By Parallel Reasoning

In By Parallel Reasoning Paul Bartha proposes a normative theory of analogical arguments and raises questions and proposes answers regarding (i.) criteria for evaluating analogical arguments, (ii.) the philosophical justification for analogical reasoning, and (iii.) the place of scientific analogies in the context of theoretical confirmation.

This monograph proposes a new (dialogical) way of studying the different forms of correlational inference, known in the Islamic jurisprudence as qiyās. According to the authors’ view, qiyās represents an innovative and sophisticated form of dialectical reasoning that not only provides new epistemological insights into legal argumentation in general (including legal reasoning in Common and Civil Law) but also furnishes a fine-grained pattern for parallel reasoning which can be deployed in a wide range of problem-solving contexts and does not seem to reduce to the standard forms of analogical reasoning studied in contemporary philosophy of science and argumentation theory. After an overview of the emergence of qiyās and of the work of al-Shīrāzī penned by Soufi Youcef, the authors discuss al-Shīrāzī’s classification of correlational inferences of the occasioning factor (qiyās al-'illa). The second part of the volume deliberates on the system of correlational inferences by indication and resemblance (qiyās al-dalāla, qiyās al-shabah). The third part develops the main theoretical background of the authors’ work, namely, the dialogical approach to Martin-Löf's Constructive Type Theory. The authors present this in a general form and independently of adaptations deployed in parts I and II. Part III also includes an appendix on the relevant notions of Constructive Type Theory, which has been extracted from an overview written by Ansten Klev. The book concludes with some brief remarks on contemporary approaches to analogy in Common and Civil Law and also to parallel reasoning in general.

This book provides an epistemological study of the great Islamic scholar of Banjarese origin, Syeikh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari (1710-1812) who contributed to the development of Islam in Indonesia and, in general, Southeast Asia. The work focuses on Arsyad al-Banjari’s dialectical use and understanding of qiyās or correlational inference as a model of parallel reasoning or analogy in Islamic jurisprudence. This constituted the most prominent instrument he applied in his effort of integrating Islamic law into the Banjarese society.This work studies how Arsyad al-Banjari integrates jadal theory or dialectic in Islamic jurisprudence, within his application of qiyās. The author develops a framework for qiyās which acts as the interface between jadal, dialogical logic, and Per Martin-Löf’s Constructive Type Theory (CTT). One of the epistemological results emerging from the present study is that the different forms of qiyās applied by Arsyad al-Banjari represent an innovative and sophisticated form of reasoning. The volume is divided into three parts that discuss the types of qiyās as well their dialectical and argumentative aspects, historical background and context of Banjar, and demonstrates how the theory of qiyās comes quite close to the contemporary model of parallel reasoning for sciences and mathematics developed by Paul Bartha (2010). This volume will be of interest to historians and philosophers in general, and logicians and historians of philosophy in particular.

This book intends to unite studies in different fields related to the development of the relations between logic, law and legal reasoning. Combining historical and philosophical studies on legal reasoning in Civil and Common Law, and on the often neglected Arabic and Talmudic traditions of jurisprudence, this project unites these areas with recent technical developments in computer science. This combination has resulted in renewed interest in deontic logic and logic of norms that stems from the interaction between artificial intelligence and law and their applications to these areas of logic. The book also aims to motivate and launch a more intense interaction between the historical and philosophical work of Arabic, Talmudic and European jurisprudence. The publication discusses new insights in the interaction between logic and law, and more precisely the study of different answers to the question: what role does logic play in legal reasoning? Varying perspectives include that of foundational studies (such as logical principles and frameworks) to applications, and historical perspectives.

Manhattan Prep’s LSAT Logical Reasoning guide, fully updated for the digital exam, will teach you how to untangle Logical Reasoning problems confidently and efficiently. Manhattan Prep’s LSAT guides use officially-released LSAT questions and are written by the company’s instructors, who have all scored a 172 or higher on the official LSAT—we know how to earn a great score and we know how to teach you to do the same. This guide will train you to approach LSAT logical reasoning problems as a 99th-percentile test-taker does: Recognize and respond to every type of question Deconstruct the text to find the core argument or essential facts Spot—and avoid—trap answers Take advantage of the digital format to work quickly and strategically Each chapter in LSAT Logical Reasoning features drill sets—made up of real LSAT questions—to help you absorb and apply what you’ve learned. The extensive solutions walk you through every step needed to master Logical Reasoning, including an in-depth explanation of every answer choice, correct and incorrect.

A large-scale comparative work of leading cases examines judicial constitutional reasoning in eighteen different legal systems globally.

With the theme of relationship receiving renewed attention in a variety of areas, theological expressions of the subject are also being brought back into the spotlight. Although the concept of a personal relationship with God is a common Christian expression, it is often poorly defined. Here, Michael Berra draws on the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner to redefine and rehabilitate the analogy of relationship. Basing his study primarily on Brunner's seminal work Truth as Encounter, Berra proposes that relationship ought to be the central motif for the whole of theology. He investigates the theme in light of modern relationship science, arguing that God-human interaction categorically meets the definition of a relationship, and that it is existentially intended to be intimate. Scholars and church leaders will find in Berra's approach a refreshing voice in this dynamic field.

In this clearly reasoned defense of Bayes's Theorem -- that probability can be used to reasonably justify scientific theories -- Colin Howson and Peter Urbach examine the way in which scientists appeal to probability arguments, and demonstrate that the classical approach to statistical inference is full of flaws. Arguing the case for the Bayesian method with little more than basic algebra, the authors show that it avoids the difficulties of the classical system. The book also refutes the major criticisms leveled against Bayesian logic, especially that it is too subjective. This newly updated edition of this classic textbook is also suitable for college courses.