Talk:Argumentum a fortiori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:A fortiori argument)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Wahrmund, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on July 1, 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latin (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Bible example questionable[edit]

In earlier versions of the article Paul was mentioned as an example for a rhetoric usage of the phrase without concrete quote. With a re-write by Wahrmund (15:42, 29 July 2013) this made it into the main text, now making it sound like a valid logical example of the argument. (to my mind at least) While it may be true that Paul attempted that sort of argument, I don't think it serves as a very good example of it, as it is clearly fallacious. I think the previous paragraph was more useful, in pointing out that it is used as a rhetoric device, mentioning Paul as an example for this. Thialfihar (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First example is convoluted[edit]

The first example in the Usage section is hard to parse. I had to read it a few times to figure out what it was trying to say and even then I wished there was a chart or something. Currently it reads, "For example, if a scientist observes certain phenomena to be present in conjunction a given percentage of the time, they may make the argument that each of the individual phenomena will a fortiori be present a greater percentage of the time (because the latter figures, but not the former, will include the occasions on which a given phenomenon is present but one or more of the others are not)." I recommend that the example should be concrete rather than abstract to make comprehension easier. I'd do it, but I'm not quite sure I understand it well enough to do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.50 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I second this.

I came to this page to find out what "a fortiori" actually meant, and I still don't know.

Some simple, concise, concrete examples, right near the beginning of the article might do the job. They don't have to be factual, and they should be free of expressions like "a certain phenomenon", "a given percentage".

As it currently stands, this article is bloody _useless_, except in such case that one learned in the art perusing aforesaid article for the titular termus latinum is a priori cognizant of the usage thereof, in which case he shouldn't fucking need to look it up.

120.18.243.128 (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been improvements since the above comments, but one very strange omission was the fact that it's a Latin phrase. I've added that. ~ CZeke (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Difference between a fortiori and argumentum analogi[edit]

I disagree with what is said that i Islamic law argumentum a fortiori is used like "reasoning by analogy". These two are different law techniques for interpretation of a Law. The analogy is made usally to make connection between two different spheres of law so the non-existent, provisions in one is substituted by very similar existing provisions of the other. It's inadmissible in the public law (e.g. penal law) but quite frequent in civil law. A fortiori interpretation, on the other hand, means usually that what is iperative to the stronger (higher, bigger), is quite so for the weaker (lesser, smaler). Exemple - if it's not allowed to drink alchol at age 20 it's most certanlly not alowed to do it at age 16. Beeing connected tightly with imperative law porovisions it's a trait of the public law and very rarely used in the civil law where dispositive provisions usually apply. At least that is the case under the Roman (Continental) system. If in Islamic law those two techniques are the same, taht, forgive me, but it's the one more proof that the Islamic law system is quite flawed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In Islamic jurisprudence, a fortiori arguments are usually classified under qiyas, which is usually translated "analogy" or "analogical reasoning". Different thinkers disagree about whether a fortiori arguments are reasoning by analogy, though. A couple sources: A History of Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq; The Search for God's Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of Sayf Al-Din Al-Amidi by Bernard Weiss (includes an explanation of why the author translates qiyas as "analogy" and lots more); or just google for qiyas fortiori. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for authoritative source on the origin of the phrase[edit]

The current version of the article contains a number of translations of a fortiori which I think are mostly wrong. For example, I think "The phrase a fortiori is Latin for 'from [something] stronger]'" is wrong. I think the phrase is short for a fortiori ratione, which is ungrammatical Latin for "with [even] stronger reason". Correct Latin would be a fortiore ratione. I'm guessing that a fortiori started during the Middle Ages, when people often confused the dative with the ablative. But I have not found a source for this. These are only semi-educated guesses, not appropriate on Wikipedia. Can anyone suggest a good source for what a fortiori is actually short for? The only thing that's certain right now is that most of the sources we'd typically use, like ordinary dictionaries, are not reliable here: many that I've looked at contradict each other or appear to have treated the etymology sloppily. Ideally, we'd use a source by a credible historian of law or of Latin, but I haven't found one yet. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as consensus to move the article (without any opposes in this case) has been established. (non-admin closure) Music1201 talk 02:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)



A fortiori argumentArgumentum a fortiori – To be consistent with other forms of argumentation (Reductio ad absurdum, Argumentum ad baculum, etc.) Also, the title is inconsistent with the usage expert quoted in the section "Usage"; it treats it as an adj, which the quoted expert specifically advises against. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:COMMONNAME (in actual reliable sources about logic and fallacies, not random schlubs' blogs), and WP:NEO, etc. It's completely abnormal to randomly mix-and-match English and Latin names for stuff, to concoct a "Frankenstein" construction like the current name.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the more consistent title. Diego (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.