deductivisme de Waller et
de Shecaira.},
organization = {The work presented in this paper
has been financed by a Ramón y Cajal Research Fellowship of
the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and by the
research projects FFI2011-23125 and FFI2011-24414 of the
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.},
publisher = {University of Windsor},
keywords = {Analogical argumentation},
keywords = {Deductivism},
keywords = {Linguistic normative model},
keywords = {Defeasibility},
title = {Deduction without dogmas: the case of moral analogical argumentation},
author = {Bermejo Luque, Lilian},
}