C. James

“Rhetoric is the counterpart of logic,” claimed Aristotle. “Rhetoric is the first part of logic rightly understood,” Martin Heidegger concurred. “Rhetoric is the universal form of human communication,” opined Hans-Georg Gadamer. But in _Deep Rhetoric_, James Crosswhite offers a groundbreaking new conception of rhetoric, one that builds a definitive case for an understanding of the discipline as a philosophical enterprise beyond basic argumentation and is fully conversant with the advances of the New Rhetoric of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Chapter by chapter, _Deep Rhetoric_ develops an understanding of rhetoric not only in its philosophical dimension but also as a means of guiding and conducting conflicts, achieving justice, and understanding the human condition. Along the way, Crosswhite restores the traditional dignity and importance of the discipline and illuminates the twentieth-century resurgence of rhetoric among philosophers, as well as the role that rhetoric can play in future discussions of ontology, epistemology, and ethics. At a time when the fields of philosophy and rhetoric have diverged, Crosswhite returns them to their common moorings and shows us an invigorating new way forward.

The central thesis of this book is that the argument that probability is insufficient to handle uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI) is metaphysical in nature. Piscopo calls this argument against probability the non-adequacy claim and provides this summary of it [which first appeared in (Piscopo and Birattari 2008)]:Probability theory is not suitable to handle uncertainty in AI because it has been developed to deal with intrinsically stochastic phenomena, while in AI, uncertainty has an epistemic nature. (Piscopo (3))Piscopo uses the term “metaphysical” in the Popperian sense: the non-adequacy claim is metaphysical (rather than scientific) since it cannot be disproved (much less established) by observation or experiment.In Chapter 2, Piscopo recounts some of the relevant history and issues in philosophy of science. There is little that is controversial here. One problem is that when addressing the question of how a particular probabilistic model is tested, Piscopo limits herself..