Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
If you want to swim against the current, don’t blame the river. (Alleged text of a Chinese fortune cookie) This book is based on a number of papers that I (co-)wrote after finishing Reasoning with rules. Those papers were published in heterogeneous journals, conference proceedings, or not at all yet. In my own experience they are united by a common theme, namely the role of logic in the law. In the first chapter I distinguish two ways of looking at logic. One way, th which has been the dominant view during the 20 century, is to interpret logic ontologically, namely as the theory of what must t be true, given the truth of a number of sentences. The relation between logic and ontology becomes clear if we pay attention to the fact that logic aims at finding general characteristics of arguments that make them good ones. Traditionally an argument is said to be good (in the sense of ‘valid’), if its conclusion must be true given the truth of the premises. Logical research is devoted to the discovery of argument forms in which the premises necessitate the truth of the conclusion. A major, if not the only, source of
Published: Jan 1, 2005
Keywords: Legal Reasoning; Deontic Logic; Comparative Reasoning; Defeasible Reasoning; Legal Integration
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.