Open AccessOn the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument
Author(s) -
Damiano Canale,
Giovanni Tuzet
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
informal logic
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.368
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 2293-734X
pISSN - 0824-2577
DOI - 10.22329/il.v28i1.512
Subject(s) - stateless protocol , argument (complex analysis) , normative , epistemology , sentence , state (computer science) , position (finance) , subject (documents) , point (geometry) , sociology , philosophy , mathematics , computer science , linguistics , economics , biochemistry , chemistry , geometry , algorithm , finance , library science
We remark that the A Contrario Argument is an ambiguous technique of justification of judicial decisions. We distinguish two uses and versions of it, strong and weak, taking as example the normative sentence “Underprivileged citizens are permitted to apply for State benefit”. According to the strong version, only underprivileged citizens are permitted to apply for State benefit, so stateless persons are not. According to the weak, the law does not regulate the position of underprivileged stateless persons in this respect. We propose an inferential analysis of the two uses along the lines of the scorekeeping practice as described by Robert Brandom, and try to point out what are the ontological assumptions of the two. We conclude that the strong version is justified if and only if there is a relevant incompatibility between the regulated subject and the present case.