Adamson, W. L. 1980. Hegemony and Revolution. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Agassi, J. 1963. Towards an Historiography of Science. The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar

Agassi, J. 1968. The Continuing Revolution. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Agassi, J. 1971. Faraday as a Natural Philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Agassi, J., and Jarvie, I. C., eds. 1987. Rationality. Dordrecht: Martinus NijoffGoogle Scholar

Agazzi, E. 1981. “What Have the History and Philosophy of Science to Do for One Another?” In Hintikka et al. 1981, 2: 241–48

Angeles, P. A. 1981. Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Barnes & NobleGoogle Scholar

Angell, R. B. 1964. Reasoning and Logic. New York: AppletonGoogle Scholar

Anselm, Saint. 1958. Proslogium; Monologium. Trans. S. N. Deane. La Salle, Ill.: Open CourtGoogle Scholar

Aquinas, Thomas. 1952. The Summa Theologica. 2 vols. Chicago: Encyclopedia BritannicaGoogle Scholar

Aristotle, . 1952. The Works of Aristotle. 2 vols. Chicago: Encyclopedia BritannicaGoogle Scholar

Arnauld, A., and Nicole, P. 1717. Logic; or, the Art of Thinking. Trans. G. Ozell. LondonGoogle Scholar

Arnauld, A., and Nicole, P.. 1850. Logic, or the Art of Thinking: Being the Port-Royal Logic. Trans. T. S. Baynes. EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Arnauld, A., and Nicole, P.. 1964. The Art of Thinking: Port-Royal Logic. Trans. J. Dickoff and P. James. Indianapolis: Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar

Arnauld, A., and Nicole, P.. 1965. La Logique ou l'Art de Penser. Critical edition by P. Clair and F. Girbal. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar

Arnauld, A., and Nicole, P.. 1996. Logic or the Art of Thinking. Trans. J. V. Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asquith, P. D., and Kyburg, H. E., eds. 1978. Current Research in Philosophy of Science. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science AssociationGoogle Scholar

Bailin, S. 1988. Achieving Extraordinary Ends. Dordrecht: KluwerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth, E. M. 1982. “A Normative-Pragmatical Foundation of the Rules of Some Systems of Formal3 Dialectics.” In Barth and Martens 1982, 159–70

Barth, E. M. 1985a. “A New Field: Empirical Logic.” Synthese 63: 375–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth, E. M. 1985b. “Toward a Praxis-Oriented Theory of Argumentation.” In Dialogue: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. Dascal, M., 73–86. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth, E. M. 1987. “Logic to Some Purpose: Theses against the Deductive-Nomological Paradigm in the Science of Logic.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 33–45

Barth, E. M. 2002. “A Framework for Intersubjective Accountability: Dialogical Logic.” In Gabbay et al. 2002, 225–93

Barth, E. M., and Krabbe, E. C. W.. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue. Berlin: Walter de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth, E. M., and Krabbe, E. C. W., eds. 1992. Logic and Political Culture. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and SciencesGoogle Scholar

Barth, E. M., and Martens, J. L., eds. 1982. Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth, E. M., Vandormael, J., and Vandamme, F., eds. 1992. From an Empirical Point of View: The Empirical Turn in Logic. Ghent, Belgium: Communication and CognitionGoogle Scholar

Barth, K. 1963. God in Action. Manhasset, N.Y. : Round Table PressGoogle Scholar

Barth, K. 1964. God Here and Now. Trans. P. M. van Buren. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar

Bartley, W. W. III. 1962. The Retreat to Commitment. New York: Alfred A. KnopfGoogle Scholar

Bartley, W. W., III. 1964. “Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality.” In The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, ed. Bunge, M., 3–31. New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar

Bartley, W. W. III. 1982. “Critical Study: The Philosophy of Karl Popper.” Philosophia 11: 121–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartley, W. W. III. 1984. The Retreat to Commitment. 2nd ed. La Salle, Ill.: Open CourtGoogle Scholar

Bartley, W. W., III. 1987. “Theories of Rationality.” In Evolutionary Epistemology, Theory of Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, ed. Radnitsky, G. and Bartley, W. W. III, 205–16. La Salle, Ill.: Open CourtGoogle Scholar

Battersby, M. E. 1989. “Critical Thinking as Applied Epistemology.” Informal Logic 11: 91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baynes, T. S., ed. and trans. 1850. Logic, or the Art of Thinking: Being the Port-Royal Logic. EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Beardsley, M. C. 1966. Thinking Straight. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Bechler, Z. 1981. “What Have They Done to Kuhn?” In Hintikka et al. 1981, 1: 63–86

Bell, A. E. 1947. Christian Huygens and the Development of Science in the Seventeenth Century. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar

Bencivenga, E. 1979. “On Good and Bad Arguments.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 247–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berkeley, G. 1929. Essay, Principles, Dialogues. New York: Scribner'sGoogle Scholar

Beth, E. W., and Piaget, J.. 1966. Mathematical Epistemology and Psychology. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Beth, E. W.., eds. 1962. Implication, Formalisation, et Logique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar

Black, M. 1952. Critical Thinking. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Blair, J. A. 1995. “Premise Adequacy.” In Eemeren et al. 1995a, 191–202

Blair, J. A. 1998. “The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument.” In Hansen et al. 1998

Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H., eds. 1980. Informal Logic: The First International Symposium. Inverness, Calif.: EdgepressGoogle Scholar

Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H.. 1987. “Argumentation as Dialectical.” Argumentation 1: 41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bochenski, I. M. 1961. A History of Formal Logic. Trans. I. Thomas. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar

Bogazzi, R. 1977. “Il Kosmotheoros di Christiaan Huygens.” Physis 19: 87–109Google Scholar

Boltzmann, L. 1964. Lectures on Gas Theory. Trans. S. G. Brush. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Boltzmann, L. 1974. Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Problems. Trans. P. Foulkes. Ed. McGuinness, B.. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Bos, H. J. M., Rudwick, M. J. S., Snelders, H. A. M., and Visser, R. P. W., eds. 1980. Studies on Christiaan Huygens. Lisse: Swets & ZeitlingerGoogle Scholar

Braine, M. S. 1978. “On the Relation between the Natural Logic of Reasoning and Standard Logic.” Psychological Review 85: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, H. I. 1975. “Paradigmatic Propositions.” American Philosophical Quarterly 12: 86–90Google Scholar

Brown, H. I. 1977. Perception, Theory and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: Precedent PublishingGoogle Scholar

Brown, H. I. 1979. Perception, Theory and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Brown, H. I. 1987. Observation and Rationality. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Brown, H. I. 1989. Rationality. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Brush, S. G. 1964. “Introduction” to Boltzmann 1964

Brush, S. G. 1976. The Kind of Motion We Call Heat. 2 vols. New York: North-HollandGoogle Scholar

Buchdahl, G. 1970a. “Gravity and Intelligibility: Newton to Kant.” In The Methodological Heritage of Newton, ed. Butts, R. E. and Davis, J. W., 74–102. Toronto: University of Toronto PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchdahl, G. 1970b. “History of Science and Criteria of Choice.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Science, ed. Stuewer, R. H., 204–30. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar

Buchdahl, G. 1973. “Explanation and Gravity.” In Changing Perspectives in the History of Science, ed. Teich, M. and Young, R., 167–203. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Buroker, J. V. 1993. “The Port-Royal Semantics of Terms.” Synthese 96: 455–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buroker, J. V. 1994. “Judgment and Predication in the Port-Royal Logic.” In The Great Arnauld and Some of His Philosophical Correspondents, ed. Kremer, E. J., 3–27. Toronto: University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar

Buroker, J. V., ed. and trans. 1996. Logic or the Art of Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Byrne, R. 1983. “Protocol Analysis in Problem Solving.” In Evans 1983c, 227–49

Carnap, R. 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Cattani, A. 2001. Botta e risposta: L'arte della replica. Bologna: Il MulinoGoogle Scholar

Chisholm, R. M. 1970. “On the Nature of Empirical Evidence.” In Experience and Theory, ed. Foster, L. and Swanson, J. L., 103–34. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35: 26–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clair, P., and Girbal, F., eds. 1965. La Logique ou l'Art de Penser. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar

Clark, M. 1975. “The Patron Saint of the Left.” Times Literary Supplement (London), 31 October, no. 3842, p. 1280Google Scholar

Cohen, I. B. 1966. “Hypotheses in Newton's Philosophy.” Physis 8: 163–84Google Scholar

Cohen, I. B. 1971. Introduction to Newton's Principia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1966. The Diversity of Meaning. 2nd ed. London: Methuen

Cohen, L. J. 1970. The Implications of Induction. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1977. The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: ClarendonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1979. “On the Psychology of Prediction: Whose Is the Fallacy?” Cognition 7: 385–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1980. “Whose Is the Fallacy? A Rejoinder to Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.” Cognition 8: 89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1981a. “Can Human Irrationality Be Experimentally Demonstrated?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 317–31 and 359–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1981b. “Subjective Probability and the Paradox of the Gatecrasher.” Arizona State Law Journal, pp. 627–34Google Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1982. “Are People Programmed to Commit Fallacies?” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 12: 251–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1986. The Dialogue of Reason: An Analysis of Analytical Philosophy. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar

Cohen, L. J. 1991. “Some Comments by L. J. C.” In Eells and Maruszewski 1991, 319–42

Cohen, M. R., and Nagel, E.. 1934. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. New York: Harcourt, BraceGoogle Scholar

Colodny, R. G., ed. 1962. Frontiers of Science and Philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PressGoogle Scholar

Copi, I. M. 1968. Introduction to Logic. 3rd ed. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Copi, I. M. 1972. Introduction to Logic. 4th ed. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Copi, I. M. 1986a. Informal Logic. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Copi, I. M. 1986b. Introduction to Logic. 7th ed. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Copi, I. M., and Cohen, C.. 1990. Introduction to Logic. 8th ed. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Copi, I. M., and Cohen, C.. 1994. Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Crosland, M. 1973. “Lavoisier's Theory of Acidity.” Isis 64: 306–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cummings, L. 2002. “Hilary Putnam's Dialectical Thinking.” Argumentation 16: 197–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Czapinski, J. 1980. “Positive-Negative Asymmetry on the Group Level.” Polish Psychological Bulletin 11: 203–5Google Scholar

Czapinski, J. 1982. “Positive-Negative Asymmetry at Group and Individual Level.” Polish Psychological Bulletin 13: 153–58Google Scholar

Czapinski, J. 1986. “Informativeness of Evaluations in Interpersonal Communications.” Polish Psychological Bulletin 17: 155–64Google Scholar

Dahl, R. A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Davidson, D. 1968. “The Logical Form of Action Sentences.” In The Logic of Decision and Action, ed. Rescher, N.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PressGoogle Scholar

Del Noce, A. 1978. Il suicidio della rivoluzione. Milan: RusconiGoogle Scholar

Descartes, R. 1644. Principia Philosophiae. LeidenGoogle Scholar

Dickoff, J., and James, P., eds. and trans. 1964. The Art of Thinking: Port-Royal Logic. Indianapolis: Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar

Dijksterhuis, E. J. 1961. The Mechanization of the World Picture. Trans. C. Dikshoorn. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Doss, S. 1985. “Three Steps toward a Theory of Informal Logic.” Informal Logic 7: 127–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drake, S. 1978. Galileo at Work. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Eddington, A. S. 1930. The Nature of the Physical World. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Eells, E., and Maruszewski, T., eds. 1991. Probability and Rationality. Atlanta: RodopiGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H. van. 1987. “For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 201–15

Eemeren, F. H., ed. 2002. Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Newport News, Va.: ValeGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., and Henkemans, A. F. Snoeck, eds. 2003. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R.. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: ForisCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R.. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R., eds. 1994. Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of ArgumentationGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds. 1987. Argumentation across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht: ForisCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds. 1992. Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds. 1995a. Analysis and Evaluation: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds. 1995b. Perspectives and Approaches: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds. 1999. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S.. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Kruiger, T.. 1984. The Study of Argumentation. New York: IrvingtonGoogle Scholar

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Henkemans, A. F. Snoeck, eds. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Einstein, A. 1934. “On the Method of Theoretical Physics.” In idem, The World As I See It. New York: Covici Friede

Einstein, A., and Infeld, L.. 1938. The Evolution of Physics. New York: Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar

Elzinga, A. 1971. “Huygens' Theory of Research and Descartes' Theory of Knowledge, I.” Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 2: 174–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elzinga, A. 1972a. “Huygens' Theory of Research and Descartes' Theory of Knowledge, II.” Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 3: 9–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elzinga, A. 1972b. On a Research Program in Early Modern Physics. New York: HumanitiesGoogle Scholar

Engel, S. M. 1976. With Good Reason. New York: St. Martin'sGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. H. 1962. “A Concept of Critical Thinking.” Harvard Educational Review 32: 81–111Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. 1968. “Enumerative Induction and Best Explanation.” Journal of Philosophy 65: 523–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. H. 1969. Ordinary Logic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. H. 1976. “An Alternative to Piaget's Conceptualization of Logical Competence.” Child Development 17: 903–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. H. 1980. “A Conception of Rational Thinking.” In Philosophy of Education 1979, ed. Coombs, J. R., 3–30. Normal, Ill.: Philosophy of Education SocietyGoogle Scholar

Ennis, R. H. 1981. “Rational Thinking and Educational Practice.” In Philosophy and Education, ed. Soltis, J. F., 143–83. Chicago: National Society for the Study of EducationGoogle Scholar

Epstein, R. L. 2002. Critical Thinking. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: WadsworthGoogle Scholar

Evans, J.St., B. T. 1972a. “Interpretation and ‘Matching Bias’ in a Reasoning Task.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 24: 193–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, J.St., B. T. 1972b. “Reasoning with Negatives.” British Journal of Psychology 63: 213–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, J.St., B. T. 1982. The Psychology of Deductive Reasoning. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. 1983a. “Introduction.” In Evans 1983c, 1–15

Evans, J. St. B. T. 1983b. “Selective Processes in Reasoning.” In Evans 1983c, 135–63

Evans, J.St., B. T., ed. 1983c. Thinking and Reasoning. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Falmagne, R. J., ed. 1975. Reasoning: Representation and Process. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar

Fearnside, W. W., and Holther, W. B.. 1959. Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Feigl, H., and Maxwell, G., eds. 1962. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar

Feigl, H., and Scriven, M., eds. 1956. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar

Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G., eds. 1958. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar

Femia, J. V. 1981. Gramsci's Political Thought. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar

Feuer, L. S. 1974. Einstein and the Generations of Science. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. K. 1962a. “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” In Feigl and Maxwell 1962, 28–97

Feyerabend, P. K. 1962b. “Problems of Microphysics.” In Colodny 1962, 189–283

Feyerabend, P. K. 1963. “How to Be a Good Empiricist.” In Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar, vol. 1, ed. Baumrin, B., 3–39. New York: InterscienceGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. K. 1965. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty, ed. Colodny, R., 145–260. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. K. 1970a. “Against Method.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 4, ed. Radner, M. and Vinokur, S., 17–130. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. K. 1970b. “Consolations for the Specialist.” In Lakatos and Musgrave 1970, 197–230

Feyerabend, P. K. 1970c. “Problems of Empiricism, Part II.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, ed. Colodny, R., 275–353. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PressGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. K. 1975. Against Method. London: NLBGoogle Scholar

Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M.. 1963. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat. Reading, Mass.: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar

Findlay, J. 1964. Hegel: A Re-examination. New York: HumanitiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1964. “An Analysis of Heisenberg's Attempt to Compare Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.” B. S. thesis, Department of Humanities, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1969. “The Problem of Explanation in Historiography of Science.” Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of California-Berkeley

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1973a. Essay-Review of Lakatos's Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3: 357–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1973b. “Galileo's Space-Proportionality Argument: A Role for Logic in Historiography.” Physis 15: 65–72Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1973c. History of Science as Explanation. Detroit: Wayne State University PressGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1974a. “The Concept of ad Hominem Argument in Galileo and Locke.” Philosophical Forum 5: 394–404Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1974b. “Newton's Third Rule of Philosophizing: A Role for Logic in Historiography.” Isis 65: 66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1977a. “Galileo's Philosophy of Science, Part I: A Case Study of the Role of Judgment and of Philosophizing in Science.” Scientia 112: 95–118Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1977b. “Logic and Rhetoric in Lavosier's Sealed Note: Toward a Rhetoric of Science.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 10: 111–122Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1978a. Review of Brown's Perception, Theory and Commitment. Isis 69: 602–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1978b. “Rhetoric and Scientific Rationality.” In PSA 1978, ed. Hacking, I. and Asquith, P. D., 235–46. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science AssociationGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1979a. “Methodological Criticism and Critical Methodology.” Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 10: 363–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1979b. “The Psychological Explanation of Reasoning: Logical and Methodological Problems.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 9: 277–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1980a. “The Concept of Judgment and Huygens' Theory of Gravity.” Epistemologia 3: 185–218Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1980b. Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method. Boston: ReidelCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1980c. Review of Johnstone's Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument. Review of Metaphysics 34: 143–44Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1981. “Fallacies and the Evaluation of Reasoning.” American Philosophical Quarterly 18: 13–22Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1983. “Judgment and Argument in The Communist Manifesto.” Philosophical Forum 14: 135–56Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1984a. “Croce as Seen in a Recent Work on Gramsci.” Rivista di studi crociani 21: 139–54Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1984b. “Informal Logic and the Theory of Reasoning.” Informal Logic 6(2): 3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1984c. “The Labyrinth of Gramscian Studies and Femia's Contribution.” Inquiry 27: 291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1986a. “Marxism, Science, and Religion in Gramsci: Recent Trends in Italian Scholarship.” Philosophical Forum 17: 127–55Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1986b. “The Methodological Background to Galileo's Trial.” In Reinterpreting Galileo, ed. Wallace, W. A., 241–72. Washington: Catholic University of America PressGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1987a. “An Historical Approach to the Study of Argumentation.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 81–91

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1987b. Review of D. N. Walton's Arguer's Position. Philosophy and Rhetoric 20: 63–65Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1987c. “Six Types of Fallaciousness: Toward a Realistic Theory of Logical Criticism.” Argumentation 1: 263–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1988a. “Empiricism, Judgment, and Argument: Toward an Informal Logic of Science.” Argumentation 2: 313–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1988b. “Galileo's Copernicanism and the Acceptability of Guiding Assumptions.” In Scrutinizing Science, ed. Donovan, A., Laudan, L., and Laudan, R., 49–67. Dordrecht: KluwerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1988c. Gramsci and the History of Dialectical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1988d. Gramsci critico e la critica. Rome: Armando EditoreGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A., ed. and trans. 1989a. The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1989b. “Methodological Problems in Empirical Logic.” Communication and Cognition 22: 313–35Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1989c. “Siegel on Critical Thinking.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19: 483–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1989d. “Fetishism, Argument, and Judgment in Capital.” Studies in Soviet Thought 38: 237–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1990a. “Cognitive Asymmetries and Argumentation Theory.” Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Argumentation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1990b. “Critical Thinking and Thinking Critically.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 20: 462–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1991. “Induction and Intuition in the Normative Study of Reasoning.” In Eells and Maruszewski 1991, 81–95

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1992a. “Asymmetries in Argumentation and Evaluation.” In Eemeren et al. 1992, 62–72

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1992b. “Logic, Politics, and Gramsci.” In Barth and Krabbe 1992, 25–43

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1994a. “The Positive versus the Negative Evaluation of Arguments.” In Johnson and Blair 1994, 21–35

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1994b. “Two Empirical Approaches to the Study of Reasoning.” Informal Logic 16: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1995a. “Criticism, Reasoning and Judgment in Science.” In Critical Rationalism, Metaphysics and Science, ed. Jarvie, I. C. and Laor, N. 1: 169–91. Boston: KluwerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1995b. “The Dialectical Approach to Interpretation and Evaluation.” In Eemeren et al. 1995b, 183–95

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1995c. “Empirische Ansätze zur Erforshung des Argumentierens: Experiment, Induktion, historische Textanalyse.” Zeitschrift für Semiotik 17: 257–83Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1996a. “Critical Thinking, Critical Reasoning, and Methodological Reflection.” Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines 15: 66–79Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1996b. “Reasoning about Reasoning.” In Practical Reasoning, ed. Gabbay, D. M. and Ohlbach, H. J., 167–77. New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A., ed. and trans. 1997a. Galileo on the World Systems: A New Abridged Translation and Guide. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1997b. “The Port-Royal Logic's Theory of Argument.” Argumentation 11: 393–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 1999. “A Critique of the Dialectical Approach, Part II.” In Eemeren et al. 1999, 195–99

Finocchiaro, M. A. 2001. “Valid Ad Hominem Arguments in Philosophy: Johnstone's Metaphilosophical Informal Logic.” Informal Logic 21: 11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 2002. “Elementary Logic from an Advanced Standpoint.” Informal Logic, Teaching Supplement, vol. 22, no. 2, summer, pp. TS9–TS22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. 2003. “Dialectics, Evaluation, and Argument.” Informal Logic 23: 19–49Google Scholar

Fisher, A. 1988. The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Fisher, A. 1992. “Critical Study: Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments by James B. Freeman.” Informal Logic 14: 193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisher, A., and Scriven, M.. 1997. Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment. Point Reyes, Calif.: Edgepress; Norwich, U.K. : Centre for Research in Critical ThinkingGoogle Scholar

Flew, A., and MacIntyre, A., eds. 1955. New Essays in Philosophical Theology. London: SCMGoogle Scholar

Fogelin, R. J. 1978. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. New York: Harcourt Brace JovanovichGoogle Scholar

Freeman, J. B. 1991. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. New York: ForisCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frisch, O. R. 1979. What Little I Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Gabbay, D. V., Johnson, R. H., Holbach, H. J., and Woods, J., eds. 2002. Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G. 1632. Dialogo. In Galilei 1890–1909, vol. 7

Galilei, G. 1890–1909. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei. 20 vols. National Edition by Favaro, A.. Florence: Barbèra. Rpt. in 1929–1939 and 1968Google Scholar

Galilei, G. 1914. Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Trans. H. Crew and A. De Salvio. Rpt., New York: DoverGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G. 1953. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Trans. S. Drake. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G. 1966. The Controversy on the Comets of 1618. Trans. S. Drake and C. D. O'Malley. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G. 1967. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Trans. S. Drake. 2nd rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G. 1974. Two New Sciences. Trans. S. Drake. Madison: University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar

George, R. 1983. “A Postscript on Fallacies.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 12: 319–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Germino, D. 1990. Antonio Gramsci: Architect of a New Politics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University PressGoogle Scholar

Gettier, E. Jr. 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23: 121–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glaser, E. M. 1941. An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. I. 1994. “Argumentation and Social Epistemology.” Journal of Philosophy 94: 27–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: ClarendonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goosens, W. K. 1980. “Galileo's Response to the Tower Argument.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 215–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Govier, T. 1982. “Who Says There Are No Fallacies?” Informal Logic Newsletter, vol. ⅴ, no. ⅰ, pp. 2–10Google Scholar

Govier, T. 1985. “Logical Analogies.” Informal Logic 7: 27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Govier, T. 1989. “Critical Thinking as Argument Analysis.” Argumentation 3: 115–26Google Scholar

Govier, T. 1998. “Arguing Forever?” In Hansen et al. 1998

Govier, T. 1999a. The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, Va.: ValeGoogle Scholar

Govier, T. 1999b. “Progress and Regress on the Dialectical Tier.” In Govier 1999a, 223–40

Govier, T. 2000. “Critical Review: Johnson's Manifest Rationality.” Informal Logic 20: 281–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1958. Scritti giovanili (1914–1918). Turin: EinaudiGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1965. Lettere dal carcere. Ed. Caprioglio, S. and Fubini, E.. Turin: EinaudiGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Ed. and trans. Hoare, Q. and Nowell-Smith, G.. New York: InternationalGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1973. Letters from Prison. Ed. and trans. Lawner, L.. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1975. Quaderni del carcere. 4 vols. Critical edition by Gerratana, V.. Turin: EinaudiGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1982. La città futura (1917–1918). Ed. Caprioglio, S.. Turin: EinaudiGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1985. Selections from Cultural Writings. Ed. Forgacs, D. and Nowell-Smith, G., trans. W. Boelhower. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Gramsci, A. 1988. A Gramsci Reader. Ed. Forgacs, D.. New York: SchockenGoogle Scholar

Griggs, R. A. 1983. “The Role of Problem Content in the Selection Task and in the THOG Problem.” In Evans 1983c, 16–43

Groarke, L. 2002. “Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument.” Argumentation 16: 277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grootendorst, R. 1987. “Some Fallacies about Fallacies.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 331–42

Guerlac, H. 1961. Lavoisier – the Crucial Year. Ithaca: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar

Hacking, I. 1975. The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen. Rpt., Newport News, Va.: Vale, 1986Google Scholar

Hansen, H. V. 2002. “An Exploration of Johnson's Sense of ‘Argument.’” Argumentation 16: 263–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hansen, H. V., Pinto, R. C., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H., eds. 2002. Argumentation and Its Applications. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. CD-ROM. ISBN 0-9683461-2-XGoogle Scholar

Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., and Colman, A. V., eds. 1998. Argumentation and Rhetoric. St. Catharines: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. CD-ROM. ISBN 0-9683461-0-3Google Scholar

Harman, G. 1984. “Logic and Reasoning.” Synthese 60: 107–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harman, G. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Heisenberg, W. 1955. “The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory.” In Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, ed. Pauli, W., 12–29. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Hempel, C. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar

Henle, M. 1962. “On the Relation between Logic and Thinking.” Psychological Review 69: 376–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Henle, M. 1978. “Foreword.” In Revlin and Mayer 1978, pp. ⅹⅲ–ⅹⅷ

Henle, M. 1981. “Another Vote for Rationality.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiebert, E. N. 1981. “Boltzmann's Conception of Theory Construction.” In Hintikka et al. 1981, 2: 175–98

Hintikka, J. 1974. “Quantifiers vs. Quantification Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 5: 153–77Google Scholar

Hintikka, J., Gruender, D., and Agazzi, E., eds. 1981. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo's Methodology. 2 vols. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, D. 1987. “Enthymematic Arguments.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 289–98

Hitchcock, D. 1989. “A General Theory of Good Inference?” Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Informal Logic, University of Windsor, Canada

Hitchcock, D. 1994. “Validity in Conductive Arguments.” In Johnson and Blair 1994, 58–66

Hitchcock, D. 2002a. “The Practice of Argumentative Discussion.” Argumentation 16: 287–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, D. 2002b. “Sampling Scholarly Arguments: A Test of a Theory of Good Inference.” In Hansen et al. 2002

Hockenos, W. J. 1968. “An Examination of Reductio ad Absurdum and Argumentum ad Hominem Arguments in the Philosophies of Gilbert Ryle and Henry W. Johnstone, Jr.” Ph. D. dissertation, Boston University

Holton, G. 1973. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Holton, G. 1978. The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hume, D. 1911. Treatise of Human Nature. London: J. M. Dent & SonsGoogle Scholar

Hume, D. 1935. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Ed. N. K. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hume, D. 1955. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Liberal ArtsGoogle Scholar

Huygens, C. 1690. Traité de la Lumiere avec un Discours de la Cause de la Pesanteur. Leiden. Facsimile reprint, London: Dawson, 1966Google Scholar

Ingard, U., and Kraushaar, W. L.. 1960. Introduction to Mechanics, Matter, and Waves.Reading, Mass.: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar

Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J.. 1958. The Growth of Logical Thinking. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Jardine, N. 1976. “Galileo's Road to Truth and Demonstrative Regress.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 7: 277–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. 1967. Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 1981a. “Charity Begins at Home.” Informal Logic Newsletter, vol. ⅲ, no. 3, pp. 4–9Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 1981b. “Toulmin's Bold Experiment.” Informal Logic Newsletter, vol. ⅲ, no. 2, pp. 16–27; and vol. ⅲ, no. 3, pp. 13–19Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 1987. “Logic Naturalized.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 47–56

Johnson, R. H. 1989. “Massey on Fallacy and Informal Logic.” Synthese 80: 407–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 1996. The Rise of Informal Logic. Newport News, Va.: ValeGoogle Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 1998. “Response to Govier's ‘Arguing Forever? Or: Two Tiers of Argument Appraisal.’” In Hansen et al. 1998

Johnson, R. H. 2000a. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 2000b. “More on Arguers and Dialectical Obligations.” In Tindale et al. 2000

Johnson, R. H. 2002a. “Manifest Rationality Reconsidered.” Argumentation 16: 311–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, R. H. 2002b. “More on Arguers and Their Dialectical Obligations.” In Hansen et al. 2002

Johnson, R. H. 2003. “The Dialectical Tier Revisited.” In Eemeren et al. 2003, 561–66

Johnson, R. H., and J. A. Blair. 1980. “The Recent Development of Informal Logic.” In Blair and Johnson 1980, 3–28

Johnson, R. H., and Blair, J. A.. 1985. “Informal Logic: The Past Five Years 1978–1983.” American Philosophical Quarterly 22: 181–96Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H., and Blair, J. A., eds. 1994. New Essays in Informal Logic. Windsor, Ontario: Informal LogicGoogle Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983a. Mental Models. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983b. “Thinking as a Skill.” In Evans 1983c, 164–96

Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Wason, P. C., eds. 1977. Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Johnstone, H. W. Jr. 1952. “Philosophy and Argumentum ad Hominem.” Journal of Philosophy 49: 489–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnstone, H. W. Jr. 1959. Philosophy and Argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar

Johnstone, H. W. Jr. 1978. Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument. University Park, Pa.: Dialogue Press of Man & WorldGoogle Scholar

Johnstone, H. W. Jr. 1989. “Argumentation and Formal Logic in Philosophy.” Argumentation 3: 5–15Google Scholar

Johnstone, H. W. Jr. 1997. “A Bibliography, 1948–1997.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 31: 6–19Google Scholar

Jonsen, A., and Toulmin, S. E.. 1988. The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Kahane, H. 1971. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont, Calif.: WadsworthGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., eds. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kalish, D., and Montague, R.. 1964. Logic. New York: Harcourt, Brace & WorldGoogle Scholar

Kalish, D., Montague, R., and Mar, G.. 1980. Logic. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace JovanovichGoogle Scholar

Kanouse, D. E., and L. R. Hanson, Jr. 1971. “Negativity in Evaluations.” In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, ed. Jones, E.., 47–62. Morristown, N.J. : General LearningGoogle Scholar

Kant, I. 1950. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. New York: Liberal ArtsGoogle Scholar

Kaufmann, W. 1951. “The Hegel Myth and Its Method.” Philosophical Review 60: 459–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitchener, K. S. 1983a. “Cognition, Metacognition, and Epistemic Cognition.” Human Development 26: 222–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitchener, K. S. 1983b. “Educational Goals and Reflective Thinking.” Educational Forum 48(1): 7–95Google Scholar

Kitchener, K. S., and K. W. Fisher. 1990. “A Skill Approach to the Development of Reflective Thinking.” In Developmental Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills, ed. Kuhn, D., 48–62. Basel, Switzerland: KargerGoogle Scholar

Kittel, C., Knight, W. D., and Ruderman, M. A.. 1962. Mechanics: Berkeley Physics Course, vol. 1. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Klayman, J., and Ha, Y.-W.. 1987. “Confirmation, Disconfirmation and Information in Hypothesis Testing.” Psychological Review 94: 211–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koertge, N. 1974. “Bartley's Theory of Rationality.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 4: 75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koestler, A. 1964. The Act of Creation. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Kohler, R. E. Jr. 1972. “The Origin of Lavoisier's First Experiments on Combustion.” Isis 63: 349–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koyré, A. 1939. Etudes Galiléennes. 3 vols. Rpt. Paris: Hermann, 1966Google Scholar

Koyré, A. 1965. Newtonian Studies. London: Chapman & HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. 1998. “Comment on J. Anthony Blair's Paper.” In Hansen et al. 1998

Krabbe, E. C. W. 2000. “In Response to Ralph H. Johnson's ‘More on Arguers and Dialectical Obligations.’” In Tindale et al. 2000

Krabbe, E. C. W. 2002. “Profiles of Dialogue as a Dialectical Tool.” In Eemeren 2002, 153–67

Kreyche, R. J. 1970. Logic for Undergraduates. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1970a. “Reflections on my Critics.” In Lakatos and Musgrave 1970, 231–78

Kuhn, T. S. 1970b. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In idem, The Essential Tension, 320–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lakatos, I. 1963–64. “Proofs and Refutations.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14: 1–25, 129–139, 221–243, and 296–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I., and Musgrave, A., eds. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I., and E. Zahar. 1975. “Why Did Copernicus's Research Program Supersede Ptolemy's?” In The Copernican Achievement, ed. Westman, R. S., 354–83. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1970. “Linguistics and Natural Logic.” Synthese 22: 151–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leff, M. 2000. “Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Twenty-first Century.” Argumentation 14: 241–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leonard, H., and Goodman, N.. 1940. “The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, J. 1988. “Must Reasons Be Rational?” Philosophy of Science 55: 199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, P., ed. 1982. In Pursuit of Truth. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : HumanitiesGoogle Scholar

Lewicka, M. 1988. “On Subjective and Objective Anchoring of Cognitive Acts.” In Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology, ed. Baker, W.. New York: Springer VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindsay, B., and Margenau, H.. 1957. Foundations of Physics. New York: DoverGoogle Scholar

Lipman, M. 1988a. “The Critical Thinker: The Concept of Critical Thinking.” Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving 10(3): 5–7Google Scholar

Lipman, M. 1988b. “Critical Thinking – What Can It Be?” Educational Leadership 46(1): 38–43Google Scholar

Locke, J. 1959. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Fraser, A. C., 2 vols. New York: DoverGoogle Scholar

Losee, J. 1980. An Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Lupoli, A. 1986. “Il Dialogo e la filosofia implicita di Galilei.” Rivista di storia della filosofia 41: 75–89Google Scholar

Mach, E. 1960. The Science of Mechanics. Trans. T. J. MacCormack. Open Court, Ill.: La SalleGoogle Scholar

Mahoney, M. S. 1980. “Christiaan Huygens: The Measurement of Time and Longitude at Sea.” In Bos et al. 1980, 234–70

Malcolm, N. 1942. “Moore and Ordinary Language.” In The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, ed. Schilpp, P. A., 343–68. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University PressGoogle Scholar

Mancosu, P. 1996. Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Margolis, H. 1988. Patterns, Thinking, and Cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1970. Understanding Symbolic Logic. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1975a. “Are There Good Arguments That Bad Arguments Are Bad?” Philosophy in Context 4: 61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1975b. “In Defense of the Asymmetry.” Philosophy in Context 4(Suppl.): 44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1976. “Tom, Dick, and Harry, and All the King's Men.” American Philosophical Quarterly 13: 89–107Google Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1980. “Logic and Linguistics.” In Modern Logic – A Survey, ed. Agazzi, E., 311–29. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1981a. “The Fallacy behind Fallacies.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1981b. “The Pedagogy of Logic.” Teaching Philosophy 4: 303–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Massey, G. J. 1987. “Asymmetry, Fallacy, and Indeterminacy.” Paper presented at the Symposium on “Informal Logic: Asymmetry and Fallacy,” American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, San Francisco

Mates, B. 1972. Elementary Logic. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Matlin, M., and Stang, D. J.. 1978. The Pollyanna Principle. Cambridge, Mass.: SchenkmanGoogle Scholar

Matson, W. I. 1965. The Existence of God. Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar

McGuinness, C. 1990. “Talking about Thinking.” In Lines of Thinking, vol. 2: Skills, Emotion, Creative Processes, Individual Differences and Teaching Thinking, ed. Kilhooly, K. J.., 301–12. New York: John WileyGoogle Scholar

McGuire, J. E. 1968. “The Origin of Newton's Doctrine of Essential Qualities.” Centaurus 12: 233–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKay, T. J. 1984. “On Showing Invalidity.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 14: 97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKay, T. J. 1987. “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” Paper presented at the Symposium on “Informal Logic: Asymmetry and Fallacy,” American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, San Francisco

McKie, D. 1952. Antoine Lavoisier. New York: Henry Schuman

McMullin, E. 1978. “The Conception of Science in Galileo's Work.” In New Perspectives on Galileo, ed. Butts, R. E. and Pitt, J., 209–57. Dordrecht: ReidelCrossRefGoogle Scholar

McPeck, J. E. 1981. Critical Thinking and Education. New York: St. Martin'sGoogle Scholar

Meichenbaum, D. 1986. “Metacognitive Methods of Instruction.” In Facilitating Cognitive Development, ed. Schwebel, M. and Maher, C. A., 23–32. New York: HaworthGoogle Scholar

Meisel, J. H., ed. 1965. Pareto and Mosca. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Mill, J. S. 1965. Essential Works. Ed. Lerner, M.. New York: Bantam BooksGoogle Scholar

Miller, D. 1982. “Conjectural Knowledge.” In Levinson 1982, 17–49

Miller, D. 1987. “A Critique of Good Reasons.” In Agassi and Jarvie 1987, 343–58

Millman, A. B. 1976. “The Plausibility of Research Programs.” In PSA 1976: Proceedings of the 1976 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Suppe, F. and Asquith, P. D., 140–48. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science AssociationGoogle Scholar

Mosca, G. 1939. The Ruling Class. Trans. H. D. Kahn, ed. Livingston, A.. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Naess, A. 1966. Communication and Argument. Totowa, N.J. : BedminsterGoogle Scholar

Naess, A. 1982a. “An Application of Empirical Argumentation Analysis to Spinoza's ‘Ethics.’” In Barth and Martens 1982, 245–56

Naess, A. 1982b. “A Necessary Component of Logic: Empirical Argumentation Analysis.” In Barth and Martens 1982, 9–22

Natanson, M., and Johnstone, Jr H. W.., eds. 1965. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Argumentation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar

Naylor, R. 1990. “Galileo's Method of Analysis and Synthesis.” Isis 81: 695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newell, A. 1973. “You Can't Play 20 Questions with Nature and Win.” In Visual Information Processing, ed. Chase, W. G.. New York: AcademicGoogle Scholar

Newton, I. 1726. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Rpt., Geneva: Barillot, 1767Google Scholar

Newton, I. 1934. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. A. Motte's translation revised by F. Cajori. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Nickles, T. 1980. “Introductory Essay.” In Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, ed. Nickles, T., 1–59. Dordrecht: ReidelCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nisbett, R., and Ross, L.. 1980. Human Inference. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Northrop, F. S. C. 1951. “Einstein's Conception of Science.” In Schilpp 1951, 385–408

Novak, M. 1989. “The Gramscists Are Coming.” Forbes, 20 March, p. 54Google Scholar

Ogden, C. K., and Richards, I. A.. 1946. The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace JovanovichGoogle Scholar

Oliver, J. W. 1967. “Formal Fallacies and Other Invalid Arguments.” Mind 76: 463–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ozell, J., ed. and trans. 1717. Logic; or, the Art of Thinking. LondonGoogle Scholar

Paggi, L. 1984. Le strategie del potere in Gramsci. Rome: RiunitiGoogle Scholar

Pareto, V. 1925. “Risposta ad una inchiesta.” In Inchiesta sulla massoneria ed. Brodero, E., 182–85. Milan: MondadoriGoogle Scholar

Paris, S. G., and P. Winograd. 1990. “How Metacognition Can Promote Academic Learning and Instruction.” In Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, ed. Jones, B. F. and Idol, L., 15–51. Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Pascal, B. 1952. The Provincial Letters, Pensées, Scientific Treatises. Chicago: Encyclopedia BritannicaGoogle Scholar

Passmore, J. 1961. Philosophical Reasoning. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar

Paul, R. W. 1982. “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense.” Informal Logic Newsletter 4(2): 2–7Google Scholar

Paul, R. W. 1984. “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society.” Educational Leadership, September, pp. 4–14Google Scholar

Paul, R. W. 1985. “The Critical-Thinking Movement.” National Forum 65(1): 2–4Google Scholar

Peeters, G. 1971. “The Positive-Negative Asymmetry.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1: 455–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peeters, G. 1974. “Patterns of Information Implied in Interpersonal Relations.” Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie 29: 505–34Google Scholar

Peeters, G. 1986. “Good and Evil as Softwares of the Brain.” Ultimate Reality and Meaning 9: 210–31Google Scholar

Peeters, G. 1987. “Positivity Bias and Negative Effect in Social Cognition.” Paper presented at the Small Group Meeting on Social Judgment, Jena, DDR

Pera, M. 1982. Apologia del metodo. Bari: LaterzaGoogle Scholar

Pera, M. 1987. “From Methodology to Dialectics.” In PSA 1986: Proceedings of the 1986 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Fine, A. and Machamer, P., 2: 359–74. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science AssociationGoogle Scholar

Pera, M. 1988. “Breaking the Link between Methodology and Rationality.” In Theory and Experiment, ed. Batens, D. and Bendegen, J. P., 259–76. Dordrecht: KluwerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pera, M. 1991. Scienza e retorica. Bari: LaterzaGoogle Scholar

Perelman, Ch., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.. 1958. La Nouvelle Rhetorique: Traité de l'Argumentation. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

Perelman, Ch., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre DameGoogle Scholar

Perkins, D. N. 1985. “Reasoning as Imagination.” Interchange 16: 14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perkins, D. N. 1986. Knowledge as Design. Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Perkins, D. N. 1989. “Reasoning as It Is and as It Could Be: An Empirical Perspective.” In Thinking across Cultures, ed. Topping, D. N., Crowell, D. C., and Kobayashi, V. N., 175–94. Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Perkins, D. N. 2002. “Standard Logic as a Model of Reasoning.” In Gabbay et al. 2002, 187–224

Perkins, D. N., R. Allen, and J. Hafner. 1983. “Difficulties in Everyday Reasoning.” In Thinking, the Expanding Frontier, ed. Maxwell, W., 177–89. Philadelphia: Franklin InstituteGoogle Scholar

Piaget, J. 1972a. “Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood.” Human Development 15: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piaget, J. 1972b. The Principles of Genetic Epistemology. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Pollock, J. 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, N.J. : Rowman & LittlefieldGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1962. Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1963. The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 2. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1970. “Normal Science and Its Dangers.” In Lakatos and Musgrave 1970, 51–58

Popper, K. R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1974. “Reply to My Critics.” In Schilpp 1974, 961–1197

Price, D. J. de S. 1959. “Contra-Copernicus.” In Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. Clagett, M., 197–218. Madison: University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. 1961. From a Logical Point of View. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. 1974. “On Popper's Negative Methodology.” In Schilpp 1974, 218–20

Reed, C. 2000. “Building Monologue.” In Tindale et al. 2000

Reed, C., and D. Long. 1998. “Persuasive Monologue.” In Hansen et al. 1998

Rees, M. A. van. 2001. “Review of Johnson's Manifest Rationality.” Argumentation 15: 231–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Revlin, R., and Mayer, R. E., eds. 1978. Human Reasoning. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar

Robinson, J. A. T. 1963. Honest to God. Philadelphia: WestminsterGoogle Scholar

Rossiter, C., ed. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor BooksGoogle Scholar

Rowland, R. C. 1987. “On Defining Argument,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 20: 140–59Google Scholar

Rubin, R. 1977. “Descartes' Validation of Clear and Distinct Apprehension.” Philosophical Review 86: 197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. 1959. The Problems of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. 1960. Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: New American LibraryGoogle Scholar

Ryle, G. 1954. “Formal and Informal Logic.” In idem, Dilemmas, 111–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Sakellariadis, S. 1982. “Descartes's Use of Empirical Data to Test Hypotheses.” Isis 73: 68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salmon, W. C. 1973. Logic. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Salmon, W. C. 1984. Logic. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Scheffler, I. 1973. Reason and Teaching. New York: Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar

Schilpp, P. A., ed. 1951. Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist. Evanston, Ill.: Library of Living PhilosophersGoogle Scholar

Schilpp, P. A., ed. 1974. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. La Salle, Ill.: Open CourtGoogle Scholar

Schwab, J. J. 1962. The Teaching of Science as Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Scriven, M. 1956a. “A Possible Distinction between Traditional Scientific Disciplines and the Study of Human Behavior.” In Feigl and Scriven 1956, 330–39

Scriven, M. 1956b. “A Study of Radical Behaviorism.” In Feigl and Scriven 1956, 88–130

Scriven, M. 1958. “Definitions, Explanations, and Theories.” In Feigl et al. 1958, 99–195

Scriven, M. 1959. “Truisms as the Grounds for Historical Explanations.” In Theories of History, ed. Gardiner, P., 443–75. Glencoe, Ill.: Free PressGoogle Scholar

Scriven, M. 1962a. “Explanations, Predictions, and Laws.” In Feigl and Maxwell 1962, 170–230

Scriven, M. 1962b. “The Frontiers of Psychology: Psychoanalysis and Parapsychology.” In Colodny 1962, 79–129

Scriven, M. 1966. Primary Philosophy. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Scriven, M. 1968. “Science: The Philosophy of Science.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 14: 83–92Google Scholar

Scriven, M. 1976. Reasoning. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar

Scriven, M. 1987. “Probative Logic.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 7–32

Scriven, M. 1989. “The Philosophy of Ordinary Logic.” Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Informal Logic, University of Windsor, Canada

Settle, T., Agassi, J., and Jarvie, I. C.. 1974. “Towards a Theory of Openness to Criticism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 4: 83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. 1964. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Philosophical Review 73: 383–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. 1984. Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Boston: ReidelGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. 1988a. “Doppelt Crossed.” Philosophy of Science 55: 134–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. 1988b. “Rationalism and Empiricism.” Argumentation 2: 299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siegel, H. 1985. “What Is the Question Concerning the Rationality of Science?” Philosophy of Science 52: 517–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siegel, H. 1988. Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Siegel, H. 1990. “Must Thinking Be Critical to Be Critical Thinking?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 20: 453–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siegfried, R. 1972. “Lavoisier's View of the Gaseous State and Its Early Application to Pneumatic Chemistry.” Isis 63: 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skyrms, B. 1966. Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic. Belmont, Calif.: DickensonGoogle Scholar

Smit, P. A. 1987. “An Argumentation-Theoretical Analysis of Lenin's Political Strategies.” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 317–26

Smit, P. A. 1989. “An Argumentation-Analysis of a Central Part of Lenin's Political Logic.” Communication and Cognition 22: 357–74Google Scholar

Smit, P. A. 1992. “The Logic of Lenin's Polemics.” In Barth and Krabbe 1992, 11–23

Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 1992. Analysing Complex Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar

Staal, J. F., ed. 1969. “Formal Logic and Natural Language Argumentation (A Symposium).” Foundations of Language 5: 256–84Google Scholar

Stich, S. P. 1981. “Inferential Competence.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 353–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stich, S. P. 1985. “Could Man Be an Irrational Animal?” Synthese 64: 115–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stich, S. P., and Nisbett, R. E.. 1980. “Justification and the Psychology of Human Reasoning.” Philosophy of Science 47: 188–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strawson, P. F. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar

Tannen, D. 1998. The Argument Culture. New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar

Tarski, A. 1965. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Thomas, S. N. 1986. Practical Reasoning in Natural Language. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar

Tindale, C. 2002. “A Concept Divided.” Argumentation 16: 299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tindale, C., Hansen, H. V., and Sveda, E., eds. 2000. Argumentation at the Century's Turn. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. CD-ROM. ISBN 0-9683461-1-1Google Scholar

Togliatti, P. 1979. On Gramsci and Other Writings. London: Lawrence and WishartGoogle Scholar

Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Turing, A. M. 1950. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind 59: 433–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D.. 1971. “The Belief in the Law of Small Numbers.” Psychological Bulletin 76: 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D.. 1973. “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability.” Cognitive Psychology 5: 207–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vignaux, G. 1976. L'Argumentation. Geneva: Librairie DrozGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. N. 1981. “The Fallacy of Many Questions.” Logique et Analyse 24: 291–313Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. 1985. Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood PressGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. N. 1987. “What Is a Fallacy?” In Eemeren et al. 1987, 323–30

Walton, D. N. 1989a. Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. N. 1989b. Question-Reply Argumentation. New York: Greenwood PressGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. N. 1990. “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?” Journal of Philosophy 87: 399–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. N. 1992. “Questionable Questions in Question Period.” In Barth and Krabbe 1992, 87–95

Walton, D. N. 1996. Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto PressGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. N. 2004. “A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation.” Philosophical Explorations 7: 71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D., and Krabbe, E. C. W.. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar

Wartofsky, M. 1978. “Scientific Judgment.” Dialectics and Humanism 5: 35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wason, P. C. 1983. “Realism and Rationality in the Selection Task.” In Evans 1983c, 44–75

Wason, P. C., and Johnson-Laird, P. N.. 1972. Psychology of Reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Watkins, J. W. N. 1970. “Against ‘Normal Science.’” In Lakatos and Musgrave 1970, 25–38

Weizenbaum, J. 1976. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W. H. FreemanGoogle Scholar

Westman, R. S. 1980. “Huygens and the Problem of Cartesianism.” In Bos et al. 1980, 83–103

Whately, R. 1838. Elements of Logic. New YorkGoogle Scholar

Willard, C. A. 1983. Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University: University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar

Woods, J. 1980. “What Is Informal Logic?” In Blair and Johnson 1980, 57–68

Woods, J., and Walton, D. N.. 1977a. “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.” Review of Metaphysics 30: 569–93Google Scholar

Woods, J., and Walton, D. N.. 1977b. “Towards a Theory of Argument.” Metaphilosophy 8: 298–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woods, J., and Walton, D. N.. 1982. Argument: The Logic of Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill RyersonGoogle Scholar

Woods, J., and Walton, D. N.. 1989. Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972–1982. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar

Wyatt, N. 2001. “Review of Johnson's Manifest Rationality.” Philosophy in Review 21: 185–87Google Scholar