Arguing from Definition to Verbal Classification: The Case of Redefining 'Planet' to Exclude Pluto

Authors

  • Douglas Walton

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.550

Keywords:

scientific definition, classification, decisions about definitions, competing definitions, argumentation schemes, arguments based on classifications, defeasible ontologies, artificial intelligence

Abstract

The recent redefinition of 'planet' that excludes Pluto as a planet led to controversy that provides a case study of how competing scientific definitions can be supported by characteristic types of evidence. An argumentation scheme from Hastings is used to analyze argument from verbal classification as a form of inference used in rational argumentation. The Toulmin-style format is compared to more recently developed ways of modeling such cases that stem from advances in argumentation technology in artificial intelligence. Using
these tools, it is shown how argumentation schemes, in particular
argument from verbal classification and argument from definition to verbal classification, apply to cases of scientific argumentation.

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 2 (2008)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .